CompFox Logo
AboutWorkflowFeaturesPricingCase LawInsights

Updated Daily

Case Law Database

Access over workers' compensation decisions, including En Banc, Significant Panel Decisions, and writ-denied cases.

Case No. ADJ7949972
Regular
Nov 07, 2013

DANIEL BIGELOW vs. CITY OF PASO ROBLES

This Workers' Compensation Appeals Board decision reverses a prior ruling and finds applicant's colon cancer industrially caused. The employer failed to rebut the Labor Code section 3212.1 presumption of industrial causation for peace officers exposed to carcinogens. The Appeals Board determined the defendant's medical expert did not sufficiently prove the cancer was "not reasonably linked" to the applicant's workplace exposure. Therefore, the presumption stands, and the case is returned for further proceedings.

Labor Code section 3212.1cancer presumptionpeace officeractive law enforcementindustrial injurycolon cancercarcinogen exposurerebuttable presumptionprimary site of cancerlatency period
References
Case No. ADJ6766227
Regular
Mar 25, 2013

DAVID CASE vs. CITY OF FRESNO

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the City of Fresno's petition for reconsideration. The Board affirmed the prior finding that the applicant sustained cumulative industrial injuries of throat/tongue and prostate cancer while employed as a police officer for the City of Fresno. Despite the prostate cancer manifesting after applicant's employment with the City ended, the Board found the City liable based on the long latency period of the cancer and the applicant's presumed exposure to carcinogens during his employment. The defendant failed to rebut the Labor Code section 3212.1 presumption of liability.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardDavid CaseCity of Fresnocumulative industrial injurythroat cancertongue cancerprostate cancerpolice officerLabor Code section 3212.1presumption of compensability
References
Case No. ADJ9509417
Regular
Apr 05, 2023

ELIZABETH ARBOGAST vs. CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board affirmed an award for further medical treatment and attorney fees for an applicant diagnosed with ovarian cancer, hernia, peripheral neuropathy, and colon issues sustained during her employment with the California Highway Patrol. The Board found the applicant's ovarian cancer to be an insidious and progressive disease, warranting a reservation of jurisdiction over permanent disability. This reservation allows for future determination of permanent disability if the condition worsens or recurs.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardCalifornia Highway Patrolmedically uninsuredState Compensation Insurance FundAdjudication NumberOpinion and Decision After ReconsiderationFindings and Awardworker's compensation administrative law judgeovarian cancerhernia
References
Case No. ADJ1402736
Regular
Jan 04, 2010

SANDY BASTIAN vs. COUNTY OF VENTURA

This case involves a firefighter diagnosed with breast cancer who claimed industrial injury under California Labor Code section 3212.1. The defendant employer argued the statutory presumption of industrial causation was rebutted by an Agreed Medical Examiner's opinion stating the cancer was non-industrial, citing a lack of studies linking female firefighter exposures to breast cancer. The Appeals Board affirmed the WCJ's decision, finding the applicant sufficiently demonstrated exposure to carcinogens and the defendant failed to meet its burden to prove the exposure was "not reasonably linked" to the cancer. The court clarified that the mere absence of specific epidemiological studies does not rebut the presumption under section 3212.1.

Labor Code section 3212.1firefightercancer presumptionindustrial injuryrebuttable presumptioncarcinogen exposureAgreed Medical Examiner (AME)non-industrial causationindustrial causationAppeals Board
References
Case No. SDO 244774
Significant
Dec 11, 2003

Walter Faust vs. City of San Diego

The Appeals Board held that under the amended Labor Code section 3212.1, a firefighter only needs to show exposure to a known carcinogen to establish a presumption of industrial cancer, shifting the burden to the defendant to prove no reasonable link.

Labor Code section 3212.1cumulative industrial injuryfirefightercancerpresumptionrebutting presumptionqualified medical evaluatorcarcinogencadmiumplating company fire
References
Case No. ADJ9870999
Regular
Feb 13, 2017

ROBIN SMITH vs. CITY OF SUNNYVALE

This case involves a firefighter claiming breast cancer arose from employment exposure to carcinogens, triggering a statutory presumption of industrial causation under Labor Code section 3212.1. The employer sought to rebut this presumption by arguing a medical examiner found no studies linking applicant's specific exposures to breast cancer. However, the Appeals Board denied reconsideration, affirming that the employer failed to prove there is *no reasonable link* between workplace carcinogen exposure and the applicant's cancer, a higher bar than simply the absence of direct scientific studies. The Board reiterated that an employer must affirmatively demonstrate a lack of reasonable connection, not just highlight a lack of studies supporting causation.

Labor Code section 3212.1presumption of industrial causationpublic safety officerfirefightercarcinogen exposurebreast cancerdisputable presumptioncontroverted evidencereasonable linkburden of proof
References
Case No. ADJ17298965
Regular
Apr 28, 2025

SETH FRANKLIN vs. CITY OF REDLANDS, ADMINSURE

Applicant Seth Franklin, a police officer, sought reconsideration of a WCJ's decision that denied his claim for industrial injury in the form of melanoma. The WCJ initially found applicant was not entitled to the cancer presumption under Labor Code section 3212.1. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, concluding that the WCJ erred. The Board determined that applicant, as a police officer, was exposed to solar radiation (a known carcinogen) and his melanoma developed or manifested during his employment, thus entitling him to the cancer presumption. The case has been returned to the trial level for further proceedings to determine if the presumption can be rebutted.

Labor Code section 3212.1cancer presumptionpolice officermelanomaindustrial injurycarcinogensolar ultraviolet radiationlatency periodrebuttal of presumptioncumulative trauma
References
Case No. ADJ6822166
Regular
May 27, 2011

Jackie Thompson vs. Los Angeles Unified School District

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration and reversed a prior finding that a school district police officer was entitled to a cancer presumption for his prostate cancer. The Board found that while the applicant was a peace officer, his authority was defined by Penal Code section 830.32, not section 830.1 as initially determined. Because Labor Code section 3212.1's cancer presumption specifically lists peace officers defined under certain Penal Code sections and does not include those under 830.32, the applicant is not entitled to the presumption.

Labor Code 3212.1Penal Code 830.32Peace OfficerSchool District Police OfficerCancer PresumptionIndustrial InjuryReconsiderationWCABLaw Enforcement ActivitiesWilliam Dallas Jones Cancer Presumption Act
References
Case No. ADJ1038622
Regular
Nov 19, 2012

PAUL SOTEROPOULOS vs. LOS ANGELES COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the applicant's reconsideration of a prior decision. The Board affirmed the finding that the applicant, a firefighter, did not sustain an injury arising out of and in the course of employment for his testicular cancer. The Board found the agreed medical evaluator's opinion on the latency period provided substantial evidence to rebut the statutory presumption. Furthermore, the Board determined the applicant's hernia was a complication of non-industrial cancer treatment, thus controverting the presumption of compensability for hernias.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPaul SoterepoulosLos Angeles County Fire DepartmentReconsiderationFirefighterRight Testicular CancerHerniaLabor Code Section 3212.1Presumption of CompensabilityLatency Period
References
Case No. ADJ9979717, ADJ9983551
Regular
Apr 15, 2020

James Wieboldt vs. County of San Diego

The Appeals Board rescinded two WCJ findings of industrial colon and vocal cord cancer, returning the cases for further proceedings. The Board found the medical opinions of Drs. Woolf and Berman lacked substantial evidence due to issues with causation, exposure details, and reliance on incorrect legal presumptions. While the applicant has the burden to prove industrial causation absent the cancer presumption, the Board determined the current medical record requires further development. The Board also noted discrepancies regarding the applicant's job titles and claimed periods of exposure that need clarification.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardJames WieboldtCounty of San DiegoColon CancerVocal Cord CancerIndustrial InjuryMedical OpinionSubstantial EvidenceLabor Code Section 3212.1Cancer Presumption
References
Showing 1-10 of 529 results

Ready to streamline your practice?

Apply these legal strategies instantly. CompFox helps you find decisions, analyze reports, and draft pleadings in minutes.

CompFox Logo

The AI standard for workers' compensation professionals. Faster research, deeper analysis, better outcomes.

Product

  • Platform
  • Workflow
  • Features
  • Pricing

Solutions

  • Defense Firms
  • Applicants' Attorneys
  • Insurance carriers
  • Medical Providers

Company

  • About
  • Insights
  • Case Law

Legal

  • Privacy
  • Terms
  • Trust
  • Cookies
  • Subscription

© 2026 CompFox Inc. All rights reserved.

Systems Operational