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. ADJ9509417
Regular
Apr 05, 2023

ELIZABETH ARBOGAST vs. CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board affirmed an award for further medical treatment and attorney fees for an applicant diagnosed with ovarian cancer, hernia, peripheral neuropathy, and colon issues sustained during her employment with the California Highway Patrol. The Board found the applicant's ovarian cancer to be an insidious and progressive disease, warranting a reservation of jurisdiction over permanent disability. This reservation allows for future determination of permanent disability if the condition worsens or recurs.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardCalifornia Highway Patrolmedically uninsuredState Compensation Insurance FundAdjudication NumberOpinion and Decision After ReconsiderationFindings and Awardworker's compensation administrative law judgeovarian cancerhernia
References
Case No. ADJ1402736
Regular
Jan 04, 2010

SANDY BASTIAN vs. COUNTY OF VENTURA

This case involves a firefighter diagnosed with breast cancer who claimed industrial injury under California Labor Code section 3212.1. The defendant employer argued the statutory presumption of industrial causation was rebutted by an Agreed Medical Examiner's opinion stating the cancer was non-industrial, citing a lack of studies linking female firefighter exposures to breast cancer. The Appeals Board affirmed the WCJ's decision, finding the applicant sufficiently demonstrated exposure to carcinogens and the defendant failed to meet its burden to prove the exposure was "not reasonably linked" to the cancer. The court clarified that the mere absence of specific epidemiological studies does not rebut the presumption under section 3212.1.

Labor Code section 3212.1firefightercancer presumptionindustrial injuryrebuttable presumptioncarcinogen exposureAgreed Medical Examiner (AME)non-industrial causationindustrial causationAppeals Board
References
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
Case No. ADJ9870999
Regular
Feb 13, 2017

ROBIN SMITH vs. CITY OF SUNNYVALE

This case involves a firefighter claiming breast cancer arose from employment exposure to carcinogens, triggering a statutory presumption of industrial causation under Labor Code section 3212.1. The employer sought to rebut this presumption by arguing a medical examiner found no studies linking applicant's specific exposures to breast cancer. However, the Appeals Board denied reconsideration, affirming that the employer failed to prove there is *no reasonable link* between workplace carcinogen exposure and the applicant's cancer, a higher bar than simply the absence of direct scientific studies. The Board reiterated that an employer must affirmatively demonstrate a lack of reasonable connection, not just highlight a lack of studies supporting causation.

Labor Code section 3212.1presumption of industrial causationpublic safety officerfirefightercarcinogen exposurebreast cancerdisputable presumptioncontroverted evidencereasonable linkburden of proof
References
Case No. ADJ6766227
Regular
Mar 25, 2013

DAVID CASE vs. CITY OF FRESNO

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the City of Fresno's petition for reconsideration. The Board affirmed the prior finding that the applicant sustained cumulative industrial injuries of throat/tongue and prostate cancer while employed as a police officer for the City of Fresno. Despite the prostate cancer manifesting after applicant's employment with the City ended, the Board found the City liable based on the long latency period of the cancer and the applicant's presumed exposure to carcinogens during his employment. The defendant failed to rebut the Labor Code section 3212.1 presumption of liability.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardDavid CaseCity of Fresnocumulative industrial injurythroat cancertongue cancerprostate cancerpolice officerLabor Code section 3212.1presumption of compensability
References
Case No. ADJ7949972
Regular
Nov 07, 2013

DANIEL BIGELOW vs. CITY OF PASO ROBLES

This Workers' Compensation Appeals Board decision reverses a prior ruling and finds applicant's colon cancer industrially caused. The employer failed to rebut the Labor Code section 3212.1 presumption of industrial causation for peace officers exposed to carcinogens. The Appeals Board determined the defendant's medical expert did not sufficiently prove the cancer was "not reasonably linked" to the applicant's workplace exposure. Therefore, the presumption stands, and the case is returned for further proceedings.

Labor Code section 3212.1cancer presumptionpeace officeractive law enforcementindustrial injurycolon cancercarcinogen exposurerebuttable presumptionprimary site of cancerlatency period
References
Case No. ADJ9979717, ADJ9983551
Regular
Apr 15, 2020

James Wieboldt vs. County of San Diego

The Appeals Board rescinded two WCJ findings of industrial colon and vocal cord cancer, returning the cases for further proceedings. The Board found the medical opinions of Drs. Woolf and Berman lacked substantial evidence due to issues with causation, exposure details, and reliance on incorrect legal presumptions. While the applicant has the burden to prove industrial causation absent the cancer presumption, the Board determined the current medical record requires further development. The Board also noted discrepancies regarding the applicant's job titles and claimed periods of exposure that need clarification.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardJames WieboldtCounty of San DiegoColon CancerVocal Cord CancerIndustrial InjuryMedical OpinionSubstantial EvidenceLabor Code Section 3212.1Cancer Presumption
References
Case No. ADJ4547482 (SFO 0498140)
Regular
Oct 06, 2009

DAVID EUERLE (Deceased) vs. CITY OF SANTA CLARA

The WCJ found that David Euerle sustained industrial injury/death due to cancer. Defendant sought reconsideration, arguing that applicant did not prove he was exposed to an IARC human carcinogen and did not prove that his injury and death were proximately caused by his employment. The petition for reconsideration was denied.

Labor Code section 3212.1cumulative traumaindustrial injurydeath benefitscancer presumptionIARC carcinogenbenzeneultraviolet lightmetastatic malignant melanomaprimary site of cancer
References
Case No. ADJ7676148
Regular
Oct 17, 2013

CAMERON PRATT vs. SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY SHERIFF DEPARTMENT, COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the Sheriff Department's Petition for Reconsideration regarding a Deputy Sheriff's Hodgkin's Lymphoma claim. The WCJ found the applicant established a prima facie case for a work-related cancer injury under Labor Code section 3212.1. The defendant failed to rebut the presumption of injury with substantial medical evidence, specifically regarding the latency period and a reasonable link between carcinogen exposure and the applicant's aggressive cancer. The Board adopted the WCJ's report and reasoning in its denial.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationDeniedDeputy SheriffContinuous TraumaCancerHodgkin's LymphomaArising Out of and Occurring in the Course of Employment (AOE/COE)Rebutting the PresumptionLabor Code section 3212.1
References
Case No. ADJ8734182
Regular
Dec 17, 2018

JONATHAN MCINTYRE vs. COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

This case involves an applicant, Jonathan McIntyre, a deputy sheriff, claiming bladder cancer as a work-related injury. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) rescinded the prior decision, finding that the medical evidence regarding the latency period of the applicant's bladder cancer was insufficient. The WCAB determined further development of the medical record is required to accurately assess when the cancer "developed" and "manifested" relative to the statutory presumption period. Therefore, the case is returned to the trial level for further proceedings and a new decision by the Workers' Compensation Judge.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardDeputy SheriffBladder CancerLabor Code section 3212.1Presumption of CompensabilityLatency PeriodAgreed Medical EvaluatorManifestation of DiseaseDevelopment of CancerStatutory Presumption
References
Showing 1-10 of 145 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