ADJ1218145 · February 3, 2026

The petition for disqualification was denied because the applicant did not establish the technical requirements for disqualification, but the Appeals Board granted removal of the case to ensure substantial justice and expedite proceedings.

From the decision · page 1Applicant seeks disqualification of the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) based upon the general allegation that the WCJ is biased.

Applicant did not establish the technical requirements for disqualification under Code of Civil Procedure section 641.

Favours Defendant prevailed

This led to denial of the petition for disqualification.

From the decision · page 3Here, and based upon the analysis contained in the WCJ's Report, we deny the Petition for Disqualification. However, and notwithstanding the fact that the technical requirements for disqualification were not established, the Appeals Board has the power to "appoint one or more workers' compensation administrative law judges in any proceeding, as it may deem necessary or advisable, and may refer, remove to itself, or transfer to a workers' compensation administrative law judge the proceedings on any claim." (§ 5310.) The Appeals Board has a constitutional mandate to "ensure substantial justice in all cases." (Kuykendall v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2000) 79 Cal.App.4th 396, 403 [65 Cal.Comp.Cases 264].) The Appeals Board has in rare cases exercised the power to reassign cases where it appears that doing so would further the interests of expediting proceedings and/or achieving substantial justice. This case warrants such reassignment.

The Appeals Board has the power to reassign cases to ensure substantial justice and expedite proceedings.

Favours Defendant prevailed

This justified granting removal despite denial of disqualification.

From the decision · page 3Here, and based upon the analysis contained in the WCJ's Report, we deny the Petition for Disqualification. However, and notwithstanding the fact that the technical requirements for disqualification were not established, the Appeals Board has the power to "appoint one or more workers' compensation administrative law judges in any proceeding, as it may deem necessary or advisable, and may refer, remove to itself, or transfer to a workers' compensation administrative law judge the proceedings on any claim." (§ 5310.) The Appeals Board has a constitutional mandate to "ensure substantial justice in all cases." (Kuykendall v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2000) 79 Cal.App.4th 396, 403 [65 Cal.Comp.Cases 264].) The Appeals Board has in rare cases exercised the power to reassign cases where it appears that doing so would further the interests of expediting proceedings and/or achieving substantial justice. This case warrants such reassignment.

The WCJ used California Highway Patrol in the courtroom during hearings, raising concerns about the atmosphere.

Favours Defendant prevailed

This contributed to the decision to reassign the case for a fresh start.

From the decision · page 3Here, the WCJ, in consultation with the presiding judge, has utilized California Highway Patrol (CHP) in the courtroom during applicant's hearings. We make no judgment on the current record whether the use of CHP has been appropriate. Instead, and in the interests of justice, it would simply appear that this matter would benefit from a fresh start with a new WCJ. In the

Labor Code section 5311

A party may seek to disqualify a WCJ upon any one or more of the grounds specified in Code of Civil Procedure section 641.

The petition for disqualification was evaluated under these grounds.

From the decision · page 1Labor Code1 section 5311 provides that a party may seek to disqualify a WCJ upon any one or more of the grounds specified in Code of Civil Procedure section 641. (§ 5311; see also

WCAB Rule 10960

Petitions for disqualification must be timely filed within 10 days after service of notice of hearing or after grounds for disqualification are known.

The petition was considered under this timeliness requirement.

From the decision · page 2Under WCAB Rule 10960, proceedings to disqualify a WCJ "shall be initiated by the filing of a petition for disqualification supported by an affidavit or declaration under penalty of perjury stating in detail facts establishing one or more of the grounds for disqualification...." (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10960, italics added.) It has long been recognized that "[t]he allegations in a statement charging bias and prejudice of a judge must set forth specifically the facts on which the charge is predicated," that "[a] statement containing nothing but conclusions and setting forth no facts constituting a ground for disqualification may be ignored," and that "[w]here no facts are set forth in the statement there is no issue of fact to be determined." (Mackie v. Dyer (1957) 154 Cal.App.2d 395, 399.)

Haas v. County of San Bernardino (2002) 27 Cal.4th 1017

A party's unilateral and subjective perception of bias does not constitute grounds for disqualification.

The petition was denied because subjective perception of bias was insufficient.

From the decision · page 3Under no circumstances may a party's unilateral and subjective perception of bias afford a basis for disqualification. (Haas v. County of San Bernardino (2002) 27 Cal.4th 1017, 1034; Robbins v. Sharp Healthcare (2006) 71 Cal.Comp.Cases 1291, 1310§ 1311 (Significant Panel Decision).)