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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 30, 2013

Soodoo v. LC, LLC

This case involves an appeal by defendants LC, LLC, and Limrink Realty Corp. against an order dismissing their cross-claims for contribution, indemnification, and breach of contract against co-defendant Atlantic Contracting of New York, Inc. The original action was brought by an unnamed plaintiff for personal injuries sustained at a construction site. The Supreme Court initially granted Atlantic's motion to dismiss the cross-claims. On appeal, the court reversed the lower court's decision, finding that the cross-claims stated cognizable causes of action. Consequently, the cross-claims were denied dismissal and converted into third-party causes of action.

Personal InjuryConstruction SiteCross-claimsContributionIndemnificationBreach of ContractMotion to DismissCPLR 3211(a)(7)Appellate DivisionThird-Party Action
References
16
Case No. ADJ8672614
Regular
Aug 07, 2015

ROBERT OSBORN vs. COUNTY OF FRESNO, AMERICAN ALL RISK LOSS ADMINISTRATORS

This case involves Robert Osborn, a correctional sergeant, who filed a workers' compensation claim for Hepatitis C contracted in 2006. The County of Fresno is challenging the finding that the presumption of injury under LC 3212.8 applies to a correctional sergeant, arguing the applicant did not prove specific exposure or that the injury was work-related. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the defendant's petition for reconsideration, adopting the WCJ's report which found the presumption applicable to the applicant's role. The WCJ determined that correctional sergeants are engaged in "active law enforcement" and that LC 3212.8 does not require proof of specific exposure, only that the disease manifested during service.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationWorkers' Compensation Administrative Law JudgeCorrectional SergeantHepatitis CPresumption of InjuryLC 3212.8Active Law EnforcementCustodial EmergenciesCumulative Trauma
References
4
Case No. ADJ8621726
Regular
Jul 18, 2019

LEONARD DE LA ROSA vs. KLOECKNER TRAVELERS COMPANY OF AMERICA, USA PROPERTY AMERICA, HOLDINGS; CASUALTY

This case involves a defendant challenging a permanent total disability award for an applicant who sustained a neurological injury. The defendant argued the QME's revised opinion on causation and disability was not substantial evidence, and that Labor Code section 4662(a)(4)'s conclusive presumption of total disability violates apportionment requirements. The Board denied reconsideration, affirming the WCJ's findings. They found the QME's reporting constituted substantial evidence, and importantly, that the conclusive presumption under LC 4662(a)(4) overrides apportionment requirements.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPermanent Total DisabilityLabor Code section 4662(a)(4)Permanent Mental IncapacityQualified Medical EvaluatorNeurological InjuryNeurodegenerative DisorderApportionmentLabor Code section 4663Medical Evidence
References
2
Case No. ADJ885979 (LBO 0310057)
Regular
Feb 20, 2014

WALTER CERVANTES vs. UNITED AIRLINES INFLIGHT SERVICES, GALLAGHER BASSETT SERVICES, INC.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted the applicant's Petition for Removal to address the WCJ's exclusion of the Labor Code section 5402 presumption of compensability. The Board held that this presumption can be raised for the first time at trial, even if not listed on the pre-trial conference statement. The case is returned to the trial level for the WCJ to consider the presumption, ensuring the defendant has an opportunity to present evidence and witnesses on the issue. This decision aligns with precedent allowing presumptions to be raised at trial under certain circumstances.

Petition for RemovalPresumption of CompensabilityLabor Code Section 5402Mandatory Settlement ConferencePretrial Conference StatementWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardWCJOrder Granting PetitionDecision After RemovalDue Process
References
3
Case No. ANA 0357324
Regular
Aug 20, 2007

ANDRES QUINONES vs. AN'S WORLD SERVICE INC., STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted SCIF's petition for removal to reconsider a prior order regarding a lien claimant's (LC) right to payment. SCIF argued LC lacked standing because it failed to prove it held a required fictitious name permit from the Medical Board, while LC contended it was an "outpatient setting" exempt from such a permit. The Board rescinded the original order and returned the case for the WCJ to determine if LC is an "outpatient setting" or a "clinic" to assess its compliance with licensing and fictitious name requirements.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardRemovalLien ClaimantFictitious Name PermitMedical BoardOutpatient SettingClinicLicensureBusiness and Professions CodeStokes v. Patton State Hospital
References
1
Case No. AD10634736
Regular
Nov 16, 2019

ORACIO CARRANZA vs. COUNTY OF IMPERIAL

This case concerns a deputy probation officer's claim for industrial heart injury. Initially, the administrative law judge (WCJ) found the applicant's claim rebutted the presumption of industrial injury. Both applicant and defendant sought reconsideration, with the defendant arguing the presumption didn't apply and the applicant asserting it was improperly rebutted. The Appeals Board denied both petitions, affirming the applicant is covered by the presumption under Labor Code section 3212.10, but agreeing the presumption was rebutted by independent medical evidence pointing to non-industrial causes.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardLabor Code section 3212.10peace officer presumptionheart troubleindustrial injurydeputy probation officerindependent medical evaluatorpresumption rebuttalanti-attribution clausepreponderance of the evidence
References
4
Case No. ADJ9773810
Regular
Oct 25, 2017

Michele Ligouri vs. CITY OF CONCORD, YORK RISK SERVICES GROUP

This case involves a police officer's claim for workers' compensation benefits for breast cancer. The applicant was entitled to a legal presumption that her cancer was industrially caused. The defendant argued the presumption was rebutted because the latency period for her cancer exceeded her period of employment, based on a QME's opinion. However, the Appeals Board found the QME's opinion did not definitively rule out a shorter latency period for the applicant's aggressive cancer, thus failing to rebut the presumption. The Board granted reconsideration, amended the findings to include the presumption, and returned the case for further proceedings.

Labor Code section 3212.1presumptionindustrial cumulative trauma injurybreast cancerlatency periodQualified Medical Evaluator (QME)rebuttedmedical probabilityaggressive form of cancercarcinogens
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 09, 1981

Claim of Yarter v. S. R. Beltrone, Inc.

A carpenter died from a cerebral hemorrhage after being found unconscious next to a ladder at work, an incident unwitnessed but occurring shortly after he was seen working on the ladder. The Workers' Compensation Board ruled it an industrial accident and applied the presumption of Section 21 of the Workers’ Compensation Law. The employer and its insurance carrier appealed, challenging the application of the presumption and the sufficiency of the medical evidence regarding causation. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, holding that the presumption was properly applied given the unwitnessed fall at work, and that the medical testimony supported the finding of causation, thereby upholding the Board's determination that the presumption had not been rebutted.

Cerebral HemorrhageIndustrial AccidentUnwitnessed FallWorkers' Compensation Law Section 21Presumption of CompensabilityMedical CausationAppellate ReviewEmployer LiabilityInsurance Carrier LiabilityWorkers' Compensation Board Decision
References
9
Case No. ADJ14723140
Regular
Aug 08, 2025

Phillip Howlett, et al. vs. California Highway Patrol, State Compensation Insurance Fund

Defendant California Highway Patrol sought reconsideration of a 'Findings and Award' which applied a presumption of compensability for cancer, resulting in the applicant's death. Defendant argued it had rebutted the presumption and that applicant's subsequent employer, University of California Police Department, was liable. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration to correct technical errors in the original F&A, rescinding and reissuing it without substantive changes. The Board affirmed that the Labor Code section 3212.1 cancer presumption applied to CHP employment and was not rebutted. It further clarified that the presumption does not extend to the University of California Police Department, and the defendant provided no evidence of causation under traditional analysis for the subsequent employer.

ADJ14723140Phillip HowlettCalifornia Highway Patrollegally uninsuredState Compensation Insurance FundPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and AwardLabor Code Section 3212.1cancerpresumption of compensability
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Interstate Mechanical Contractors, Inc. v. McIntosh

Billy McIntosh sustained a severe hand injury while operating a power roller machine at Interstate Mechanical Contractors, Inc. He subsequently tested positive for marijuana, triggering a statutory presumption under Tennessee's Drug-Free Workplace Act that his drug use proximately caused the injury. The trial court, however, found that McIntosh successfully rebutted this presumption, concluding that the injury was proximately caused by an inexperienced coworker engaging the machine, not McIntosh's impaired reaction time. Interstate Mechanical Contractors, Inc. appealed this decision, arguing the trial court erred in its application of the statutory presumption and causation. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, upholding the finding that McIntosh had successfully rebutted the presumption.

References
10
Showing 1-10 of 840 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