News and Insights

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Curabitur sit amet sem id nisi porta rutrum.

Ronald Faulkner, vs. Cat Clinic Inc.; Fireman’s Fund Insurance,

Cat Clinic Inc.; Fireman’s Fund Insurance, Ronald Faulkner, WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDSTATE OF CALIFORNIARONALD FAULKNER,Applicant,vs.CAT CLINIC INC.; FIREMAN’S FUND INSURANCE,Defendants.Case No. ADJ7776408(Los Angeles District Office)OPINION AND ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR DISQUALIFICATION            On December 5, 2016, lien claimant Jeannette Martello, M.D., who is not represented by an attorney or representative, filed a document, titled “Petition for Removal.” Lien claimant seeks to disqualify the workers’ compensation administrative law judge (WCJ), based principally on allegations by her former representative that the WCJ stated the case had “already been decided” as of December 5, 2016, the day before the scheduled lien trial in this matter.            We did not receive an answer. We did receive a Report and Recommendation on Petition for Removal (Report), denying “unequivocally” that such a statement had ever been made, and noting that the petition should have been brought as a Petition for Disqualification, not as a Petition for Removal.            We have considered the allegations of the Petition for Removal, and the contents of the WCJ’s Report with respect thereto. Based on our review of the record, we will deny the petition as a Petition for Disqualification.            Initially, we emphasize that, as the Report explains, lien claimant should have filed a Petition for Disqualification, not a Petition for Removal, because she seeks the disqualification of the assigned WCJ from the case on the grounds of alleged bias, and because the petition was not filed in response to any particular judicial action taken by the WCJ. (See Labor Code section 5311; Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10452.) However, in light of the fact that lien claimant is proceeding without the assistance of counsel, we will consider the petition as a Petition for Disqualification. ,             We also note the petition is procedurally defective because it does not comply with

SUBSCRIBE NOW

Get exclusive access to in-debt interviews.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor.

Recent Article

Recent Article

Share Article

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *