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. ADJ4327434
Regular
Mar 09, 2010

MICHAEL WALKER vs. CENTRAL STRIPING SERVICE, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND, SEDGWICK, CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION, BROADSPIRE

This case involves a worker claiming industrial cancer, initially alleging "lung cancer." While the applicant's petitions to reconsider the initial adverse finding were untimely, the Appeals Board granted reconsideration on its own motion due to the WCJ's recommendation. The Board rescinded the initial finding, returning the case for further proceedings to address whether the applicant's diagnosed "mantle cell lymphoma" is industrially caused, as this issue was implicitly litigated. A new Agreed Medical Examiner has been appointed to resolve the medical causation dispute.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetitions for ReconsiderationUntimely FilingJurisdictionMotion of Appeals BoardDecision After ReconsiderationFindings of FactIndustrial InjuryLung CancerMantle Cell Lymphoma
References
3
Case No. ADJ8493192, ADJ8386046
Regular
Feb 05, 2016

HECTOR CAMPOS vs. CELL-CRETE CORPORATION, OLD REPUBLIC GENERAL INSURANCE CORPORATION, GALLAGHER BASSETT SERVICES, INC., INFRASOURCE, OLD REPUBLIC INSURANCE COMPANY

This case involves applicant Hector Campos seeking reconsideration of a Findings and Award concerning cumulative injuries sustained while employed by Cell-Crete Corporation and Infrasource. The Workers' Compensation Judge (WCJ) found applicant sustained a curable injury at Cell-Crete but no injury at Infrasource. Applicant argued improper consolidation and need for further discovery, while Cell-Crete asserted a post-termination defense and challenged the WCJ's reliance on an Agreed Medical Evaluator's opinion. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) reviewed the petitions and answers, ultimately adopting the WCJ's report and denying reconsideration, affirming the original Findings and Award.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardCell-Crete CorporationOld Republic General Insurance CorporationGallagher Bassett ServicesInc.InfrasourceOld Republic Insurance CompanyADJ8493192ADJ8386046Deputy Commissioner
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Messier v. Bouchard Transportation

Plaintiff Richard Messier, a seaman, filed a maritime action against Bouchard Transportation Co., Inc., initially alleging negligence and unseaworthiness, and seeking maintenance and cure for B-cell lymphoma. Messier later dropped his Jones Act claim. The primary legal question was the definition of "manifest" for admiralty purposes: whether an asymptomatic illness contracted while in service but diagnosed later qualifies for maintenance and cure. The court denied Messier's motion for summary judgment and granted Bouchard's cross-motion, ruling that "manifest" requires the exhibition of symptoms while in the service of the ship. Additionally, the court rejected Messier's alternative theory that he was entitled to maintenance and cure for lymphoma because it manifested while he was potentially eligible for maintenance and cure for a back injury, as he was not actively receiving such benefits. As a result, Messier's motion for leave to amend his complaint was denied as moot.

Maritime LawJones ActMaintenance and CureSeamanB-cell LymphomaAsymptomatic DiseaseManifestation of IllnessSummary JudgmentSecond CircuitDisease Onset
References
29
Case No. ADJ8386046, ADJ8493192
Regular
Oct 13, 2015

HECTOR CAMPOS vs. CELL-CRETE CORPORATION, OLD REPUBLIC GENERAL INSURANCE CORPORATION, GALLAGHER BASSETT SERVICES, INC., INFRASOURCE, OLD REPUBLIC INSURANCE COMPANY

This case involves a petition for reconsideration filed by both the applicant and the defendant, Cell-Crete, concerning a decision issued on July 22, 2015. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) has granted reconsideration to allow for a more thorough review of the factual and legal issues presented. This decision is necessary to ensure a just and reasoned outcome after a complete understanding of the record. All further correspondence related to the petitions must be filed directly with the WCAB Commissioners' office.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDPETITION FOR RECONSIDERATIONCELL-CRETE CORPORATIONOLD REPUBLIC GENERAL INSURANCE CORPORATIONGALLAGHER BASSETT SERVICES INCINFRASOURCEADJ8386046ADJ8493192San Francisco District OfficeOPINION AND ORDER
References
0
Case No. ADJ8157891
Regular
Apr 15, 2016

JESSE CASTELLON vs. ORANGE COUNTY VECTOR CONTROL, ACCLAMATION INSURANCE MANAGEMENT SERVICES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the defendant's petition for reconsideration of a finding that pesticide exposure contributed to the applicant's lymphoma, diabetes, and hypertension. The defendant argued the relied-upon medical expert erred by discussing Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma instead of the applicant's diagnosed Hodgkin's Lymphoma. However, the Board found the expert's report sufficiently addressed Hodgkin's Lymphoma and its link to benzene exposure, incorporating the WCJ's reasoning. Therefore, the Board affirmed the original findings and denied the petition.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationFindings of Factindustrial causationpesticide exposurelymphomadiabeteshypertensionsubstantial medical evidenceDr. Nachman Brautbar
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Jones v. Harris

Plaintiff Robert Jones, an incarcerated individual at Sing Sing, initiated this action alleging his cell was searched multiple times in retaliation for exercising First Amendment rights and in violation of his Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment rights, along with various property deprivations. Defendants, including correctional officers Harris and Allen, and Superintendent Marshall, moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to exhaust administrative remedies and to state a claim. The court granted dismissal of plaintiff's Eighth Amendment claims related to cell searches and alleged sexual harassment, as well as First Amendment retaliation claims concerning cell searches, property destruction, and false misconduct reports, citing insufficient factual allegations or failure to meet constitutional thresholds. However, the court denied dismissal of plaintiff's Fourteenth Amendment due process claim regarding the deprivation of three specific items of property against defendants Allen and Marshall, requesting further legal briefing on questions concerning the exhaustion of administrative remedies and access to post-deprivation procedures. Motions filed by the plaintiff for summary judgment and in limine were denied; the former as futile due to lack of exhaustion or constitutional violation, and the latter as premature.

Prisoner RightsFirst AmendmentEighth AmendmentFourteenth AmendmentDue ProcessRetaliationCell SearchProperty DeprivationQualified ImmunityAdministrative Remedies
References
45
Case No. ADJ10685699
Regular
Jan 22, 2019

DAVID CISAR vs. ORANGE COUNTY FIRE AUTHORITY

This case involved a fire captain who claimed industrial injury for melanoma and lymphoma, with the latter being the focus of the appeal. While the applicant was presumed compensable for leukemia/lymphoma under Labor Code section 3212.1 due to benzene exposure, the defendant successfully rebutted this presumption. The rebuttal was based on an independent medical evaluator's opinion that the short period between negative diagnostic tests and the cancer's manifestation made an industrial link unreasonable. The Board adopted this reasoning, denying the petition for reconsideration.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardOrange County Fire AuthorityPermissibly Self-InsuredCorvel CorporationFire CaptainCumulative InjuryMelanomaLymphomaChronic Lymphocytic LeukemiaSmall Lymphocytic Lymphoma
References
2
Case No. ADJ7721471
Regular
Jun 18, 2012

DANIEL MURPHY vs. CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration to clarify that the applicant's basal cell carcinoma is not an insidious progressive disease, therefore jurisdiction cannot be reserved for future permanent disability beyond the statutory five-year limit. The Board amended the findings to state that the injury was to the applicant's nose, not all sun-exposed skin, and future basal cell carcinomas would be considered new injuries. This decision clarifies that the applicant's current award covers the injury to his nose, and any future skin cancers will require separate claims.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardCalifornia Highway PatrolState Compensation Insurance FundDaniel MurphyHighway Patrol Officerbasal cell carcinomainsidious progressive diseasereservation of jurisdictionLabor Code section 5804General Foundry Service v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Jackson)
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Stanley v. Amalithone Realty, Inc.

The case involves plaintiffs Susan Scott Stanley and Michael C. Stanley suing Amalithone Realty, Inc., and Amalgamated Lithographers of America, Local One, seeking the removal of a cell phone tower from a building rooftop and damages for common-law nuisance, trespass, and related torts. Plaintiffs alleged experiencing various health issues attributed to radio frequency radiation emitted from the tower. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, asserting federal preemption, failure to join an indispensable party, and failure to state a valid cause of action. The court granted the defendants' motion, ruling that AT&T Wireless Services Inc., the tower's owner and operator, was an indispensable party whose absence necessitated dismissal. Furthermore, the court determined that the plaintiffs failed to adequately state causes of action for private nuisance, trespass, unlawful taking, misrepresentation, prima facie tort, strict liability, assault and battery, or vicarious liability, primarily because the cell tower operated in compliance with FCC regulations and the defendants lacked control over its operation.

NuisanceTrespassCell TowerRF RadiationFederal PreemptionIndispensable PartyCPLR 3211Telecommunications ActFCC RegulationsIntentional Infliction of Emotional Distress
References
66
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Cell v. New York City Social Services Department

This legal decision concerns a granted motion to dismiss a cross-appeal initiated by the New York City Social Services Department. The court ruled to dismiss the cross-appeal without awarding any costs to the parties involved. A panel of five justices, including J. P. Kane, Main, Casey, Weiss, and Mikoll, all concurred with this decision. This outcome suggests a resolution to a specific procedural step within a broader legal dispute. The absence of costs indicates the court's discretion not to impose financial penalties related to the dismissal.

Cross AppealMotion to DismissSocial Services DepartmentConcurrenceAppellate Division
References
1
Showing 1-10 of 56 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