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. ADJ808823 (SDO 0342114), ADJ7289296
Regular
Jul 31, 2012

, JOHN LASER, vs. , CITY OF OCEANSIDE POLICE DEPARTMENT, CITY OF OCEANSIDE,

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the City of Oceanside's petition for reconsideration regarding John Laser's workers' compensation claim. The employer sought to apportion or offset a prior permanent disability award from a new award for continuous trauma injury. The Board adopted the WCJ's report, which found that apportionment was not permissible under Labor Code section 3213.2, which presumes industrial injury from a duty belt. The employer failed to provide sufficient medical evidence to demonstrate overlap between the prior and current injuries, thus not meeting their burden of proof for apportionment.

Labor Code section 3213.2duty belt presumptionapportionmentLabor Code section 4663(e)industrial back injuryprior injurycontinuous traumapermanent disabilityAMA guides1997 PDRS
References
Case No. ADJ3255721 (SFO 0500284) ADJ1045902 (SFO 0500285)
Regular
Jan 23, 2012

Ronald S. Verna vs. City of Los Altos Police Department

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the City of Los Altos Police Department's petition for reconsideration. The Board affirmed the finding that the applicant sustained a compensable sleep disorder as a consequence of industrial injuries, necessitating a CPAP machine. This decision was based on the treating physician's opinion and applicant's credible testimony, and the partial compromise and release agreement explicitly preserved future medical care. The Board found the defendant's arguments regarding substantial evidence, the compromise and release, and the need for a petition to reopen to be without merit.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardCity of Los Altos Police DepartmentRonald S. VernaPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and AwardSleep DisorderCompensable ConsequenceCPAP MachineSelf-Procured ExpenseCompromise and Release
References
Case No. ADJ9697744
Regular
May 25, 2018

JASON POIRIER vs. CITY OF MENLO PARK, Permissibly Self-Insured; administered by INNOVATIVE CLAIMS SOLUTIONS, CITY OF BRISBANE; Permissibly Self-Insured; administered by INNOVATIVE CLAIMS SOLUTIONS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration, reversing the trial judge's decision that denied Jason Poirier's claim for kidney cancer benefits. The Board found that the City of Menlo Park failed to rebut the presumption under Labor Code section 3212.1 that Poirier's cancer was industrially caused. Crucially, the Board ruled that Poirier's prior employment with the City of Brisbane could be combined with his Menlo Park employment to satisfy the minimum latency period for cancer causation, a point the trial judge had incorrectly excluded. Consequently, the Board amended the findings to establish that Poirier sustained an industrial injury and returned the case for benefit determination.

Labor Code section 3212.1renal cell carcinomacarcinogen presumptionrebuttallatency periodcumulative traumapolice officerCity of Menlo ParkCity of Brisbaneindustrial injury
References
Case No. SAL 0084267, SAL 0084268, SAL 0090529
Regular
Jan 04, 2008

LARRY MYERS vs. CITY OF SALINAS

In this workers' compensation case, the defendant City of Salinas sought reconsideration of an award granting the applicant, a police captain, 84% permanent disability and lifelong pension. The defendant argued for apportionment of disability to non-industrial causes, disputing the applicability of the Labor Code section 3213.2 "duty belt" presumption. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration, finding the defendant had previously stipulated to the presumption's applicability and that the applicant independently qualified for it based on his employment history and duty belt usage.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardLarry MyersCity of SalinasFindings Award OrdersWCJindustrial injuriesleft kneelower extremitiesspineleft shoulder
References
Case No. ADJ6990407
Regular
Nov 02, 2011

DANIEL CHESNUT vs. MANTECA POLICE DEPARTMENT, MUNICIPAL POOLING WALNUT CREEK

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the applicant's petition for reconsideration. The applicant, a police officer, sought to establish that his testicular cancer was presumptively industrial under Labor Code section 3212.1. However, the Agreed Medical Evaluator concluded that the cancer's manifestation fell outside the established ten-year minimum latency period for solid tumors, thus rebutting the statutory presumption. The Board found this conclusion to be substantial evidence, particularly as the applicant's cancer was not characterized by extreme aggressiveness or massive exposure doses that might shorten latency.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardDaniel ChesnutManteca Police DepartmentMunicipal Pooling Walnut CreekADJ6990407Petition for ReconsiderationLabor Code section 3212.1testicular cancerinjurious exposurepolice officer
References
Case No. ADJ8241674
Regular
Dec 24, 2014

DAMON BAGLEY vs. CITY OF CLOVIS POLICE DEPARTMENT

This case concerns whether a police officer injured in a commute-related car accident sustained an industrial injury. The Appeals Board rescinded the WCJ's finding, determining the injury was not compensable under the "going and coming" rule. The majority found no special mission because the employer lacked sufficient control and the officer's early arrival provided no clear benefit. A dissenting opinion argued the officer fell under the uniformed officer exception and was on a special mission due to the emergency call-in.

Going and coming ruleSpecial mission exceptionIndustrial injuryWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardCity of Clovis Police DepartmentUniformed officer exceptionMotor vehicle accidentCall-inEmergency callDepartment-issued cell phone
References
Case No. ADJ7850439
Regular
Oct 15, 2012

Edgar Tabo vs. CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO POLICE DEPARTMENT

The applicant, a police officer, injured himself in an off-duty bicycle crash. The Board denied compensation because the applicant failed to establish that his subjective belief of needing to train for an optional bicycle patrol course was objectively reasonable. His off-duty recreational activity did not meet the requirements for an exception to the exclusion for such injuries under Labor Code section 3600(a)(9). Therefore, the applicant takes nothing by way of his claim.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardEdgar TaboCity and County of San Francisco Police DepartmentPermissibly Self-InsuredADJ7850439Oakland District OfficeOpinion and Order Granting ReconsiderationFindings and AwardWCJindustrial injury
References
Case No. ADJ15875592; ADJ16732971
Regular
Aug 25, 2025

JAIME LLAMAS vs. CITY OF ANAHEIM, CITY OF DOWNEY

Applicant Jaime Llamas, a police officer, sustained a cumulative brain injury (cancer) while employed by the City of Downey and the City of Anaheim. The WCJ found both employers jointly and severally liable. Defendant City of Downey sought reconsideration, challenging the last injurious exposure and their liability for temporary disability. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, rescinded the original Findings and Award, and substituted new findings. The Board confirmed the cumulative injury, clarified employment periods, affirmed the industrial presumption for both employers, established a specific liability period (December 21, 2016, through December 21, 2017) based on medical evidence of latency, and deferred issues of contribution between the employers.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardCity of AnaheimCity of DowneyLabor Code section 4850Labor Code section 3212.1Labor Code section 5500.5last injurious exposurecumulative injurypolice officerbrain cancer
References
Case No. ADJ6720899
Regular
May 15, 2012

MELISSA ROSAS vs. CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO POLICE DEPARTMENT, CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the City of San Bernardino Police Department's petition for reconsideration. The Board adopted the judge's report, which found the applicant, Melissa Rosas, sustained a compensable injury in the form of cancer. This decision was based on the applicant being a police officer exposed to known carcinogens and the presumption under Labor Code § 3212.1 not being rebutted by the defense. The judge found the applicant's treating physician's opinion on variable cancer latency periods more persuasive than the defense expert's.

Labor Code § 3212.1cancer presumptionpolice officercarcinogen exposurebenzenecigarette smokegasoline fumesauto accidentsvehicle firesresidence fires
References
Case No. ADJ2522709 (LBO 0369555)
Regular
Sep 08, 2014

CHARLES FUNKE vs. CITY OF GARDENA, CORVEL

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board rescinded an award of temporary disability benefits to a retired police detective, Charles Funke. The Board found that while Labor Code section 4853 did not preclude benefits due to his service retirement, the key issue was whether Funke voluntarily withdrew from the labor market. Since evidence regarding his intent to continue working after retirement was insufficient, the case was returned to the trial level for further factual development.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardCity of GardenaCorvelCharles FunkeADJ2522709Opinion and Decision After ReconsiderationFirst Amended Findings and Awardtemporary disabilitycumulative traumalower extremities
References
Showing 1-10 of 2,149 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