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. SRO 108858
Regular
Aug 13, 2008

RANDY S. HOGAN, M.D. vs. CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN FRANCISCO

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) denied the defendant's petition for reconsideration, upholding the finding of industrial injury to the applicant's liver. However, the WCAB granted the lien claimant's petition, rescinding the established date of injury as December 1994. The case is returned to the trial level for further proceedings to determine the correct date the applicant first suffered a compensable disability from the liver injury.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and OrderLabor Code §5402Labor Code §5412Date of InjuryIndustrial InjuryCompensable DisabilityHepatitis CLiver Disease
References
0
Case No. 2015-01-0023, 2018-01-0003, 2018-01-0008
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 04, 2019

Johnston, Johnny v. Siskin Steel & Supply Co./Reliance Steel & Aluminum Co.

Johnny Johnston, an employee of Siskin Steel & Supply Co./Reliance Steel & Aluminum Co. for nearly 40 years, filed claims for liver, cardiac, and kidney conditions, alleging occupational exposure to heavy metals. The court consolidated three claims related to different dates of injury but the same occupational exposure. The primary issue was whether his conditions arose primarily out of and in the course of employment. The court, after considering conflicting expert testimonies, found that Mr. Johnston's work exposed him to heavy-metal contaminants, which accumulated in his system and primarily caused his liver, cardiac, and kidney conditions. Consequently, the court awarded Mr. Johnston medical benefits for ongoing treatment and permanent partial disability benefits amounting to 265.5 weeks or $172,832.00, to be paid in weekly or biweekly installments.

Occupational DiseaseHeavy Metal ExposureLiver DiseaseCardiac DiseaseKidney DiseasePermanent Partial DisabilityWorkers' Compensation AwardExpert Medical TestimonyCausation AnalysisHair Test Reliability
References
9
Case No. ADJ9525033
Regular
May 10, 2019

KIMBERLY BARRY vs. DEPARTMENT OF FOOD AND AGRICULTURE, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

This case involves an appeal by the defendant, Department of Food and Agriculture, regarding the calculation of permanent disability ratings for applicant Kimberly Barry's cumulative trauma injury. The defendant contests the method used to combine the applicant's multiple body part impairments, arguing the Combined Values Chart (CVC) should have been used instead of simple addition. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration to further develop the medical record. The Board requires clarification from the Qualified Medical Evaluator on the most accurate method for combining the applicant's kidney and liver impairments.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and AwardDepartment of Food and AgricultureState Compensation Insurance FundKimberly BarryAgricultural TechnicianCumulative Trauma InjuryPermanent DisabilityApportionment
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Tinelli v. Ken Duncan, Ltd.

The decedent, a photographic darkroom technician for 30 years, developed cancer of the pancreas, gallbladder, and liver, dying at age 51. An Administrative Law Judge initially denied workers' compensation benefits, but the Workers’ Compensation Board reversed, finding the cancer was an occupational disease caused by prolonged exposure to darkroom chemicals. The employer and insurance carrier appealed, arguing insufficient evidence of causation and exposure. The court affirmed the Board's decision, citing substantial evidence from medical experts who linked the decedent's cancer to chemical exposure and noting that such chemicals were commonly used in photographic development.

Occupational DiseaseCancerChemical ExposureDarkroom TechnicianCausationExpert TestimonyAppellate ReviewAdministrative LawMedical OpinionIndustrial Hazard
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 28, 2007

Petrocelli v. Sewanhaka Central School District

The claimant's husband (decedent) died while coaching a high school basketball game. An autopsy revealed the cause of death was a spontaneous rupture of the splenic artery due to portal hypertension, cirrhosis of the liver, and chemotherapy. The claimant filed for workers' compensation death benefits, but a Workers' Compensation Law Judge and the Workers' Compensation Board ruled that the presumption of a causally related death under Workers' Compensation Law § 21 had been rebutted. This was based on evidence in the death certificate indicating non-work-related factors. The claimant appealed the decision, but the Board's finding was affirmed, requiring the claimant to provide proof of a causally related death.

Workers' CompensationDeath BenefitsCausationPresumption of CompensabilityRebuttal of PresumptionAutopsy FindingsSplenic Artery RupturePortal HypertensionCirrhosisChemotherapy
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 26, 1983

Claim of Fallon v. Johns-Manville Sales Corp.

John Fallon filed a claim for compensation against his employer, Johns-Manville, alleging pulmonary asbestosis from 38 years of asbestos exposure. He later died of carcinoma of the liver, with asbestosis noted as a contributing cause. His widow filed for death benefits. Initially, an administrative law judge disallowed the claims, finding no total disability from asbestosis and an unrelated cause of death. However, the Workers’ Compensation Board reversed, ruling that Fallon's disability and death were causally related to asbestosis. The employer and its insurer appealed this reversal, but the appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, finding substantial evidence to support it despite conflicting medical expert testimonies.

Occupational DiseaseAsbestosisPulmonary AsbestosisCarcinoma of LiverCausally Related DeathWorkers' CompensationDisability BenefitsAppellate ReviewSubstantial EvidenceMedical Disagreement
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Pulos v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec.

Plaintiff Sharon K. Pulos sought judicial review of the Commissioner of Social Security's final decision denying her application for disability insurance benefits. Plaintiff alleged disability due to multiple impairments including a brain tumor, liver transplant, diabetes, and depression, with an onset date of February 1, 2008. An Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) found Plaintiff not disabled, concluding her impairments were not severe enough to significantly limit basic work activities during the relevant period. The District Court affirmed the Commissioner's decision, finding it supported by substantial evidence and free from legal error, and denied Plaintiff's motion for judgment on the pleadings.

Social Security ActDisability Insurance BenefitsALJ DecisionSubstantial EvidenceSeverity StandardCognitive ImpairmentPsychological ImpairmentBrain SurgeryLiver TransplantDiabetes
References
23
Case No. ADJ11060751
Regular
Jan 20, 2023

JUAN RUIZ vs. SK FLOOR COVERING, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

Here's a concise summary for a lawyer: The applicant sought reconsideration of a prior decision that denied his petition to reopen, which claimed new and further injuries, including liver and kidney issues from medication and sores on his extremities. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, rescinded the prior decision, and remanded the case. This action was taken due to the Appeals Board's failure to act on the petition within the statutory timeframe, thereby tolling the deadline, and because the initial investigation did not comply with the duty to investigate under Admin Director Rule 10109 and Labor Code Section 4061(i) concerning new permanent impairment claims. The matter is returned to the WCJ for further proceedings to develop the record regarding these new claims.

Petition to ReopenFindings and OrderPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and AwardQualified Medical ExaminerMaximum Medical ImprovementPermanent DisabilityBody Parts ClaimedPsychiatric InjuryMedical Evaluation
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Kaczor v. Vanchem, Inc.

Plaintiffs initiated an action for damages due to injuries allegedly sustained by Robert G. Kaczor from exposure to chemical fumes from Vanchem, Inc.'s facility. The Supreme Court erred by not dismissing the complaint against Van DeMark Chemical Co., Inc., a sister company, as there was no unity of interest between the entities. Furthermore, the court also erred in not dismissing the complaint against Vanchem regarding claims of liver damage, irritable bowel syndrome, and chronic fatigue syndrome. Defendants provided expert proof refuting the plaintiff's physician's opinion on causation, which lacked a generally accepted scientific basis. The order was modified, dismissing the complaint entirely against Van DeMark and partially against Vanchem for the specified injuries.

Chemical ExposurePhosgeneIsopropyl ChloroformateSummary JudgmentCorporate VeilUnity of InterestMedical CausationExpert TestimonyLiver DamageIrritable Bowel Syndrome
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Gannon v. New York State Department of Taxation & Finance

The claimant, a seasonal auditor, sought workers' compensation benefits due to alleged exposure to paint fumes, pesticides, and other airborne toxins at her workplace in Albany, resulting in symptoms like dizziness, heart palpitations, and later, upper airway irritation and liver damage. The Workers' Compensation Board ruled she suffered an accidental injury from paint fume exposure in September 1992 but found no continuing causally related disability. Medical experts testified that the claimant's symptoms were primarily manifestations of an anxiety disorder, not environmental contaminants, and that any effects from paint fumes would be short-lived. The decision of the Workers’ Compensation Board was affirmed, as there was substantial evidence to support the conclusion that the claimant did not suffer from any continuing disability attributable to the accident or other alleged exposures.

Workers' CompensationCausally Related DisabilityEnvironmental ContaminantsPaint Fumes ExposureAnxiety DisorderPsychiatric SymptomsLiver DamageMedical Expert TestimonySubstantial EvidenceAppellate Review
References
7
Showing 1-10 of 12 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