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. 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. 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. ADJ10553459
Regular
Feb 23, 2018

JAMES CRAIG SILLERS vs. CITY OF PLEASANT HILL, MUNICIPAL POOLING AUTHORITY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the defendant's petition for reconsideration, affirming the administrative law judge's award of 47% permanent disability benefits to applicant James Sillers. The central dispute concerned whether Sillers was entitled to the maximum disability indemnity rate under Labor Code section 4458.5. The Board majority held that Sillers, a retired police officer with orthopedic injuries, qualified for the maximum rate, interpreting section 4458.5 to apply to any public safety member injured within the timeframes specified in listed presumption statutes, not solely to injuries covered by those specific presumptions. A dissenting opinion argued that only injuries falling under the explicitly enumerated presumptions in section 4458.5 qualified for the maximum rate, citing precedent that non-listed presumptions, like cancer under section 3212.1, did not grant this benefit.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardCity of Pleasant HillMunicipal Pooling AuthorityCumulative Trauma InjuryCervical SpineLumbar SpineBilateral Cubital TunnelsPolice OfficerStatute of LimitationsLabor Code Section 4458.5
References
4
Case No. ADJ9750276
Regular
Aug 21, 2017

SANDRA KIMBER (DECEASED) vs. CITY OF LOS ANGELES; Permissibly SelfInsured

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration and rescinded a prior award finding Sandra Kimber's death compensable under the police officer pneumonia presumption. The Board found the decedent's cause of death, acute bronchiotracheopneumonitis, is medically distinct from pneumonia and therefore not covered by the statutory presumption. The case was returned for further proceedings to determine if the injury is compensable absent the presumption and to establish dependency for death benefits.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardSandra Kimber (Deceased)City of Los Angelesself-insuredADJ9750276Petition for ReconsiderationFindings and Awardindustrial injurydeath benefitLabor Code section 3212
References
0
Case No. ADJ11629176
Regular
Dec 30, 2019

Isabel Aguirre vs. STATE OF CALIFORNIA

This case involves an applicant correctional officer who claimed industrial injury to her back, neck, and shoulder. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration, finding the applicant is not entitled to the Labor Code section 3213.2 presumption. This presumption, for lower back impairments, explicitly applies only to specific law enforcement classifications, not correctional officers. The Board amended the prior decision to remove the presumption and ordered further medical record development.

Labor Code §3213.2PresumptionPeace OfficerCorrectional OfficerDuty BeltReconsiderationFindings and AwardWCJMedical RecordPeace Officer Classification
References
2
Case No. ADJ9719037
Regular
Jun 13, 2019

WILLIAM MICHELS vs. UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO

In this workers' compensation case, the defendant sought reconsideration of a finding that the applicant sustained a cumulative trauma injury. The defendant argued that a Qualified Medical Examiner's report, obtained after the 90-day statutory period, should be admissible to rebut the presumption of compensability. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the petition, adopting the judge's reasoning that the defendant failed to timely deny the claim, triggering the presumption. The Board found no admissible evidence presented to overcome this presumption within the required timeframe.

cumulative trauma injuryLabor Code section 5402presumption of compensabilitytimely denialQualified Medical ExaminerEli HendelM.D.90-day periodrebut presumptionPetition for Reconsideration
References
0
Case No. ADJ7494670
Regular
Jun 01, 2012

JOSEPH CURRAN, Deceased, JERI CURRAN, Spouse vs. CITY OF SACRAMENTO

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration of a decision finding that the deceased firefighter, Joseph Curran, suffered a heart injury arising out of and in the course of employment. The Board affirmed that the Labor Code Section 3212 heart trouble presumption applied. The defendant failed to rebut this presumption by demonstrating that a contemporaneous non-work-related event was the *sole* cause of the heart trouble. Dr. Bellinger's testimony, while stating the presumption was necessary, did not affirmatively prove exclusive non-industrial causation.

Labor Code 3212heart trouble presumptionindustrial causationrebutted presumptionanti-attribution clausesole causenonwork-related eventcumulative injuryfirefighterdeath benefits
References
5
Showing 1-10 of 578 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