CompFox Logo
AboutWorkflowFeaturesPricingCase LawInsights

Updated Daily

Case Law Database

Access over workers' compensation decisions, including En Banc, Significant Panel Decisions, and writ-denied cases.

Case No. ADJ1132003 (LBO 0329486)
Regular
Aug 19, 2013

NICOLE R. CHEATHAM vs. LOMA LINDA UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER, LOMA LINDA HOME CARE

The Appeals Board granted the Defendant's Petition for Removal to overturn an Order that denied its request for automatic reassignment of the case. The Board found that the Presiding Judge erred by denying reassignment based on a prior award issued by Judge Pusey in 2003, as Judge Pusey had not been assigned as the trial judge at that time. The Appeals Board granted the reassignment and ordered the expedited hearing be set before a judge other than Judge Pusey. This decision recognizes the defendant's statutory right to automatic reassignment when a new trial date is set before a judge who has not previously presided over a trial in the matter.

Petition for RemovalAutomatic ReassignmentOrder Denying PetitionExpedited HearingStipulations With Request for AwardCumulative Trauma InjuryPetition to Re-openDeclaration of Readiness to ProceedLabor Code section 5310Cal. Code Regs.
References
Case No. ADJ7393344
Regular
Jun 19, 2012

CONNIE WHITTED vs. DHL ENTERPRISES LLC BRIGHT STAR HEALTH CARE, CHARTIS

This case concerns a petition initially filed as a "Petition for Disqualification and Reassignment," which was later amended to solely seek automatic reassignment of the judge under WCAB Rule 10453. The Appeals Board dismissed the disqualification aspect, attributing the confusion to the applicant's attorney's imprecise captioning. While the petition for automatic reassignment is remanded for determination by the presiding judge, the Board notes it was filed before a trial or expedited hearing, making its denial likely. The Board cautioned the attorney about wasted resources and the potential for future sanctions due to careless pleading.

WCAB Rule 10453WCAB Rule 10452peremptory challengedisqualificationautomatic reassignmentpresiding judgePetition for Disqualificationamended petitionJudge Brigham JonesReport and Recommendation
References
Case No. ADJ441028, ADJ1016830, ADJ8012703
Regular
Aug 11, 2015

STANLEY THOMAS vs. L3 COMMUNICATIONS, ACE USA PROPERTY & CASUALTY, ESIS, INC.

Defendant sought removal of an order setting two consolidated cases (ADJ1016830 and ADJ8012703) for trial before a different judge, arguing applicant waived the right to automatic reassignment by not challenging the original judge in a previously adjudicated case (ADJ441028). The WCAB dismissed the petition as to the adjudicated case, finding it not consolidated with the others. Regarding the consolidated cases, the Board denied the petition, affirming applicant's timely exercise of the right to automatic reassignment. The WCAB adopted the WCJ's reasoning that no grounds for removal were established, as the applicant had a right to reassignment and the defendants suffered no prejudice.

Petition for RemovalWCAB Rule 10453Automatic ReassignmentWCJ ChallengeConsolidated CasesJudge ShoppingVenue TransferAdministrative Law JudgePresiding JudgeMinutes of Hearing
References
Case No. ADJ1997801
Regular
Nov 10, 2018

YOULANDA O. WILLIAMS vs. LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, SEDGWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT SERVICES

The applicant sought reconsideration of an order denying her petition for reassignment of the trial judge. The Appeals Board dismissed the petition as untimely because it was filed over 25 days after the order it sought to reconsider. Even if timely, the petition would have been denied on its merits as the applicant had already exercised her one-time right to automatic reassignment. The Board noted that grounds for disqualification, rather than automatic reassignment, would need to be established by a timely petition with supporting affidavit.

Petition for ReconsiderationPetition for Automatic ReassignmentWCJ CoulterPWCJtimely filingjurisdictionalLabor Code section 5903Code of Civil Procedure section 1013Appeals Board Rule 10507Administrative Law Judge
References
Case No. ADJ7474784
Regular
May 27, 2011

MARILYN CHAN vs. SERVISAIR LLC, ACE adjusted by ESIS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the applicant's Petition for Reconsideration because the prior order denying an automatic reassignment of judge was not a final order. The WCAB then denied the applicant's Petition for Removal, finding no showing of significant prejudice or irreparable harm. The applicant's Petition for Automatic Reassignment was untimely as it was filed 12 days after service of the hearing notice, exceeding the five-day deadline plus five days for mail service. Therefore, the WCAB adopted the WCJ's reasoning in denying the reassignment request.

Petition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalAutomatic Reassignment of JudgeWCJtimely filingservice by mailfinal ordersubstantive rightsirreparable harmextraordinary remedy
References
Case No. POM 0216385
Regular
Jul 18, 2007

JEN-KANG YANG vs. UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA, ZURICH AMERICAN INSURANCE CO.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the applicant's petition to disqualify Judge Slucter and for automatic reassignment. The Board found that the applicant's petition for disqualification lacked the required affidavit and did not cite statutory grounds applicable to workers' compensation proceedings. The petition for automatic reassignment was denied as untimely because the applicant did not exercise the right at the mandatory settlement conference.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for DisqualificationPetition for Automatic ReassignmentLabor Code Section 5311WCAB Rule 10453Code of Civil Procedure Sections 170.1 and 170.6Administrative Law Judge (WCJ)Industrial InjuryPsycheStress
References
Case No. ADJ12040456
Regular
Dec 16, 2020

ARTURO MONJE vs. FARIA LAND & CATTLE CO., LLC, ZENITH INSURANCE COMPANY

This case concerns a dispute over the timeliness of a defendant's Petition for Automatic Reassignment of a Workers' Compensation Judge. The WCJ initially denied the petition, deeming it untimely as filed more than five days after the Notice of Hearing. However, the Appeals Board granted removal, finding the petition timely because California Code of Regulations, Title 8, section 10605(a)(1) extends the deadline by five days for e-service. Consequently, the WCAB rescinded the WCJ's order and granted the defendant's Petition for Automatic Reassignment.

Petition for RemovalPetition for Automatic ReassignmentWCAB Rule 10605(a)(1)WCAB Rule 10788timely filingservice by emailsubstantial prejudiceirreparable harmreconsiderationAdjudication Number
References
Case No. ADJ369276
Regular
Mar 21, 2012

JEREMY NEWBERRY vs. CHARGERS FOOTBALL CLUB, LLC dba SAN DIEGO CHARGERS, GREAT DIVIDE INSURANCE COMPANY c/o BERKELEY SPECIALTY UNDERWRITING MANAGERS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed a petition for removal as untimely because it was filed on January 6, 2012, exceeding the January 3, 2012 deadline. Even if timely, the petition would have been denied on the merits. The petitioner failed to request automatic reassignment within the required five days of the November 15, 2011 notice of hearing. The WCAB clarified that an improper "expedited hearing" designation does not restart the reassignment clock.

WCABPetition for RemovalDismissedWCJAutomatic ReassignmentTimelinessPre-trial ConferenceExpedited HearingNotice of HearingService by Mail
References
Case No. ADJ8217179
Regular
Jun 18, 2012

CYNTHIA BRUNNEMER vs. DFA OF CALIFORNIA, LIBERTY MUTUAL

Applicant's attorney filed a petition that was initially miscaptioned as a "Petition for Disqualification," causing confusion for the Workers' Compensation Judge. The applicant later amended the petition to clarify it sought only an "automatic reassignment" (peremptory challenge) of the judge, not disqualification. The Appeals Board dismissed the disqualification portion and remanded the reassignment petition for determination by the presiding judge or a designee. The Board cautioned the attorney about the wasted time and resources due to the imprecise initial filing.

Petition for DisqualificationAutomatic ReassignmentWCJWCAB Rule 10453WCAB Rule 10452Peremptory ChallengePresiding WCJReport and RecommendationLab. Code § 5311Cal. Code Regs. tit. 8 § 10452
References
Case No. ADJ3707641 (VNO 0530022)
Regular
Sep 01, 2009

BERTHA LEON vs. UCLA MEDICAL CENTER, Permissibly Self-Insured, Administered by, SEDGWICK CMS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration for a dismissed lien claim, finding the lien claimant failed to prove the reasonableness of its charges. Although the lien claimant argued a denial of due process, the Board found they were given notice and an opportunity to present evidence, but did not. The lien claimant also waived their right to a judge reassignment by not properly filing a motion. Ultimately, the Board rescinded the dismissal and disallowed the lien claim due to lack of evidence.

Petition for ReconsiderationOrder of DismissalLien ClaimantReasonableness of ChargesDue ProcessWCJBurden of ProofMinutes of HearingReassignment of JudgeAutomatic Reassignment
References
Showing 1-10 of 166 results

Ready to streamline your practice?

Apply these legal strategies instantly. CompFox helps you find decisions, analyze reports, and draft pleadings in minutes.

CompFox Logo

The AI standard for workers' compensation professionals. Faster research, deeper analysis, better outcomes.

Product

  • Platform
  • Workflow
  • Features
  • Pricing

Solutions

  • Defense Firms
  • Applicants' Attorneys
  • Insurance carriers
  • Medical Providers

Company

  • About
  • Insights
  • Case Law

Legal

  • Privacy
  • Terms
  • Trust
  • Cookies
  • Subscription

© 2026 CompFox Inc. All rights reserved.

Systems Operational