Roland Freeman vs. The Community Youth Sports & Arts; State Compensation Insurance Fund

In this case, the State Compensation Insurance Fund filed a petition for removal and disqualification of a workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ). The petition was denied for removal, but granted for disqualification due to the WCJ's intemperate and unprofessional comments directed at defense counsel and an impermissible ex parte communication with lien claimant's representative. The case was returned to the presiding WCJ for further proceedings before a different WCJ.

The Community Youth Sports & Arts; State Compensation Insurance Fund Roland Freeman WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDSTATE OF CALIFORNIAROLAND FREEMAN, Applicant,vs.    THE COMMUNITY YOUTH SPORTS & ARTS; STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND,    Defendant.Case No. VNO 0433931OPINION AND ORDERDENYING REMOVAL ANDGRANTING DISQUALIFICATION            Defendant State Compensation Insurance Fund has filed a petition for removal and disqualification of workers’ compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) Barry R. Goldman. Petitioner contends that at trial on October 3, 2007, the WCJ improperly admitted into evidence exhibits offered by lien claimant SB Surgery Center (LC) and improperly shifted the burden of producing evidence and burden of proof. Petitioner further contends that the WCJ exhibited bias toward defense counsel and acted with impropriety. We have not received an answer from LC. We deny the petition for removal. We grant the petition for disqualification.            Previously in this matter we issued an Opinion and Order Granting Reconsideration and Decision after Reconsideration dated June 11, 2007, wherein we reviewed the procedural history of this case. We rescinded Orders dated March 19,2007, on the ground that there was no indication that any exhibits were taken or moved into evidence (see Hamilton v. Lockheed Corp. (2001) 66 Cal.Comp.Cases 473 (appeals board en banc). Thereafter, the case was set for status conference on August 21,2007 and trial on October 3, 2007. After the admission of exhibits into evidence and testimony, the case was to be submitted for decision after receipt of the Summary of Evidence.            As to removal, we deny the petition because petitioner has not demonstrated that the actions of the WCJ will result in significant prejudice or irreparable harm (see WCAB Rule 10843 (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10843)). As yet, there has been no decision on the merits. Although , LC’s exhibits have been submitted into evidence, there is no

To continue reading ... start a FREE Trial for 10 days

Discover the cases you didn’t know you were missing!

Copyright © 2023 - CompFox Inc.