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. ADJ9184413
Regular
Oct 27, 2020

JEFFREY SPRINGER vs. RJ DONOVAN CORRECTIONAL FACILITY, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

This case involves a workers' compensation claim by Jeffrey Springer against RJ Donovan Correctional Facility. The Applicant sustained injuries resulting in industrially caused hypertension, hypertensive kidney disease, and hypertensive heart disease. The primary dispute centered on how to combine a prior 28% permanent disability rating for kidney disease with a new 49% rating for heart disease. The defendant argued these were part of a single cardiovascular system and sought to subtract the prior award's monetary value from the new rating. The WCJ found the injuries to the kidney and heart were distinct, justifying combining them, and awarded 63% permanent disability after deducting the prior award's value. The Appeals Board denied the defendant's petition for reconsideration, adopting the WCJ's reasoning.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardRJ Donovan Correctional FacilityLegally UninsuredState Compensation Insurance FundPetition for ReconsiderationPermanent DisabilityHypertensionHypertensive Kidney DiseaseHypertensive Heart DiseaseHypertensive Cardiovascular Disease
References
1
Case No. ADJ3104033 (OAK 0342486)
Regular
Dec 12, 2020

JAMES BARNES vs. DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION, STATE OF CALIFORNIA

This case involves a correctional officer with stipulated industrial injuries to his heart, cardiovascular system, kidneys, sleep disorder, and psyche. The defendant sought reconsideration of an award of total permanent disability, arguing the presumption under Labor Code 3212.2 did not apply to the kidney condition and that apportionment was possible. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, rescinded specific findings related to the kidney condition and presumption, but affirmed the total permanent disability award based on the combined effects of the presumed industrial heart trouble and admitted industrial kidney disease. The matter was returned to the trial level for further development of the record regarding the kidney issues and apportionment.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardDepartment of Corrections and Rehabilitationcorrectional officerindustrial injuryheart injurycardiovascular systemkidneyssleep disorderpsychetotal permanent disability
References
0
Case No. ADJ3526973 (SDO 0315558) ADJ2783481 (SDO 0355255)
Regular
Jan 21, 2011

THEMAS CARMODY vs. CITY OF SAN DIEGO POLICE DEPARTMENT

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board reversed a WCJ's decision finding no industrial injury to the applicant's heart and hypertension. The Board found that the Agreed Medical Evaluator's initial reports strongly supported industrial causation for hypertension and heart trouble, triggering the Labor Code section 3212.5 presumption. The Board held the AME's subsequent deposition testimony, which reversed his opinion without adequate explanation and rejected the legislative premise of stress-induced heart disease, was insufficient to rebut the presumption. Consequently, both the applicant's heart/hypertension claim and a previously decided claim for lung and hernia injuries were returned to the trial level for benefit determination.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPolice SergeantHeart ConditionHypertensionLabor Code Section 3212.5Presumption of CompensabilityAgreed Medical EvaluatorRebuttal of PresumptionIndustrial CausationDeposition Testimony
References
6
Case No. ADJ6456347
Regular
Jan 30, 2012

MARK WILLIAMS vs. CITY OF PASADENA

This case involves a police officer claiming industrial injury to his heart due to hypertensive heart disease, a condition he argued was distinct from previously compensated hypertension. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) rescinded the administrative law judge's decision, finding the claim was not barred by res judicata. The WCAB clarified that while hypertension alone is not considered heart trouble, left ventricular hypertrophy, as diagnosed in the current claim, constitutes a distinct condition. The case is returned to the trial level for further proceedings on other unresolved issues.

res judicatahypertensive heart diseasepolice officerLabor Code section 3212.5heart trouble presumptionleft ventricular hypertrophystipulated awardindustrial injurypermanent disabilityapportionment
References
6
Case No. ADJ8279816 ADJ9818108
Regular
Aug 29, 2017

JAY SEVOIAN vs. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

This case involves a deputy sheriff seeking workers' compensation for cumulative industrial injuries. The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) found compensable injuries to the applicant's knees, asthma, sleep disorder, hemorrhoids, irritable bowel syndrome, and hypertensive heart disease. The Defendant sought reconsideration, arguing that the hypertensive heart disease should only be attributed to the later injury date. The Board denied reconsideration, adopting the ALJ's report, which found that the stress from the original cumulative injury contributed to the hypertensive heart disease as a "new and further disability" or a "compensable consequence injury." Therefore, the injuries were correctly combined for a single permanent disability award, with no apportionment.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardDeputy SheriffCumulative InjuryHypertensive Heart DiseaseLabor Code Section 3212Permanent DisabilityApportionmentNew and Further DisabilityCompensable Consequence InjuriesAgreed Medical Evaluator
References
5
Case No. ADJ8508948
Regular
Apr 04, 2014

JOHN GIESE vs. COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT, SEDGWICK CMS

The applicant sought reconsideration for additional benefits related to his hypertension, claiming it was a work-related heart injury under Labor Code sections 3212 and 3212.5. The Board denied reconsideration, affirming the judge's finding that hypertension alone, without end-organ damage, is not considered "heart trouble" for the purposes of these presumptions. Medical evidence indicated the applicant had no loss of cardiac function due to coronary artery disease and that the cause of his hypertension was complex and not demonstrably work-related. Therefore, his petition was denied.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationCumulative Industrial InjuryCardiovascular SystemSheriff's DepartmentTemporary DisabilityPermanent DisabilityHypertensionPresumption of CompensabilityLabor Code Sections 3212
References
3
Case No. ADJ4129353 (VNO 0559667)
Regular
Jun 09, 2010

DONALD GRIFFIN vs. CITY OF TORRANCE, Permissibly Self-Insured

This case involves a firefighter claiming industrial injury to hypertension, cardiovascular, spine, and gastrointestinal systems. The defendant sought reconsideration, arguing the WCJ erred in denying apportionment for the applicant's hypertensive heart disease and spine injury. The Appeals Board denied reconsideration, agreeing with the WCJ that the orthopedic apportionment by the Agreed Medical Examiner was too speculative. The Board also found the WCJ correctly relied on the internal medicine AME's opinion to conclude the hypertensive heart disease resulted from a single cumulative trauma period.

WCABADJ4129353VNO 0559667firefighterhypertensioncardiovascularspine injurygastrointestinalpermanent disabilityapportionment
References
8
Case No. ADJ3259433 (GOL 0088786) ADJ1074235 (GOL 0094396)
Regular
Aug 28, 2009

Sonnia Waugh vs. FRANCISCAN FRIARS OF CALIFORNIA, CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION for RELIANCE INSURANCE COMPANY, In Liquidation

This case involves a workers' compensation claim for industrial injuries to the back, lower extremities, and heart, with a dispute over psyche injury. The Appeals Board affirmed the finding of industrial heart injury, relying on medical evidence that the prescribed pain medication contributed to the heart attack. However, the Board deferred the issue of psyche injury, remanding it for further proceedings to determine if it arose from the industrial injury and to potentially reassess permanent disability and attorney's fees. The matter of cumulative trauma injury in a separate claim was also left unresolved at the trial level.

CIGAReliance Insurance CompanyWCJindustrial injuryspecific injurycumulative traumareconsiderationsubstantial evidenceapportionmentmedical treatment
References
8
Case No. ADJ2335090 (SFO 0510716)
Regular
Oct 07, 2010

YOLANDA SMITH vs. CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration of a decision finding a deceased deputy sheriff's death to be industrially related due to a heart presumption under Labor Code section 3212.5. Despite the deceased being involved in a non-work-related car accident, the court found the heart presumption applicable, deeming his hypertension a contributing factor to his death. The defendants' arguments regarding the "going and coming rule" and lack of substantial evidence were rejected. The Board affirmed that the presumption, along with medical evidence of hypertensive heart disease hastening death, established the injury arose out of and occurred in the course of employment.

Labor Code 3212.5Heart PresumptionGoing and Coming RuleProximate CauseHypertensionEnd Organ DamageAnatomic EvidenceEnlarged HeartLeft Ventricular HypertrophySarcoidosis
References
7
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
Showing 1-10 of 967 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