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. ADJ234009 (OAK 0324352) ADJ3704382 (OAK 0335469)
Regular
Jan 12, 2010

Carole Young vs. IPC SECURITY, LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, ABM adjusted by ESIS

The applicant sought removal and disqualification of the Workers' Compensation Judge (WCJ) alleging bias due to denied trial requests, refusal to consider evidence, and case delays. The Appeals Board denied the removal and disqualification, stating a subjective perception of bias is insufficient grounds. The Board returned the case to the Presiding WCJ to address the defendant's request to declare the applicant a vexatious litigant, requiring notice and an opportunity to be heard.

Workers' Compensation Appeals Boardremovaldisqualificationworkers' compensation judge (WCJ)biasvexatious litigantPWCJWCAB Rule 10782applicantdefendant
References
1
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. ADJ1538813 [MON 0309956] ADJ3751110 [MON 0326164] ADJ1500144 [SAC 0290200] ADJ820065 [SAC 0352087]
Regular
Sep 18, 2008

Parvin Olfati, (Patty Olfati) vs. STATE OF CALIFORNIA BOARD OF EQUALIZATION, Legally Uninsured, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND (Adjusting Agengy)

Petition for disqualification denied. Applicant's subjective perceptions of bias not well-founded.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for DisqualificationLabor Code section 5311WCAB rule 10452Administrative Law JudgeBiasHostilityDiscriminatory TreatmentDiscoveryPublic Records Act
References
9
Case No. SDO 0335244
Regular

FREDDY GOMEZ vs. EL TORITO RESTAURANT, GALLAGHER BASSETT SERVICES

This case involved a petition to disqualify a Workers' Compensation Judge (WCJ) based on a prior declaration of bias and an alleged appearance of bias. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) denied the petition. The WCAB found that while a previous case established a past appearance of bias, the current petition lacked specific evidence of present bias or appearance thereof. Furthermore, the WCAB concluded that sufficient time had passed since the prior proceedings, and the appearance of bias, if any, had sufficiently attenuated.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for DisqualificationAdministrative Law JudgeLabor Code section 5311WCAB Rule 10452Appearance of BiasActual BiasBlanket RecusalMandatory Settlement ConferenceIndustrial Injury
References
1
Case No. SDO 341698
Regular
Jul 23, 2007

EVA STERBA vs. CARDIFF SOFWARE, INC., CHUBB GROUP OF INSURANCE COMPANIES

Here's a concise summary for a lawyer: A petition to disqualify a Workers' Compensation Judge (WCJ) based on a past admitted bias against the applicant's law firm was denied. The Appeals Board found that the six-year-old declaration of bias had been sufficiently attenuated and lacked present evidence of actual or apparent bias. Future disqualification would require specific evidence demonstrating bias.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardDisqualificationAdministrative Law JudgeBiasTrovillion Inveiss Ponticello DemakisAppearance of BiasBlanket RecusalRobbins v Sharp HealthcareDeclaration of Readiness to ProceedMandatory Settlement Conference
References
1
Case No. SDO 339211 SDO 339212
Regular
Jul 23, 2007

RICHARD ESPINOZA vs. SAN DIEGO GAS & ELECTRIC

This case involved a petition to disqualify a Workers' Compensation Judge based on a prior admission of bias against the applicant's law firm. The Appeals Board denied the petition, finding that the applicant failed to present evidence of present bias or the appearance of bias. The Board reasoned that the prior admission of bias had been sufficiently attenuated by time and subsequent rulings, and that future disqualifications would require specific evidence.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardDisqualificationWCJBiasAppearance of BiasRecusalBlanket RecusalEthics ComplaintsCourt AdministratorMandatory Settlement Conference
References
1
Case No. ADJ969080 (FRE 0202793)
Regular
Sep 15, 2016

PEDRO LOPEZ vs. CAL-ALMOND; TRAVELERS

The applicant sought to disqualify the administrative law judge (WCJ) alleging insufficient time was spent on his case and a lack of seriousness towards his injury. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) found the petition lacked the required formal affidavit but considered its merits. The WCAB denied the petition, holding that a party's subjective perception of bias or disagreement with rulings does not constitute legal grounds for disqualification under relevant statutes. The Board also noted the applicant's separate request for disability accommodations for an upcoming hearing.

Disqualification PetitionWCJ BiasLabor Code 5311Code of Civil Procedure 641Unqualified OpinionLegal GroundsSubjective PerceptionWCAB Rule 10452Affirmative DutyJudicial Discretion
References
6
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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Corporate Printing Co. v. New York Typographical Union No. 6

Corporate Printing Company, Inc. sought to stay an arbitration initiated by New York Typographical Union No. 6 concerning contributions to a Benefit and Productivity Fund and to dismiss the designated arbitrator, Walter L. Eisenberg. Corporate Printing also sought to initiate a second arbitration under "League Option A." The court considered whether Corporate Printing, having withdrawn from the 'League,' could exercise rights previously granted to the League under a 1975 collective bargaining agreement. The court ruled that Corporate Printing could not unilaterally dismiss the arbitrator nor invoke rights explicitly granted to the League. Claims of arbitrator bias and procedural non-compliance were deemed premature or matters for the arbitrator. Consequently, the initial arbitration proceeded, while Corporate Printing's requested arbitration was stayed.

ArbitrationCollective Bargaining AgreementEmployer-Union DisputeAgency LawEstoppelArbitrator BiasProcedural DefectsLabor LawFederal Court JurisdictionWithdrawal from Association
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Johnson

This opinion from the Court of Appeals addresses the critical issue of juror impartiality in criminal trials, specifically concerning challenges for cause when prospective jurors express doubts about their fairness. The Court consolidated three cases: People v. Johnson and People v. Sharper, both robbery cases involving juror bias towards police testimony, and People v. Reyes, a drug sale case where jurors harbored biases related to drug abuse and a defendant's prior convictions. The Court reiterated that when potential jurors reveal a state of mind likely to preclude impartial service, they must provide unequivocal assurance of their ability to set aside any bias and render a verdict based solely on evidence. Concluding that the trial judges in these cases failed to obtain such unequivocal assurances, the Court affirmed the Appellate Division's reversal of convictions in Johnson and Sharper, and reversed the Appellate Division's affirmation of conviction in Reyes, ordering a new trial. This decision underscores the fundamental constitutional right to an impartial jury and clarifies the standard for excusing biased jurors under CPL 270.20.

Jury SelectionVoir DireJuror ImpartialityChallenge for CauseUnequivocal AssurancePolice Testimony BiasDrug Offense BiasPrior Conviction BiasCriminal Procedure LawAppellate Review
References
31
Showing 1-10 of 501 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