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. 2018 NY Slip Op 03795 [161 AD3d 1478]
Regular Panel Decision
May 24, 2018

Matter of Attorneys In Violation of Judiciary Law § 468-a. (Ettelson)

Julie Ann Ettelson, now known as Julie A. Laczkowski, was suspended from practicing law in 2009 due to noncompliance with attorney registration requirements under Judiciary Law § 468-a. She filed a motion for reinstatement in April 2018, which was reviewed by the Attorney Grievance Committee. The Committee provided findings and deferred to the Court's discretion. The Appellate Division, Third Department, found that the respondent met all requirements for reinstatement, including completing the Multistate Professional Responsibility Examination, maintaining current registration, and demonstrating good character and fitness. The Court also determined that her reinstatement would serve the public interest. Consequently, the Court granted her motion and reinstated her as an attorney.

Attorney ReinstatementProfessional MisconductJudiciary LawAttorney Grievance CommitteeAppellate DivisionAttorney RegistrationDisciplinary ProceedingsLegal EthicsSuspension of AttorneyCharacter and Fitness
References
11
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. 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. 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. SDO 244774
Significant
Dec 11, 2003

Walter Faust vs. City of San Diego

The Appeals Board held that under the amended Labor Code section 3212.1, a firefighter only needs to show exposure to a known carcinogen to establish a presumption of industrial cancer, shifting the burden to the defendant to prove no reasonable link.

Labor Code section 3212.1cumulative industrial injuryfirefightercancerpresumptionrebutting presumptionqualified medical evaluatorcarcinogencadmiumplating company fire
References
4
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
1
Case No. ADJ3276532 (OAK 0336096)
Regular
Mar 29, 2011

JERRY DUARTE (Deceased) SHIRLEY DUARTE (Widow) vs. STOESSER INDUSTRIES, SCIF INSURED PLEASANTON, FIREMAN'S FUND SACRAMENTO

This case concerns a widow's claim for workers' compensation death benefits following her husband's cancer death, alleging exposure to carcinogenic chemicals at work. The original finding barred the claim due to the statute of limitations, as the application was filed over a year after the employee's death. The Appeals Board, on reconsideration, reversed this, finding the defendant failed to prove the widow knew or should have known of the industrial causation within the one-year period. Therefore, the claim is not time-barred, and all other issues are returned to the trial level for further proceedings.

Cumulative TraumaCarcinogenic ChemicalsDeath BenefitsStatute of LimitationsIndustrial CausationOccupational ExposureDependent ClaimMedical ConfirmationReasonable DiligenceAffirmative Defense
References
5
Case No. ADJ7101808
Regular
Feb 21, 2014

DAVID GREGOR vs. CITY OF HAWTHORNE, Permissibly Self-Insured By ADMINSURE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied a lien claimant's petition for reconsideration, upholding a prior decision that disallowed the lien. The WCJ found the lien claimant failed to prove treatment was for an industrial injury and that the defendant successfully rebutted the statutory presumption of industrial causation for the applicant's cancer. The Board agreed that the lien claimant did not present substantial evidence of exposure to a known carcinogen, which is required to invoke the presumption. Therefore, the lien claimant failed to meet its burden of proof for industrial causation of the cancer.

Labor Code section 3212.1peace officer presumptionindustrial injurycancer causationrebuttable presumptionknown carcinogenoccupational exposuremedical treatment lienworkers' compensationPetition for Reconsideration
References
9
Case No. ADJ17298965
Regular
Apr 28, 2025

SETH FRANKLIN vs. CITY OF REDLANDS, ADMINSURE

Applicant Seth Franklin, a police officer, sought reconsideration of a WCJ's decision that denied his claim for industrial injury in the form of melanoma. The WCJ initially found applicant was not entitled to the cancer presumption under Labor Code section 3212.1. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, concluding that the WCJ erred. The Board determined that applicant, as a police officer, was exposed to solar radiation (a known carcinogen) and his melanoma developed or manifested during his employment, thus entitling him to the cancer presumption. The case has been returned to the trial level for further proceedings to determine if the presumption can be rebutted.

Labor Code section 3212.1cancer presumptionpolice officermelanomaindustrial injurycarcinogensolar ultraviolet radiationlatency periodrebuttal of presumptioncumulative trauma
References
6
Case No. ADJ769963 (VNO 0196669)
Regular
Nov 25, 2013

GEORGE GIO vs. RAY WANG also known as CHING WANG, RAYMOND LLORENS also known as THOMAS STRONG, doing business as RAYMCO BUILDERS, UNINSURED EMPLOYERS BENEFITS TRUST FUND

This case involves an applicant seeking enforcement of a Rehabilitation Unit (RU) determination for vocational rehabilitation benefits and retroactive VRMA, issued on December 31, 2008. The WCJ initially found the WCAB lacked jurisdiction to enforce the RU determination, which was issued after the critical January 1, 2009, deadline for WCAB jurisdiction over such matters. The Appeals Board rescinded the WCJ's decision because it was improperly made at a Mandatory Settlement Conference over the applicant's objection. The case is remanded for a new hearing before a different WCJ to address the substantive issue of enforceability.

Rehabilitation UnitVocational Rehabilitation Maintenance AllowanceMandatory Settlement ConferenceEnforceabilityJurisdictionRescinded DecisionReassignmentLabor CodeAppeals Board RulesDeclaration of Readiness
References
7
Showing 1-10 of 290 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