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. ADJ7981413; ADJ2876358
Regular
Jun 03, 2025

LORI WILLIAMS vs. WEBCOR BUILDERS, ZURICH NORTH AMERICA

Applicant Lori Williams filed a petition to disqualify WCJ Elizabeth Dehn, alleging bias due to inexperience, ignored medical treatment requests, and lack of penalties. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) considered the petition and the WCJ's report. The WCAB, adopting the WCJ's report, denied the petition, citing that the petition lacked detailed facts under penalty of perjury as required by WCAB Rule 10960 and failed to establish grounds for disqualification under Labor Code section 5311 and Code of Civil Procedure section 641(f) and (g). The WCJ stated that no rulings were made on medical treatment or penalties during the status conference, and denied any bias.

Petition for DisqualificationWCJ DisqualificationLabor Code 5311Code of Civil Procedure 641BiasEnmityUnqualified OpinionAffidavitsDeclaration Under Penalty of PerjuryVerified Allegations
References
Case No. ADJ229693 (MON 0362437)
Regular
Mar 28, 2011

JUAN PALMA vs. NORMAN'S NURSERY WHOLESALE GROWERS

A lien claimant, former attorney for the applicant, filed a motion to disqualify the Workers' Compensation Judge, alleging bias. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) construed this motion as a petition for disqualification. The petition was denied because it was not properly verified under oath as required by WCAB Rule 10844. Furthermore, the petition lacked the necessary supporting affidavit or declaration under penalty of perjury required by WCAB Rule 10452.

Petition for disqualificationWCAB Rule 10844Verified pleadingsAffidavitDeclaration under penalty of perjuryWorkers' Compensation Administrative Law JudgeBiasMotion to disqualifyLabor Code section 5311WCJ Blais
References
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
Case No. ADJ11136346, ADJ10857795
Regular
Mar 08, 2019

IRMA NELSON vs. SAFEWAY/ALBERTSON'S HOLDINGS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied a petition for disqualification against a WCJ. The petition failed to provide specific, factual allegations under penalty of perjury to support claims of bias or an expressed opinion on the merits. Because the petition lacked the required factual basis under Labor Code section 5311 and relevant procedural rules, it was insufficient to warrant disqualification.

Petition for DisqualificationWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardWCJLabor Code Section 5311Code of Civil Procedure Section 641unqualified opinionbiasenmityWCAB Rule 10452affidavit
References
Case No. ADJ6879751, ADJ6523394, ADJ6523461
Regular
Jun 25, 2018

VICENTE URUENA vs. RESEARCH METAL INDUSTRIES, ILLINOIS MEDWEST INSURANCE COMPANY, CALIFORNIA INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied a petition for removal and disqualification of the workers' compensation judge. The Board found that the petitioner failed to demonstrate substantial prejudice or irreparable harm required for removal, and that reconsideration would be an adequate remedy. Furthermore, the petition for disqualification lacked specific factual allegations under penalty of perjury to support the claims of bias. Therefore, both aspects of the petition were denied.

Petition for RemovalDisqualificationWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardWCJSubstantial PrejudiceIrreparable HarmReconsiderationLabor Code Section 5311Code of Civil Procedure Section 641WCAB Rule 10452
References
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
Case No. ADJ9828813, ADJ9828571
Regular
Sep 18, 2019

Eric Life vs. State of California Department of Corrections, State Compensation Insurance Fund

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed Applicant Eric Life's Petition for Disqualification of the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ). The dismissal was based on multiple grounds: the petition was untimely filed nearly three months after the last WCJ action, and it failed to serve the opposing parties or include a proof of service. Furthermore, the WCAB noted that even if timely and properly served, the petition lacked specific factual allegations under penalty of perjury required to establish grounds for disqualification. The Board also admonished the applicant for engaging in prohibited ex parte communications.

Petition for DisqualificationWCJ disqualificationdue processLabor Code section 5311WCAB Rule 10452untimely filingfailure to serveex parte communicationCode of Civil Procedure section 641bias
References
Case No. ADJ4579659
Significant
Sep 09, 2008

Dee Anne Ramirez, Applicant vs. Drive Financial Services, One Beacon Insurance Co.

The Appeals Board, in an en banc decision, holds that penalties under Labor Code section 5814(a) are discretionary, successive penalties are permissible under specific circumstances, and attorney's fees under section 5814.5 apply to private employers for unreasonable delays occurring after January 1, 2003, regardless of the injury date.

WCABLabor Code section 5814Labor Code section 5814.5penaltyattorney feesen bancreconsiderationdiscretionary penaltysuccessive penaltyunreasonable delay
References
Case No. ADJ2353136 (STK 0213635)
Regular
Dec 19, 2016

AHMED SHOAIB vs. CAMBELL SOUP COMPANY

This case concerns a dispute over the payment of a workers' compensation settlement. The applicant, Ahmed Shoaib, settled a discrimination claim against Campbell Soup Company for $55,000. Campbell Soup unilaterally withheld over $19,000 from the applicant's share of the settlement for alleged payroll taxes. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied Campbell Soup's petition for reconsideration, finding that the company unreasonably delayed payment by taking a unilateral credit. The Board affirmed the WCJ's decision and the awarded 25% penalty for the delayed payment.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationStipulation and AwardLabor Code Section 132aAmended Petition for PenaltyDelayed PaymentLabor Code Section 5814Labor Code Section 5814.5Contract EnforcementUnilateral Credit
References
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
Showing 1-10 of 864 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