The California Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) issued an en banc decision on June 24, 2026 in Calvin Gaines, et al. v. ABM Aviation, Inc., et al., which addressed the validity of Orders Suspending Action (OSAs) in multiple cases. The decision also discusses the limits of a Workers’ Compensation Administrative Law Judge’s (WCJ) authority during the settlement approval process. Overall, there were 24 cases that the WCAB consolidated where a single WCJ at the Van Nuys District Office repeatedly issued OSAs on proposed Compromise and Release (C&R) agreements. The WCAB rescinded all the OSAs, disqualified the WCJ for demonstrated bias, and returned the cases for reassignment.

The underlying dispute across all 24 cases involved a patterned course of conduct by WCJ Karinneh Aslanian. Many of the settlements were reached early in litigation to “buy peace” and avoid further discovery and litigation. As such, many cases lacked Qualified Medical Evaluator (QME) reports. The proposed settlement amounts ranged from $4,000.00 to $37,500.00.

The WCAB identified multiple areas of concern including the WCJ giving ultimatums to applicants to obtain a medical evaluation or dismiss their case. Orders were issued without the opportunity to be heard in violation of due process rights. The WCJ required broad submissions extending far beyond typical workers’ compensation documentation such as witness statements, employer investigations, and details regarding civil lawsuits. The WCAB noted that with the exception of medical records, any other information needed by a WCJ to address adequacy does not automatically become part of the record. Where such information is necessary the proper course of action is to hold a hearing, admit evidence and create a record. If the WCJ had concerns about the sufficiency of the information, then a hearing should have been set.

The WCAB also noted that an issue raised by the WCJ throughout each of these cases was protecting the interests of the employers from overpaying. The WCAB indicated that such a goal was outside the scope of adequacy review and the employers have other remedies available to address such concerns. The WCAB noted the dual purpose of adequacy review: protect the injured worker and the public interest.

There were also multiple instances where the WCJ questioned the reasonableness of attorney fees and required justification for the requested 15% attorney’s fee in several cases. The WCAB indicated that if the settlement was adequate but there was a question on fees, the entire settlement should not be gridlocked over a fee dispute. Rather than issue an OSA on the entire settlement, the WCJ should approve the settlement while ordering the disputed fees to be held in trust pending a formal hearing.

The WCAB disqualified the WCJ from all cases based on bias and offered a few examples of statements found within the collective record:

1) “If an allegedly injured “worker” does not want to bother to seek even one medical examination since he/she hired an attorney and filed the claims of injury, so as to address said injury claims, then there is no justification to award any monies at all and the person likely is not injured at all, and instead of dismissing the case with prejudice or ethically withdrawing the Application for Adjudication, the “free cash money handout system” rears its ugly head and rewards this type of behavior by allowing settlements where there is no way to tell if the settlement is adequate.”

2) “If the person does not have an industrial injury and cannot be bothered to even go to one medical evaluation before or after the case was filed, then applicant is clearly not injured.”

3) “It is this WCJ’s opinion that the Van Nuys WCAB has become a haven for applicants all over the state who hire an attorney and file in the Van Nuys venue, even when applicant lives in northern California or outside of LA County in general, and it has become a “get rich quick” scheme that this WCJ will no longer participate in.”

The bottom line is that if a settlement’s terms are inconsistent, do not comply with the Labor Code, and/or there are concerns over adequacy, then an OSA requesting additional information is proper. But when the parties do not provide sufficient information the WCJ should set the matter for an evidentiary hearing.