Rivas: Adverse Rulings Did Not Disqualify the WCJ, but Removal Sanctions Exceeded Trial-Level Authority

Review the primary official source.

Rivas v. Real Time Staffing Services LLC, ADJ20154934 and ADJ20154935, separated two procedural questions that the applicant’s petition had placed together. The Appeals Board found no adequate basis to disqualify the workers’ compensation judge, yet treated the filing as a petition for removal and rescinded the January 21, 2026 order to show cause. The distinction turned on both the demanding proof required for judicial bias and the Appeals Board’s exclusive first-instance authority over the merits of a removal petition.

Proceedings and the precise issues presented

The applicant alleged that the WCJ was considering sanctions because the applicant had failed to attend depositions and because former counsel had filed a removal petition that appeared frivolous. New counsel substituted after the disqualification petition. The WCJ recommended denial. The Board therefore had to decide whether the allegations established a statutory or regulatory ground for disqualification and, separately, whether the trial-level order to show cause could reach sanctions based on the removal petition.

That posture mattered. A disqualification petition concerns whether the assigned adjudicator may continue, while removal is an extraordinary interlocutory remedy directed to substantial prejudice or irreparable harm for which later reconsideration would be inadequate. Treating every adverse procedural ruling as bias would collapse those separate forms of review.

The governing disqualification standard

Labor Code section 5311 incorporates Code of Civil Procedure section 641 grounds, including an unqualified opinion on the merits or a state of mind showing enmity or bias. WCAB Rule 10960 requires a timely petition supported by a declaration stating detailed facts. The Board relied on authorities holding that conclusions without facts may be disregarded, a tentative view based on evidence is not necessarily a fixed prejudgment, and judicial expressions made in performing official duties do not by themselves prove bias.

The Board also emphasized that numerous or even erroneous rulings against a party are ordinarily reviewable errors, not proof of prejudice. A unilateral subjective perception cannot substitute for facts. Applying those principles and the WCJ’s report, the panel denied disqualification, while reminding the judge to avoid even the appearance of bias.

Why the order to show cause was rescinded

The different result on removal followed from institutional authority. Rule 10955 permits a WCJ to rescind an order or otherwise resolve an issue raised by a removal petition. But, as the panel put it, “the merits of a petition for removal may only be addressed by the Appeals Board in the first instance.” Rivas v. Real Time Staffing Services LLC, ADJ20154934 & ADJ20154935, slip op. at 4 (Cal. Workers’ Comp. App. Bd. Sept. 10, 2026).

The panel did not decide whether the earlier removal petition was frivolous. It explained that any sanctions question based on such a filing belonged before the Appeals Board, although a WCJ could flag the concern in a report and recommend consideration. Because the order to show cause improperly included the removal filing, the Board granted removal and rescinded the order. It expressly left open whether other trial-level conduct by former counsel could support sanctions.

Holding, disposition, and limits

The final orders denied the petition for disqualification, granted removal of the January 21 order to show cause, and rescinded that order. The decision did not immunize missed depositions or other conduct, decide whether former counsel acted in bad faith, or establish that a WCJ can never initiate a sanctions process for matters within trial-level authority.

This is a WCAB panel decision rather than an en banc rule. Its value lies in applying established disqualification principles and drawing a practical jurisdictional line: facts supporting review of a ruling do not automatically disqualify the judge, and a trial-level sanctions order cannot adjudicate the merits of a removal petition reserved to the Board.

What this means in practice

• Support disqualification with timely, verified, specific facts rather than conclusions drawn from adverse rulings.
• Identify whether the requested relief is disqualification, removal, reconsideration, or review of a sanctions order; each has a different function.
• Separate sanctions tied to trial conduct from sanctions predicated on the merits of a petition addressed to the Appeals Board.
• Preserve the order, hearing record, petition, service proof, and the WCJ’s report so jurisdiction and prejudice can be evaluated.

Related reading: California workers’ compensation practice; Claim process guide; Injured-worker FAQ.