What the panel ordered
Reconsideration granted, WCJ's Findings and Order rescinded, petition for disqualification dismissed, and matter returned to trial level for further proceedings.
Applicant sought reconsideration of the WCJ's July 30, 2024 Findings and Order awarding defendant a credit for ERISA plan overpayment and dismissing the petition for disqualification.
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.
Applicant's petition for disqualification was skeletal, lacking specific factual allegations, and thus was dismissed.
From the decision · page 98, § 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, 316 P.2d 366.) Furthermore, even if detailed and verified allegations of fact have been made, it is settled law that a WCJ is not subject to disqualification under section 641(f) if, prior to rendering a decision, the WCJ expresses an opinion regarding a legal or factual issue but the petitioner fails to show that this opinion is a fixed one that could not be changed upon the production of evidence and the presentation of arguments at or after further hearing. (Taylor v. Industrial Acc. Com. (Thomas) (1940) 38 Cal.App.2d 75, 79§ 80 [100 P.2d 511, 5 Cal.Comp.Cases 61].) Additionally,