What the panel ordered
Petition for Disqualification dismissed as moot due to WCJ recusal and reassignment
Petition for Disqualification filed by defendant SIBTF
What was disputed, and how it came out
Each issue the panel decided, with the reasoning it gave. An outcome is what this panel did on this record — not a rule, and not a prediction.
The petition was dismissed as moot because the WCJ recused herself and the matter was reassigned.
From the decision · page 1Defendant SIBTF seeks disqualification of the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) based upon the allegation that the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) previously served as defense counsel in this matter.
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
The WCJ previously served as defense counsel in this matter.
Favours Defendant prevailed
This was the basis for the defendant SIBTF's petition for disqualification.
From the decision · page 1Defendant SIBTF seeks disqualification of the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) based upon the allegation that the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) previously served as defense counsel in this matter.
The WCJ recused herself and the matter was reassigned.
Favours Defendant prevailed
This made the petition for disqualification moot and led to its dismissal.
From the decision · page 1Following the filing of defendant's Petition, according to the Report and Recommendation, the WCJ recused herself and the matter has been reassigned.
The rules the panel named
Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
WCJ disqualification rules
The WCJ disqualification petition was dismissed as moot after the WCJ recused herself and the matter was reassigned.
From the decision · page 1Defendant SIBTF seeks disqualification of the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) based upon the allegation that the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) previously served as defense counsel in this matter.
The same issues, filtered across the whole corpus — or paste your own facts and let the search rank by factor match.
About this page
- A published decision of the California Workers' Compensation Appeals Board, taken apart by what it turned on. The Board publishes the decision itself; this page adds the extraction and quotes the passage behind every claim.
- The injured worker is not named here, and the case caption is not printed. Physicians appear as the decision names them, because a medical opinion is an act in a public proceeding.
- Issues, outcomes and weights were extracted by AI and released only where the source passage checked. Read the official decision before relying on anything here. Not legal advice.
- If you are named in this decision and want this page removed, write to privacy@similarcase.com.