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. AD J8835024 AD J8996815
Regular
Jun 14, 2016

TRACIE KEILLOR vs. COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration, rescinded a prior award, and found that the applicant, a deputy sheriff, did not sustain industrial injury from a stroke. While Labor Code section 3212.5 creates a presumption of industrial causation for heart trouble in peace officers, the applicant failed to establish, based on a qualified medical evaluator's opinions, that her stroke was caused by heart trouble or that she suffered from any heart trouble. The expert consistently found no evidence of heart trouble contributing to the stroke and opined that an intracranial thrombosis was the probable cause. Therefore, the presumption under section 3212.5 was not applicable as the applicant did not meet the threshold requirement of showing heart trouble.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardDeputy SheriffStrokeHeart PresumptionLabor Code Section 3212.5Occupational CausationMedical ProbabilityPanel Qualified Medical EvaluatorCardiologistIn Situ Thrombosis
References
6
Case No. ADJ8835024, ADJ8996815
Regular
Jun 26, 2017

TRACIE KEILLOR vs. COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) is remanding this case for further proceedings. Initially, the WCAB reversed a judge's finding of industrial injury for a stroke under the heart presumption statute. However, the WCAB acknowledges its prior decision was incomplete as it failed to consider if the applicant could establish industrial injury outside the heart presumption, potentially requiring further medical evaluation. The WCAB also notes that a related civil case finding job stress caused the stroke is now final, raising the issue of collateral estoppel. Therefore, the case is returned to the trial level to determine if collateral estoppel applies or if further development of the record is needed to establish an industrial injury independent of the heart presumption.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardRemittiturHeart PresumptionStrokeIndustrial InjuryNewly Discovered EvidenceCollateral EstoppelLabor Code Section 3212.5Sheriff's OfficerNeuroloigical Evaluation
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Bauer v. Female Academy of the Sacred Heart

This case concerns Keith Bauer, a window cleaner, who was severely injured after falling from a third-story window while working for Environmental Service Systems at the Female Academy of the Sacred Heart. The accident occurred due to a safety hook becoming stuck on a square anchor, which violated Industrial Code standards. The primary legal issues were whether claims under Labor Law § 202 and Labor Law § 240 (1) could coexist, and if Labor Law § 202 imposed strict liability or comparative negligence. The Court of Appeals held that both Labor Law claims can be pursued simultaneously and determined that Labor Law § 202 is a comparative negligence statute, not a strict liability one. The court modified previous rulings by reinstating the plaintiff's Labor Law § 240 (1) claim for further proceedings, while affirming the comparative negligence approach for the Labor Law § 202 claim.

Window Cleaner InjuryLabor LawStrict LiabilityComparative NegligenceSafety AnchorsIndustrial Code ViolationConstruction SafetyThird-Party ActionStatutory InterpretationAppellate Review
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Missionary Sisters of the Sacred Heart, Inc. v. Dowling

This nonpayment proceeding addresses respondents Robert and Jessica Dowling's motion to dismiss, alleging petitioner Missionary Sisters of the Sacred Heart, Inc. failed to comply with the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA). The court examined whether the rent demand and the petition constituted 'communications' under the FDCPA, ultimately concluding they did not violate the Act's provisions in this context. Furthermore, the court determined that even if an FDCPA violation occurred, it would not serve as a defense to the underlying eviction proceeding. The decision also rejected the argument that state law (RPAPL) is preempted by federal FDCPA, finding that the two can be reconciled. Consequently, the court denied the respondents' motion to dismiss in its entirety.

FDCPADebt CollectionNonpayment ProceedingRent DemandMotion to DismissStatutory PenaltiesPreemption DoctrineCreditor-Debtor RelationsSummary EvictionFormal Pleadings
References
22
Case No. ADJ8835024 ADJ8996815
Regular
Sep 05, 2016

TRACIE KEILLOR vs. COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the applicant's petition for reconsideration. The Board affirmed its prior decision that the applicant did not sustain industrial injury to her heart or brain in the form of a stroke. The applicant failed to meet the burden of proof that "heart trouble" medically contributed to her stroke. Furthermore, the Board found no newly discovered evidence, including a civil judgment and expert testimony, that warranted overturning its decision.

Heart troublestrokedeputy sheriffheart presumption statutesLabor Code section 3212.5industrial injurymedical probabilitycollateral estoppelres judicatanewly discovered evidence
References
1
Case No. ADJ11339054, ADJ10362180
Regular
Mar 20, 2023

DONALD TERRY vs. STATE OF CALIFORNIA

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the Defendant's Petition for Reconsideration. The Board affirmed the Administrative Law Judge's (ALJ) award finding industrial injury to the applicant's head, brain, heart, and stroke, in addition to previously stipulated knee injuries. This decision was based on the fact that the original stipulation expressly left the head, brain, heart, and stroke claims open for further litigation. Medical evidence supported these additional injuries as a compensable consequence of the initial knee injury.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and Awardadministrative law judgeindustrial injurycumulative traumapermanent disabilityapportionmentfurther medical treatmentstipulated award
References
1
Case No. ADJ6626086
Regular
Feb 06, 2017

DAVID ROBINSON vs. CITY OF FRESNO

This case involves a police officer who suffered a stroke and hypertension. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board rescinded the prior award, finding the Labor Code Section 3212.5 presumption of "heart trouble" did not apply to the applicant's 2008 stroke. However, the case is returned to the trial level to develop the record on whether the applicant's employment caused his hypertension, which then led to the stroke. The defendant can also present arguments regarding permanent disability calculation upon remand.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardCity of Fresnopolice officerindustrial injuryhypertensioncerebellar strokeLabor Code Section 3212.5presumption of industrial injuryleft ventricular hypertrophyechocardiogram
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 19, 1975

Claim of Alperin v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co.

The claimant, on March 12, 1971, experienced acute heart failure or insufficiency due to excessive work effort, aggravating a pre-existing heart defect caused by a damaged aortic valve. The Workers' Compensation Board determined that a subsequent operation to replace the defective aortic valve and its sequelae were causally related to this work activity. Appellants contested this finding, arguing a lack of substantial evidence. However, the record contained unequivocal medical testimony confirming that the specific work effort caused the condition to become symptomatic, necessitating the operation to alleviate symptoms. The court affirmed the Board's decision, finding a clear causal link.

Heart ConditionWork-Related InjuryCausationAortic Valve ReplacementMedical TestimonyPre-existing ConditionWorkers' Compensation AppealSurgical NecessityAggravation of Injury
References
1
Case No. ADJ830218 (LAO 0885923)
Regular
Mar 12, 2012

Michael Evans vs. STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, CALIFORNIA YOUTH AUTHORITY, c/o STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied Michael Evans' petition for reconsideration. The Board adopted the Workers' Compensation Judge's report, which found that the presumption of industrial heart injury was rebutted. This rebuttal was based on Dr. Levister's opinion that the applicant's heart disease was caused by alcoholism, not industrial hypertension or stroke. Additionally, the applicant's attorney was admonished for attaching inappropriate documents to the petition.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationDr. Levisterrebuts presumptionnon-industrial causationheart diseaseAppeals Board Rule 10842(c)sanctionable conductAppeals Board Rule 10561Findings and Award
References
9
Case No. ADJ10737420, ADJ11230735
Regular
May 28, 2019

METHVEN BROWN (Deceased), JANINE BROWN (Widow) vs. COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO, Permissibly Self-Insured, SACRAMENTO COUNTY PROBATION DEPARTMENT

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration of a decision finding no industrial injury to the decedent's heart or cerebrovascular system. The widow argued the administrative law judge erred by disallowing further discovery from a cardiologist. However, the Board adopted the judge's report, which noted a neurologist already testified that heart trouble and industrial stress were not medically probable causes of the decedent's stroke and death. The applicants failed to demonstrate why a cardiologist would be more competent to offer such opinions.

Methven BrownJanine BrownCounty of SacramentoSacramento County Probation DepartmentADJ10737420ADJ11230735Petition for ReconsiderationJoint Findings and Orderindustrial injuryheart injury
References
0
Showing 1-10 of 436 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