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. ADJ7768905
Regular
Sep 13, 2016

TRACEY LOMBARDI vs. SCRIPPS MEMORIAL HOSPITAL, SEDGWICK CMS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the applicant's petition, which sought disqualification of the administrative law judge, removal, and reconsideration. The disqualification petition was denied as untimely, filed after the swearing of the first witness. The removal petition failed to demonstrate substantial prejudice or irreparable harm. Finally, the reconsideration petition was dismissed because it did not seek review of a final order, but rather an interlocutory procedural decision.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for DisqualificationPetition for RemovalPetition for ReconsiderationLabor Code Section 5311Appeals Board Rule 10452Untimely PetitionExtraordinary RemedySubstantial PrejudiceIrreparable Harm
References
6
Case No. ADJ9016568
Regular
Feb 23, 2016

JAVIER SOTO CONTRERAS, AMANDA ARANA vs. A.C. CUSTOM CATERING, INC., STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND, JAVIER SOTO CONTRERAS, ALLMERICA FINANCIAL BENEFIT INSURANCE, THE HANOVER INSURANCE GROUP

This case concerns a petition by SCIF (on behalf of A.C. Custom Catering) seeking removal and disqualification of both the applicant's attorney and the Workers' Compensation Judge (WCJ). The petition argued the applicant's attorney had a conflict of interest representing two claimants and that the WCJ was biased. The Appeals Board dismissed the petition regarding the attorney's disqualification as untimely. Regarding the WCJ, the Board denied disqualification because the petition lacked specific factual allegations of bias and was also untimely.

Petition for RemovalPetition for DisqualificationWCJSCIFA.C. Custom Cateringjoint representationconflict of interestwaiveruntimelyjudicial bias
References
3
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. ADJ6861886
Regular
Feb 01, 2012

Tracy Huiras vs. Nestle USA, ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY

This case involves a defendant's petition for reconsideration, disqualification, and removal concerning a WCJ's order compelling a claims adjuster to testify at a lien trial. The Appeals Board dismissed the petition for reconsideration as the order was not final. While the petition for disqualification was denied due to insufficient evidence of bias, the petition for removal was granted. The Board rescinded the WCJ's order compelling witness testimony, as the lien claimant bears the burden of proof and must produce their own witnesses.

WCABRemovalDisqualificationMandatory Settlement ConferenceWCJLien ClaimClaims AdjusterPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for DisqualificationPetition for Removal
References
0
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. ADJ2948353 (SAL 0116403) ADJ803362 (SAL 0116404) ADJ2320380 (SAL 0116407)
Regular
May 04, 2009

BRIAN CARRASCO vs. CLARK PEST CONTROL, GALLAGHER BASSETT

The applicant filed a petition alleging bias by the WCJ based on 21 instances of alleged misconduct. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the petition for removal, finding it untimely and unverified, as the applicant did not claim to be aggrieved by the last order and the petition was filed beyond the 20-day limit. Furthermore, the Board denied the disqualification petition because it was not supported by a verified affidavit and the judge in question was not currently assigned to the cases for trial. These procedural deficiencies led to the dismissal of the removal petition and denial of the disqualification petition.

Petition for RemovalPetition for DisqualificationAdministrative Law JudgeWCJ Steven D. TuanBias AllegationsUntimely PetitionUnverified PetitionWCAB Rule 10843WCAB Rule 10452Labor Code Section 5310
References
0
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
5
Case No. ADJ18395672
Regular
Oct 13, 2025

FRANCISCO DE SANTIAGO CARRILLO vs. NEAL TRUCKING INC.; TRAVELERS PROPERTY CASUALTY COMPANY OF AMERICA

Defendant sought removal from an order taking this matter off calendar and disqualification of a Workers' Compensation Administrative Law Judge (WCJ) for alleged bias. The Appeals Board considered the petitions and the WCJ's Report. The Board denied the petition for removal, finding that defendant failed to establish irreparable harm or that reconsideration would be an inadequate remedy. The petition for disqualification was also denied because defendant did not provide a supporting affidavit or declaration under penalty of perjury, nor sufficient grounds for disqualification. The Board noted that the WCJ's actions, such as raising the issue of sanctions, appeared to be a reasonable response based on the case facts.

Petition for RemovalPetition for DisqualificationWCJ DiscretionDeclaration of ReadinessIrreparable HarmReconsiderationJudicial BiasLabor Code Section 5311Code of Civil Procedure Section 641Affidavit/Declaration
References
13
Case No. ADJ6577495
Regular
Mar 20, 2012

SANDRA BOWEN vs. MACY'S CORPORATE SERVICES

The Appeals Board denied a lien claimant's Petition for Removal and dismissed their Petition for Disqualification. The lien claimant objected to the Workers' Compensation Judge's order to consider sanctions and require medical providers to appear, believing it inappropriate based on the defendant's MPN defense. The Board found no substantial prejudice or irreparable harm from the unadjudicated sanctions issue, and the petition for disqualification lacked proper grounds and verification. Therefore, the petitions were denied and dismissed.

Petition for RemovalPetition for DisqualificationLien claimantWCJSanctionsMedical Provider NetworkMPNSerious and Willful misconductCompromise and ReleaseLabor Code section 5813
References
1
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
Showing 1-10 of 15,292 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