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. ADJ8606673
Regular
Nov 07, 2025

Terence Chrisman vs. AC Transit, Athens Administrators

Applicant Terence Chrisman sought disqualification of a Workers' Compensation Administrative Law Judge (WCJ) alleging prejudice. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) reviewed the petition and the WCJ's Report and Recommendation, which advised denying the disqualification. Citing various Labor Code sections, Code of Civil Procedure sections, and WCAB rules, the Board found the petition failed to establish a factual basis for bias or prejudice and was potentially untimely. The WCAB clarified that judicial opinions based on evidence or official duties do not constitute bias. Consequently, the Board denied the petition for disqualification.

Petition for DisqualificationWCJBiasPrejudiceLabor Code 5311Code of Civil Procedure 641Unqualified OpinionEnmityAffidavitDeclaration
References
7
Case No. ADJ11787318; ADJ11787317; ADJ12836378
Regular
Nov 24, 2020

MARTHA GUERRERO vs. EMPRES HEALTHCARE, INC. dba NEW HOPE, ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY adjusted by ESIS, INC.

This case involves a petition for disqualification against a Workers' Compensation Judge (WCJ). The applicant sought to have the WCJ removed from all future cases due to perceived judicial temperament issues. The Appeals Board dismissed the petition because it was unverified, lacked sufficient factual basis to establish grounds for disqualification, and was filed outside the statutory time limit. Furthermore, issues regarding disciplinary actions and future case assignments fall outside the Appeals Board's jurisdiction.

Petition for disqualificationWCJjudicial temperamentbiasaffidavitdeclaration under penalty of perjuryLabor Code section 5311Code of Civil Procedure section 641WCAB Rule 10960subjective perception
References
5
Case No. ADJ1539456; ADJ134659; ADJ16131949; ADJ16046597
Regular
Sep 04, 2025

PHYLLIS CARSON vs. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES SHERIFFS DEPT, SEDGWICK PASADENA

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board considered Phyllis Carson's Petition for Disqualification. The Board determined that the petition was untimely, having been filed on October 28, 2024, significantly past the statutory 10 or 15-day deadline following the September 5, 2024, notice of hearing or the September 24, 2025, hearing where the grounds arose. Consequently, the Petition for Disqualification was dismissed. The Board also noted that even if the petition had been timely, it would have been denied based on the WCJ's report and established legal principles regarding judicial bias.

Petition for DisqualificationWCJTimelinessWCAB Rule 10960Labor Code Section 5311Code of Civil Procedure Section 641BiasPrejudiceUnqualified OpinionEAMS
References
14
Case No. ADJ14178627
Regular
Feb 15, 2023

ELISANDRO CAMPOS vs. PRODESSE PROPERTY GROUP, AMTRUST NORTH AMERICA

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied applicant Elisandro Campos's petition to disqualify the Workers' Compensation Judge (WCJ). The Board found that the petition lacked specific facts, under penalty of perjury, to establish grounds for disqualification under Labor Code section 5311 and Code of Civil Procedure section 641. Legal precedent dictates that conclusory allegations or subjective perceptions of bias are insufficient, and judicial expressions of opinion based on evidence do not constitute grounds for disqualification. The Board also admonished the applicant for filing duplicative and potentially frivolous pleadings.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for DisqualificationWCJdisqualification groundsCode of Civil Procedure section 641unqualified opinionbiasenmityWCAB Rule 10960affidavit
References
8
Case No. ADJ11398920, ADJ10879061
Regular
Jan 17, 2020

DANIELA SCHMIDT vs. CONTRA COSTA COURT, JBWCP

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) denied the applicant's Petition for Removal and Petition for Disqualification. The WCAB found that removal was not warranted as the applicant failed to demonstrate substantial prejudice or irreparable harm. Furthermore, the Petition for Disqualification was denied because it lacked specific factual allegations to support claims of judicial bias or an unqualified opinion by the WCJ. The WCAB also noted that discovery disputes were hindering the efficient resolution of the case.

Petition for RemovalPetition for DisqualificationWCJAppeals Boardsubstantial prejudiceirreparable harmreconsiderationgrounds for disqualificationCode of Civil Procedure section 641unqualified opinion
References
10
Case No. ADJ11351216
Regular
Feb 14, 2020

SARA CREIGHTON vs. BEVERLY HOSPITAL

This case involved a defendant's petition for removal and reconsideration, treated as a disqualification petition. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) denied the petition, finding the prior WCJ decision on employment was final, but applied the removal standard for the interlocutory issue of the case being taken off calendar. The Board found no significant prejudice or irreparable harm would result from denying removal. Furthermore, the petition for disqualification lacked specific factual allegations to support claims of WCJ bias, and the Board reiterated that judicial expressions of opinion or adverse rulings do not constitute disqualifying bias.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for DisqualificationRemovalThreshold IssueInterlocutory IssueEmploymentStatute of LimitationsBiasPrejudice
References
10
Case No. ADJ12674446
Regular
Jul 25, 2025

MICHAEL KREZA, SHANNA KREZA vs. CITY OF COSTA MESA FIRE DEPARTMENT, ADMINSURE

Applicant Shanna Kreza, guardian ad Litem for deceased Michael Kreza, sought reconsideration or, alternatively, removal and disqualification of a Workers' Compensation Administrative Law Judge (WCJ) after the WCJ issued an Order Suspending Action. The WCJ's order questioned the requested attorney's fees as excessive, which the applicant argued created an appearance of bias. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the petition for reconsideration, deeming the WCJ's order interlocutory. However, the Board granted the petitions for removal and disqualification, finding an appearance of bias by the WCJ due to unqualified opinions on attorney's fees. Consequently, the WCJ was disqualified, their May 12, 2025 Order was rescinded, and the case was returned for reassignment to a new WCJ.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardFirefighterDeath ClaimAttorney FeesExcessive FeesPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalPetition for DisqualificationWCJ BiasOrder Suspending Action
References
10
Case No. ADJ7423135; ADJ7423167 ADJ7423165; ADJ7423160 ADJ2846465 (SAL 0071191) ADJ1099124 (SAL 0110049) ADJ1286808 (SAL 0071188) ADJ4253389 (SJO 0233441) ADJ3450760 (SJO 0225032) ADJ2325597 (SJO 0232035) ADJ1931744 (SJO 0233439) ADJ1747524 (SJO 0126462)
Regular
Aug 22, 2014

ROBERT DOMINGUEZ vs. EP & G PROPERTIES, ADVANTAGE WORKERS' COMPENSATION INSURANCE

This case involves applicant Robert Dominguez's petition for disqualification of a workers' compensation judge. The applicant alleged bias and an unfair hearing, citing the court favoring the defendant. However, the Board dismissed the petition as untimely because it was filed more than a year after the applicant was sworn in and testified at trial. The Board also found no evidence of judicial bias in the record.

Petition for disqualificationLabor Code section 5311WCAB Rule 10452timely petitionuntimely petitionFindings and AwardWCJ Report and Recommendationapplicant's testimonysworn witnessdismissal of petition
References
0
Case No. ADJ10455142
Regular
Oct 19, 2017

RUBEN CELEDON vs. ADVANCED STRUCTURAL ALLOYS, LLC, ENSTAR NORTH AMERICA

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied a defendant's petition to disqualify the administrative law judge (WCJ). The defendant alleged bias due to a purported "preexisting relationship" with applicant's attorney and the WCJ's rulings. However, the defendant provided no specific facts to support the relationship claim, and the WCJ denied it. Erroneous rulings, even if numerous, do not automatically establish judicial bias, and the WCJ had previously corrected an order at the defendant's request. The Board found no evidence of bias and denied the petition for disqualification.

Petition for DisqualificationWCAB Rule 10452WCJ biaspreexisting relationshiperroneous rulingsaffidavitCode of Civil Procedure Section 641declaration under penalty of perjurysubjective perception of biasWorkers' Compensation Appeals Board
References
0
Case No. ADJ9709184
Regular
Mar 12, 2025

JOHN GUY vs. AV DECKING, AIG CLAIMS, INC.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board considered a Petition for Disqualification against a Workers' Compensation Administrative Law Judge (WCJ). The petition alleged grounds for disqualification based on an unqualified opinion or bias. After reviewing the WCJ's report, the Board determined that the petition did not provide sufficient facts under penalty of perjury to establish the grounds for disqualification as per Labor Code section 5311 and Code of Civil Procedure section 641. Additionally, a Compromise and Release had been approved, rendering the petition moot. Consequently, the Petition for Disqualification was denied by the Board.

Petition for DisqualificationWCJLabor Code 5311Code of Civil Procedure 641affidavitdeclarationprejudicebiasunqualified opinionevidence
References
13
Showing 1-10 of 1,455 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