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. 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 Consequently, the WCJ was disqualified, their May 12, 2025 Order was rescinded, and the case was returned for reassignment to a new WCJ.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. 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
Case No. ADJ10678864
Regular
Aug 08, 2025

ALEX CASTILLO MASIS vs. EAST BAY FOODS INC, EMPLOYERS ASSURANCE SAN FRANCISCO

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board reviewed a Petition for Disqualification filed against a Workers' Compensation administrative law judge (WCJ). The petition alleged grounds for disqualification under Labor Code section 5311 and Code of Civil Procedure section 641, citing an unqualified opinion or bias. Upon review of the record and the WCJ's report, the Board found the petition lacked sufficient factual allegations, declared under penalty of perjury, to establish disqualification. Although the WCJ suggested sanctions for false statements by applicant's attorney, the Board declined to impose them but admonished the attorney for not being candid and truthful. Therefore, the Petition for Disqualification was denied.

Petition for DisqualificationLabor Code Section 5311Code of Civil Procedure Section 641WCAB Rule 10960Judicial BiasPrejudgmentWCJ ReportSanctionsRule 10421False Declarations
References
8
Case No. ADJ7253924, ADJ6965468, ADJ6909770
Regular
Jan 01, 192014

SYLVIA SANTOS vs. GUARD MANAGEMENT, INC., INSURANCE COMPANY OF THE WEST

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied Sylvia Santos' Petition for Disqualification. This decision was based on the report of the administrative law judge, which the Board adopted and incorporated. The Board also refused to consider a document submitted by Santos as a "Reply to Report on Petition for Disqualification" because it did not comply with Board rules and would not have been accepted even if it had. Therefore, the petition for disqualification was denied.

Petition for DisqualificationWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardAdministrative Law JudgeRule 10848WCAB Rules of Practice and ProcedureGuard ManagementInsurance Company of the WestADJ7253924ADJ6965468ADJ6909770
References
1
Case No. ADJ10715642
Regular
Oct 21, 2025

MISAEL RENTERIA vs. JUAN CARLOS RIVERA VAZQUEZ, DOG HOLDINGS, et al.

Defendant Shimin Xu filed multiple petitions for removal and disqualification, alleging bias against the WCJ and challenging a June 18, 2025 notice of hearing. The Appeals Board considered the allegations and the WCJ's Report and Recommendation, which advised against disqualification and removal. The Board found that the defendant failed to provide a substantive affidavit for disqualification and did not demonstrate substantial prejudice or irreparable harm for removal. Consequently, the Board denied the petition for removal and dismissed the petition for disqualification, also admonishing the defendant regarding vexatious litigant proceedings.

WCABPetition for RemovalPetition for DisqualificationWCJbiasLabor Code section 5311Code of Civil Procedure section 641affidavitdeclarationsubstantial prejudice
References
13
Case No. ADJ2942075 (OAK 0345156)
Regular
Jul 30, 2010

GREGORY REES vs. CHABOT-LAS POSITAS COMMUNITY COLLEGE, KEENAN & ASSOCIATES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the defendant's petition for reconsideration because it was based on a non-final interlocutory order regarding the disqualification of a PQME. The WCAB, on its own motion, granted removal and intends to sanction the defendant's counsel for filing a frivolous and bad-faith petition for reconsideration. The Board found the argument for PQME disqualification lacked merit, as applicant communications during examination are permitted. The defendant's counsel will be ordered to pay a $500 sanction unless good cause is shown to the contrary.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationPQME disqualificationex parte communicationLabor Code section 5310removalsanctionsfrivolous litigationbad faith action4062.3
References
7
Case No. ADJ11209389
Regular
Dec 03, 2018

CARLOTA FORBES vs. ESIS, INC.; ACE INSURANCE, administered by ESIS, INC.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the defendant's Petition for Removal and dismissed their Petition for Disqualification. The defendant sought removal due to alleged procedural errors and bias by the workers' compensation judge (WCJ) following a mandatory settlement conference. The Board found the defendant failed to demonstrate substantial prejudice or irreparable harm necessary for removal. Furthermore, the Petition for Disqualification was dismissed for failing to meet procedural requirements, specifically the lack of a supporting affidavit under penalty of perjury detailing the grounds for disqualification. Even on the merits, the Board determined the defendant's claims of bias were based on subjective perceptions and did not meet the legal standard for disqualification.

Petition for RemovalPetition for DisqualificationWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardWCJ DevineMandatory Settlement ConferenceDue ProcessSubstantial PrejudiceIrreparable HarmReconsiderationAppeals Board Rule 10452
References
8
Case No. ADJ7503681
Regular
Jul 24, 2012

WAYNE RADLOFF vs. ATLANTA FALCONS

Defendant National Union petitioned for the Workers' Compensation Judge's disqualification based on unspecified grounds, requesting reassignment. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the petition because it lacked the required affidavit or declaration detailing facts for disqualification. Furthermore, the petition was not verified, violating WCAB Rule 10842(b). Consequently, the Board denied the request for disqualification and reassignment.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDWayne RadloffAtlanta FalconsADJ7503681Petition for DisqualificationCCP § 641(f)CCP § 641(g)Labor Code section 5311WCAB Rule 10452affidavit
References
0
Case No. ADJ13431115
Regular
Oct 21, 2025

GEORGE AUSTIN vs. BALANCE STAFFING, INC.; XL INSURANCE, administered by GALLAGHER BASSETT

Applicant sought disqualification of the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) based on allegations of general bias. The Appeals Board reviewed the Petition for Disqualification and the WCJ's Report and Recommendation. Based on their review, the Board denied the petition, concluding that the allegations did not meet the grounds for disqualification. The applicant was also admonished about the potential for vexatious litigant proceedings if their conduct persists.

Petition for DisqualificationWCJ BiasLabor Code 5311Code of Civil Procedure 641Unqualified OpinionEnmity or BiasWCAB Rule 10960Affidavit or DeclarationTimely FilingJudicial Bias
References
9
Case No. ADJ1070549 (SAC 0354129)
Regular
Sep 01, 2010

LISA ROGERS vs. NOBEL LEARNING COMMUNITIES/ MERRYHILL; CHUBB GROUP for FEDERAL INSURANCE

Applicant Lisa Rogers filed a letter requesting the disqualification of the workers' compensation administrative law judge, alleging unprofessional conduct and a conflict of interest. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) construed this letter as a petition for disqualification. However, the WCAB dismissed the petition because it was unverified, not properly served on all parties, and failed to comply with procedural requirements. Therefore, the WCAB ordered the petition for disqualification dismissed.

Petition for DisqualificationWCAB Rule 10844WCAB Rule 10850Labor Code Section 5311WCAB Rule 10452Unrepresented ApplicantRude and UnprofessionalConflict of InterestPresiding Judge Joel HarterAdministrative Law Judge
References
0
Showing 1-10 of 610 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