What the panel ordered
Petition for disqualification denied; petition for removal granted; Order to Show Cause rescinded.p. 4
Petition for disqualification of the WCJ filed by applicant, treated as petition for removal of Order to Show Cause; removal granted and Order rescinded.
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 WCJ's Report and the Appeals Board's review found no grounds for disqualification under the specified legal standards; removal was granted due to procedural impropriety in the Order to Show Cause.
From the decision · page 1Applicant seeks disqualification of the workers’ compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) based upon the allegation that the WCJ was considering sanctions due to applicant’s failure to attend depositions and due to applicant’s counsel’s filing a petition for removal, which appeared frivolous. Since filing the Petition for Disqualification, applicant has substituted new counsel. We have not received an answer from defendant. The WCJ filed a Report and Recommendation on Petition for Disqualification (Report) recommending that we deny disqualification. We have considered the allegations of the Petition for Disqualification and the contents of the WCJ’s Report. Based on our review of the record and based upon the WCJ’s analysis of the merits contained in the WCJ’s Report, we will deny disqualification, however we will treat the Petition as seeking removal of the January 21, 2026 Order to Show Cause. We will grant removal and as our Decision After Removal, we will rescind the January 21, 2026 Order to Show Cause.
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
The WCJ issued an Order to Show Cause on January 21, 2026, including sanctions related to applicant's petition for removal.
Favours Applicant prevailed
This procedural action was improper and subject to removal by the Appeals Board.
From the decision · page 4In the future, if the WCJ believes that a petition for removal may constitute a frivolous filing, the WCJ may note this in the Report and recommend that the Appeals Board consider the issue of sanctions. As it was not proper to include the issue of removal in the Order to Show Cause, we grant the petition as one for removal and we rescind that Order. We make no judgment as to whether other trial level conduct of applicant’s former attorney may constitute frivolous or bad faith conduct as that issue is not before us. For the foregoing reasons, IT IS ORDERED that applicant’s Petition for Disqualification of the WCJ filed on November 5, 2024, is DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that applicant’s Petition for Removal of the Order to Show Cause, issued on January 21, 2026, by the WCJ is GRANTED.
The rules the panel named
Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Labor Code section 5311
Labor Code section 5311
Provides grounds for disqualification of a WCJ.
From the decision · page 2Labor Code 1 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 Code Civ. Proc., § 641.) Among the grounds for disqualification under section 641 are that the WCJ has “formed or expressed an unqualified opinion or belief as to the merits of the action” (Code Civ. Proc., § 641(f)) or that the WCJ has demonstrated “[t]he existence of a state of mind … evincing enmity against or bias toward either party.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 641(g)). Under 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.
Code of Civil Procedure section 641
Code of Civil Procedure section 641
Specifies grounds for disqualification including bias or fixed opinion.
From the decision · page 2Labor Code 1 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 Code Civ. Proc., § 641.) Among the grounds for disqualification under section 641 are that the WCJ has “formed or expressed an unqualified opinion or belief as to the merits of the action” (Code Civ. Proc., § 641(f)) or that the WCJ has demonstrated “[t]he existence of a state of mind … evincing enmity against or bias toward either party.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 641(g)). Under 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.
Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10960
WCAB Rule 10960
Procedures for filing petitions for disqualification of a WCJ.
From the decision · page 2Labor Code 1 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 Code Civ. Proc., § 641.) Among the grounds for disqualification under section 641 are that the WCJ has “formed or expressed an unqualified opinion or belief as to the merits of the action” (Code Civ. Proc., § 641(f)) or that the WCJ has demonstrated “[t]he existence of a state of mind … evincing enmity against or bias toward either party.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 641(g)). Under 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.
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.