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. 14-05-00831-CR
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 07, 2006

Joseph Earl Bias v. State

Joseph Earl Bias appealed his conviction for aggravated assault, asserting errors in the trial court's granting of the State's challenges for cause to two venirepersons and factual insufficiency of the evidence. The case originated from an incident where Bias allegedly pulled a gun and fired shots in a shoe store. The jury found Bias guilty, assessing a twenty-year confinement. The appellate court found the evidence factually sufficient, citing positive identification of Bias by the complainant and corroborating testimony. The court also determined that any error in excusing venirepersons did not deprive Bias of a lawfully constituted jury, thus affirming the trial court's judgment.

Aggravated AssaultFactual SufficiencyEvidentiary ReviewVoir DireJury SelectionChallenges for CauseCredibility of WitnessesCriminal AppealTexas LawCourt of Appeals
References
10
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. 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. ADJ8970968
Regular
Oct 17, 2016

JOSE CEJA vs. THYSSENKRUPP ELEVATOR, SEDGWICK CMS

The Applicant sought to disqualify the Workers' Compensation Judge, alleging bias based on a pre-trial chambers discussion where the Applicant felt the judge favored the defendant. The WCAB denied the petition because the Applicant's allegations were subjective beliefs without specific factual support to demonstrate bias. The Board also noted procedural non-compliance with WCAB Rule 10452. Therefore, the judge was not disqualified from presiding over the case.

Petition for DisqualificationWCABAdministrative Law JudgeBiasLabor Code section 5311WCAB Rule 10452Declaration/AffidavitPerjuryOverpaymentTemporary Total Disability
References
0
Case No. ADJ4013684 (OAK 0307613) ADJ620772 (OAK 0294537)
Regular
Jul 28, 2014

DANIEL GRANZELLA vs. RICHMOND SANITARY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the defendant's petition for reconsideration and denied their petition for removal. The defendant sought to be relieved from an agreed medical examiner (AME) agreement with Dr. Warbritton, alleging bias and ex parte communication. The Board found that the WCJ's order denying the motion to be relieved from the AME agreement was interlocutory and thus not subject to reconsideration. Furthermore, the Board found no basis for removal, as the defendant failed to establish bias or irreparable harm, and their ex parte communication claim was waived by their delay in raising the issue after receiving further medical reports.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalAgreed Medical Examiner (AME)BiasEx Parte CommunicationLabor Code § 5900Interlocutory OrderFinal OrderSubstantive Right
References
11
Case No. 06-19-00099-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 07, 2021

Load Trail, LLC v. Joseph Julian

Joseph Julian was injured while employed by Load Trail, LLC, a trailer manufacturer, when he was struck by a forklift. Julian, diagnosed with herniated discs and neck pain requiring lumbar fusion surgery, subsequently sued Load Trail, a nonsubscriber to the Texas workers' compensation system, alleging negligence. The dispute was subjected to arbitration, where arbitrator T. King Fifer awarded Julian $930,000.00 in damages after finding Load Trail negligent in providing a safe workplace. The trial court confirmed this arbitration award, prompting Load Trail to appeal, asserting the arbitrator demonstrated evident partiality. The Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding that Load Trail waived its claim of actual bias by not objecting during the arbitration and failed to provide sufficient evidence to prove such bias.

ArbitrationJudicial ReviewEvident PartialityActual BiasFederal Arbitration ActFAAWaiverAppellate ProcedureNegligenceWorkplace Injury
References
32
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Farkas v. Ellis

The court addressed the plaintiffs' motion for recusal of Judge William C. Conner, based on allegations of bias and prejudice. Plaintiffs cited judicial acts and statements, as well as a perceived 'working relationship' between the judge and the Administrator, Mr. Ellis. The Court denied the recusal motion, stating that the alleged bias did not stem from an extrajudicial source, which is a requirement for disqualification under 28 U.S.C. §§ 144 and 455(b)(1). The Court also clarified that even under the objective 'reasonable person' standard of 28 U.S.C. § 455(a), no appearance of partiality was established. Furthermore, the Court raised concerns regarding subject matter jurisdiction, ordering plaintiffs to show cause why the action should not be dismissed, as the Administrator, Mr. Ellis, is not an 'agency' under the cited statutes (5 U.S.C. §§ 702 and 706) for judicial review of agency actions.

Recusal MotionJudicial BiasExtrajudicial Source of BiasSubject Matter JurisdictionAgency Action ReviewConsent Decree Administrator28 U.S.C. 14428 U.S.C. 4555 U.S.C. 7025 U.S.C. 706
References
16
Showing 1-10 of 2,651 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