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. 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
3
Case No. ADJ11721215
Regular
Mar 20, 2023

GLEN HODGES vs. STATE OF CALIFORNIA

This case concerns a firefighter's claim for melanoma under Labor Code section 3212.1, which presumes cancer is industrially caused. While the applicant raised the presumption through evidence of carcinogen exposure, the Appeals Board overturned the initial finding of industrial injury due to melanoma. The Board found the presumption was rebutted by expert medical opinion concluding the applicant's melanoma was not reasonably linked to industrial sun exposure, citing significant childhood sun exposure, tanning bed use, family history, and minimal workplace sun exposure to the affected area. The Board therefore granted reconsideration and amended the decision to exclude melanoma as an industrial injury, though actinic keratosis was still found to be industrially caused.

Labor Code section 3212.1cancer presumptionrebutted presumptionqualified medical evaluatorindustrial injuryactinic keratosismelanomafirefightercarcinogenInternational Agency for Research on Cancer
References
3
Case No. SRO 134400, SRO 139130
Regular
Sep 11, 2007

COBY RICHARDS vs. COUNTY OF SONOMA AND G.B. BRAGG AND ASSOCIATES, CITY OF CLOVERDALE AND REMIF

The applicant, a police officer, claimed a cumulative trauma injury resulting in a brain tumor, asserting exposure to x-rays as a known carcinogen under Labor Code section 3212.1. The Appeals Board denied reconsideration, affirming the finding that the applicant did not establish an industrial injury. While acknowledging the applicant's exposure to x-rays, the Board found this exposure did not present a reasonable link to the brain tumor, as per the Agreed Medical Examiner's opinion that only direct radiation to the brain is a known risk factor.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardIndustrial injuryAstrocytomaBrain tumorCarcinogenLabor Code section 3212.1Presumption of injuryPeace officerCumulative traumaX-rays
References
7
Case No. ADJ8218969
Regular
Feb 05, 2015

JOSE CARRILLO (Deceased) ELVIRA CARRILLO (Widow) vs. ESTERLINE TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION, ARCH INSURANCE, Administered by ESIS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration of a taken nothing order concerning the death claim of Jose Carrillo, who died of renal cell carcinoma. The initial decision found the widow failed to prove her husband's cancer was industrially caused by toxic exposure during his employment. The Board found the Qualified Medical Evaluator's opinion equivocal and the record insufficient to determine the extent of the decedent's exposure to carcinogens. Therefore, the case was returned to the trial judge for further development of the record regarding chemical exposure and a new determination of industrial causation.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardElvira CarrilloJose CarrilloEsterline Technologies CorporationArch InsuranceESISADJ8218969Petition for ReconsiderationFindings and Ordertaken nothing order
References
0
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
4
Case No. ADJ3126026 (LBO 0396291)
Regular
Apr 21, 2014

,\nPURITA PEREZ; RYAN PEREZ; CAMILL PEREZ, vs. ,\nOAK PRODUCTS; STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND,

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration of a decision finding industrial lung cancer causation for the decedent, Hernani Perez. While the WCAB agreed that the decedent was exposed to carcinogens that contributed to his death, it found a lack of substantial medical evidence establishing a causal link between the exposure during the defendant insurer's coverage period and the disease. The case is returned to the trial level for further proceedings to develop the record on injurious exposure and liability.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardHernani PerezPurita PerezRyan PerezCamill PerezOak ProductsState Compensation Insurance Fundindustrial injurylung cancerdate of concurrence of knowledge and disability
References
6
Case No. ADJ7318651
Regular
Jan 12, 2012

JERRY CHAVEZ, Jr. vs. CITY OF VERNON

This case concerns a police officer diagnosed with renal cell carcinoma who sought workers' compensation benefits under Labor Code section 3212.1's cancer presumption. The applicant presented evidence of industrial exposure to known carcinogens such as diesel exhaust and benzene. The defense failed to rebut the presumption by failing to present evidence that the primary cancer site was identified and that the identified carcinogen was not reasonably linked to the cancer. The Appeals Board affirmed the judge's findings, denying the defendant's petition for reconsideration.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardCity of VernonJerry Chavez Jr.Petition for ReconsiderationFindings and Ruling and Awardcancer presumptionLabor Code section 3212.1industrial exposurecarcinogenic substancesWCJ
References
7
Case No. ADJ7050870
Regular
Apr 04, 2018

Kevin Couch vs. COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE

This case involves a deputy sheriff diagnosed with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) who sought workers' compensation benefits. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration and found the applicant's CLL to be industrially caused. The WCAB determined that the applicant was entitled to the presumption of compensability under Labor Code section 3212.1 due to his documented exposure to benzene, a known carcinogen in gasoline and diesel exhaust. The Board concluded that the defendant failed to rebut this presumption, despite evidence suggesting an alternative cause, because they did not demonstrate by substantial evidence that the carcinogen was not reasonably linked to the applicant's condition. Therefore, the WCAB rescinded the prior decision and issued a new finding of injury.

Labor Code section 3212.1presumption of compensabilitychronic lymphocytic leukemiadeputy sheriffbenzenegasoline exhaustdiesel exhaustcarcinogen exposurelatency periodAgreed Medical Examiner
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Tucker v. City of Plattsburgh Fire Department

Justice Egan Jr. dissents from the majority's decision, arguing that the Workers' Compensation Board abused its discretion in characterizing the medical expert's proof as speculative. The dissent focuses on the expert opinion of Michael Lax, who found a probable causal connection between the claimant's occupation as a firefighter, his exposure to carcinogenic materials, and his diagnosed prostate cancer. Lax's opinion was based on the claimant's 24 years of exposure, absence of other prostate cancer risk factors, and epidemiological studies. The dissent emphasizes that medical opinions do not require absolute certainty, only a reasonable probability supported by a rational basis. The dissent notes that at various administrative stages, a causal relationship was found, highlighting the lack of unanimity in the final Board decision.

Prostate CancerFirefighterCausal ConnectionMedical Expert OpinionSpeculative ProofWorkers' Compensation LawOccupational ExposureCarcinogenic MaterialsDissenting OpinionBurden of Proof
References
3
Case No. Appeal Nos. 5104, 5105, 5106, 5107, 5108, 5109, 5110, 5111
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 12, 2001

Berkowitz v. A.C. & S., Inc.

This case involves an appeal by defendants-appellants from orders of the Supreme Court, New York County, which denied their motions for summary judgment in a series of lawsuits concerning asbestos exposure from Worthington pumps. The appellate court unanimously affirmed the lower court's decisions, finding sufficient issues of fact to preclude dismissal. Evidence presented included defendant Worthington's own admission of the high prevalence of its pumps on Navy ships, testimony from workers regarding Worthington pumps in the Brooklyn Navy Yard, and Worthington's use of asbestos-containing components like gaskets and packing. The court also noted a Worthington manual referencing asbestos and government specifications requiring asbestos use, questioning whether the pumps could be safely operated without asbestos insulation despite Worthington not manufacturing or installing it.

Asbestos ExposureProduct LiabilitySummary JudgmentDuty to WarnManufacturer LiabilityAppellate ReviewOccupational ExposureNavy ShipsGasketsPumps
References
3
Showing 1-10 of 879 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