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. 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 Therefore, the WCAB rescinded the prior decision and issued a new finding of injury.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
Case No. ADJ8804613
Regular
Jun 03, 2016

KIM LARSEN vs. UKIAH UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the defendant school district's petition for reconsideration of an award for acute myeloid leukemia. The Board found the applicant's exposure to diesel exhaust while employed by the school district was an injurious exposure contributing to the cancer. The Board ruled that the agreed medical evaluator's reports were admissible and constituted substantial medical evidence of the link between diesel exhaust and leukemia. Therefore, the school district was held liable as the last employer where the applicant was exposed to the hazard.

acute myeloid leukemiadiesel exhaust exposurecumulative traumalast injurious exposureagreed medical evaluatorlabor code section 5500.5reasonably probable causationsubstantial medical evidencebenzene exposurefirefighter
References
Case No. ADJ8026817
Regular
Apr 22, 2013

MARIA OCHOA vs. RANGERS DIE CASTING COMPANY, COMPWEST INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration of a decision finding the applicant sustained injury to her respiratory system and psyche AOE/COE. The WCAB rescinded the decision and returned the case to the trial level, finding the medical opinions of Dr. Lipper and Dr. Curtis lacked substantiality. Specifically, the physicians failed to provide clear diagnoses, quantify exposures, or adequately explain causation. The Board noted contradictory testimony from the applicant's supervisor and insufficient evidence to support the initial findings.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardMaria OchoaRangers Die Casting CompanyCOMPWEST INSURANCE COMPANYADJ8026817Los Angeles District OfficeOpinion and Order Granting ReconsiderationDecision After ReconsiderationFindings of FactWorkers' Compensation Administrative Law Judge (WCJ)
References
Case No. MON 0266089 MON 0266090
Regular
Jan 18, 2008

FRANCISCA ESLAVA vs. PARK HYATT HOTEL, CRAWFORD & COMPANY

The applicant settled her workers' compensation claims for $\$95,000, releasing the employer from future medical care and declining vocational rehabilitation. She later attempted to set aside the declination of vocational rehabilitation, but her petition was deemed untimely as it was filed more than five years after her injury. The Board dismissed her subsequent petitions for reconsideration because successive petitions are improper and her avenues for appeal before the Board are exhausted.

Compromise and ReleaseVocational RehabilitationDeclaration of Readiness to ProceedPetition for ReconsiderationSuccessive PetitionUntimely PetitionSetting Aside AgreementLabor Code Section 5410Labor Code Section 5804Exhausted Remedies
References
Case No. ADJ10296423
Regular
Jan 30, 2020

SEYED NAVID MOUSAVIRAD vs. LAFAYETTE PARK HOTEL AND SPA, LIBERTY MUTUAL

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board affirmed the original decision finding no violation of Labor Code section 132a. The applicant failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination because there was no evidence the employer knew about a work-related injury or the intent to file a claim. The applicant was on medical leave for an unrelated condition and terminated after exhausting that leave. The Board clarified that the applicant takes nothing on his claim, rather than it being dismissed on procedural grounds.

Labor Code section 132adiscriminationretaliationworkers' compensation claimprima facie caselegal rightemployer dutyindustrial injuryadverse consequencesmedical leave
References
Case No. ADJ7392507
Regular
Aug 15, 2011

SALVADOR RODRIGUEZ vs. EBERHARD ROOFING, ZURICH NORTH AMERICA

Applicant seeks reconsideration of a prior decision finding only heat exhaustion and dehydration as his work injury, claiming the arbitrator overlooked back, neck, and leg injuries. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, rescinded the prior decision, and remanded the case. This action is partly due to the applicant's former attorney's potential abandonment and the need for him to show good cause for withdrawal. The case will return to the arbitrator for further proceedings on the applicant's alleged orthopedic injuries.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationFindings and OrderHeat ExhaustionDehydrationBack InjuryNeck InjuryLeg InjuryMedical Provider Network (MPN)Orthopedic Injury
References
Case No. ADJ9693769
Regular
Sep 26, 2022

AUGUSTO GARCIA vs. SIERRA TRAFFIC SERVICE, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Appeals Board reconsidered a decision and affirmed findings that the applicant sustained a heat stroke injury but not orthopedic injuries. The Board rescinded the award of temporary disability benefits, finding no substantial medical evidence supported disability resulting from the industrial injury. Consequently, the Employment Development Department is not entitled to reimbursement, and the lien of Spine and Ortho Center is disallowed.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationTemporary DisabilitySubstantial Medical EvidenceOrthopedic InjuryHeat StrokeDehydrationExhaustionSleep DisorderEmployment Development Department
References
Case No. OAK 301894 OAK 314306
Regular
Oct 11, 2007

ROXANNE HENDRIX vs. OAKLAND UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, JT2 INTEGRATED SERVICES

This case concerns an employee terminated due to exhausting paid leave after an industrial injury, which she alleged was discriminatory under Labor Code section 132a. The Board denied reconsideration, finding the employer acted in accordance with Education Code section 45192. This specific education code provision, which mandates placing employees who exhaust leave on a reemployment list, supersedes the general anti-discrimination provisions of section 132a in this context.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardLabor Code section 132adiscriminationindustrial injurycustodianterminationpaid leavetemporary disabilityreemployment listEducation Code section 45192
References
Case No. ADJ8459000
Regular
Nov 13, 2015

LILIA RODRIGUEZ vs. ESPARZA ENTERPRISES, INC

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied defendant Esparza Enterprises' petition for removal of an order suspending action regarding their petition to compel documents from a lien claimant. The Board found that the defendant failed to demonstrate they exhausted discovery methods or attempted informal resolution before filing the compulsion petition. Compelling documents should be a last resort after other discovery avenues are exhausted. The defendant also failed to show significant prejudice or irreparable harm if removal was denied.

Petition for RemovalOrder Suspending ActionWCJlien claimantEncino Care PharmacyPetition to Compel Servicelien conferencediscovery processformal discovery methodssignificant prejudice
References
Case No. ADJ7332732
Regular
Jul 05, 2012

JACK EICHHORN vs. STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

This case involves applicant Jack Eichhorn's petition for reconsideration regarding temporary disability benefits. The defendant argued that Eichhorn had exhausted his temporary disability due to overlapping injuries from 2009 and 2010, citing the case of *Foster v. WCAB*. The Administrative Law Judge recommended denying reconsideration, finding that while Eichhorn's 2009 knee injury was not permanent and stationary when he returned to work, there was no evidence of medical restrictions preventing him from performing his duties. Therefore, the applicant was entitled to any remaining temporary disability from the 2009 injury after the 2010 injury benefits were exhausted, with the defendant receiving credit for overlapping periods.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationTemporary Total DisabilityOverlapping InjuriesIndustrial Disability LeaveCorrectional OfficerRight Knee InjuryLeft Upper Extremity InjuryPermanent and Stationary StatusAgreed Medical Examiner
References
Showing 1-10 of 32 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