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. 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. ADJ7574832
Regular
Aug 14, 2012

KATKI MOLLOY vs. COMMUNITY SOLUTIONS FOR CHILDREN, FAMILIES, AND INDIVIDUALS, MANUFACTURERS ALLIANCE INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) denied Katki Molloy's Petition for Removal and dismissed her Petition for Disqualification. The Board adopted the Workers' Compensation Judge's (WCJ) report, which detailed the grounds for denial and dismissal. The WCAB also admonished the applicant's attorney for violating the Board's Rules in their petition. No grounds for disqualification were stated, leading to its dismissal.

Petition for RemovalPetition for DisqualificationWCABWorkers' Compensation Administrative Law JudgeWCJ ReportAdmonishmentViolation of RulesDismissalDenialSan Jose District Office
References
0
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. 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
10
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. 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. 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. 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. ADJ10871012
Regular
Oct 20, 2025

MICHAEL HOLMES vs. BEHAVIOR FRONTIERS, REDWOOD FIRE AND CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY HOMESTATE COMPANIES

Applicant Michael Holmes sought the disqualification of a workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) alleging general bias. The Appeals Board, after considering the petition and the WCJ's Report and Recommendation, denied the disqualification request. The Board affirmed that expressions of opinion based on evidence and legal interpretation, or erroneous rulings, do not constitute grounds for disqualification. The applicant was also admonished regarding potential vexatious litigant proceedings if such conduct persists.

Petition for DisqualificationWCJ BiasLabor Code 5311Code of Civil Procedure 641Unqualified OpinionEnmityState of MindWCAB Rule 10960AffidavitDeclaration
References
14
Case No. ADJ944426(VNO 0538295); ADJ7895528
Regular
Jul 03, 2012

DANIEL BELLING vs. UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE

Applicant's attorney sent a letter to the judge expressing concern about receiving a "fair shake" in discovery proceedings, which the judge construed as a Petition for Disqualification. However, the applicant's attorney subsequently clarified they did not intend to file such a petition. The Appeals Board dismissed the letter, deeming it insufficient to establish grounds for disqualification. The judge's report detailed the procedural history and found no bias, noting the letter lacked specific facts to support disqualification.

Petition for DisqualificationLabor Code section 5311WCJStatus ConferenceDiscovery proceedingsPetition for RemovalDeclaration of Readiness to ProceedPriority ConferenceAOE/COEMotion to Quash Deposition
References
0
Showing 1-10 of 1,524 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