Rojas: Settlement Left a Judicial Sanctions Hearing Pending

Settling an injured worker’s benefit claim did not resolve a separate question about sanctions payable to the court. In Rojas v. Employers Outsourcing, LLC, No. ADJ17568026 (WCAB Jan. 21, 2026), the Board denied removal from a trial-setting order so the judge could build a record on the proposed sanctions. At that point, a notice of intent—not a sanctions award—had issued.

The disputed conduct concerned the employer’s identity and insurance status

The notice of intent arose from an apparent failure to identify the defendant properly as an illegally uninsured employer in appearances before the WCAB. The Board explained why that mattered: The worker and the court needed to know which entity was liable for benefits and its insurance status.

The panel relied on DiFusco v. Hands On Spa (2025) 90 Cal.Comp.Cases 1007, 1018–1019, an en banc decision explaining the party-identification requirements in Rules 10390, 10400 and 10401. Correct identification helps prevent omitted parties, mistaken captions and confusion about liable entities. The proposed sanctions in Rojas required evaluation of the actual appearances and conduct on a proper record. Rojas, official opinion at 2.

The private settlement and judicial sanctions served different purposes

The defendant argued that the C&R made sanctions moot. The Board answered by identifying the proposed payee and purpose. The issue was judicial sanctions payable to the court, rather than costs payable to the worker. The parties could not resolve that public-law issue by private agreement. The panel cited Civil Code section 3513’s distinction between waiving a law’s private benefit and contracting around a law established for a public reason. Rojas at 2.

The hearing remained necessary to determine liability and amount

A December 11 letter attempted to withdraw the removal petition while also seeking to avoid a sanctions hearing. It referred to sanctions as already ordered. The Board clarified the operative posture: Only a notice of intent existed. Trial would create a record to determine whether sanctions should issue and, if so, the appropriate amount.

The panel also addressed notice and representation. The potential sanctions concerned the uninsured employer, Prime Administrators and attorneys acting for the defendant. In a footnote, the Board suggested that if the original notice referred only to “defendants,” the judge may wish to consider an amended notice naming the particular people and entities. Counsel representing several potential targets also needed to consider possible conflicts. These were suggestions for a properly developed proceeding. Rojas at 3 & note 1.

Removal and disqualification had separate requirements

The Board applied Rule 10955’s extraordinary-remedy test: Substantial prejudice or irreparable harm, with later reconsideration inadequate. It found the required showing absent and denied removal. The trial therefore remained on calendar.

The defendant’s assertion of judicial bias also failed procedurally. Rule 10960 requires a timely disqualification petition supported by a sworn statement detailing the grounds. The defendant had filed no such petition; treating its removal petition as one would still have left timing and verification defects. Rojas at 2–4.

This panel decision leaves the sanctions question for the evidentiary hearing. Its practical value is the separation of a settled benefit claim, a proposed judicial sanction and the procedures for reviewing the judge’s actions. Our guide explains responding to a sanctions notice after a workers’ comp settlement.