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. ADJ8835024, ADJ8996815
Regular
Jun 26, 2017

TRACIE KEILLOR vs. COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) is remanding this case for further proceedings. Initially, the WCAB reversed a judge's finding of industrial injury for a stroke under the heart presumption statute. However, the WCAB acknowledges its prior decision was incomplete as it failed to consider if the applicant could establish industrial injury outside the heart presumption, potentially requiring further medical evaluation. The WCAB also notes that a related civil case finding job stress caused the stroke is now final, raising the issue of collateral estoppel. Therefore, the case is returned to the trial level to determine if collateral estoppel applies or if further development of the record is needed to establish an industrial injury independent of the heart presumption.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardRemittiturHeart PresumptionStrokeIndustrial InjuryNewly Discovered EvidenceCollateral EstoppelLabor Code Section 3212.5Sheriff's OfficerNeuroloigical Evaluation
References
1
Case No. ADJ8703877
Regular
Jan 01, 2014

WILLIAM LOZANO (Deceased), CYNTHIA LOZANO (Widow) vs. PYRAMID SERVICES, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

This case involves a widow's claim for workers' compensation benefits for her deceased husband's stomach cancer, alleging it was an industrial injury. The applicant contended her husband, a firefighter for a DoD installation, was entitled to a presumption of industrial injury under Labor Code section 3212.1. However, the Appeals Board affirmed the WCJ's decision, finding the cancer was not industrial because the relevant statute amendment, which would have included DoD firefighters, was not retroactive. Therefore, the presumption of industrial injury did not apply to the decedent's cancer manifestation.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardWilliam LozanoCynthia LozanoPyramid ServicesState Compensation Insurance FundADJ8703877Opinion and Decision After Reconsiderationindustrial injurystomach cancerpresumption
References
0
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. 03-cv-4134
Regular Panel Decision

Infantolino v. Joint Industry Board of the Electrical Industry

Anthony Infantolino sued the Joint Industry Board of the Electrical Industry (JIB) and Thomas Bush, alleging unlawful retaliation under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and New York State/City laws. JIB moved for summary judgment, arguing procedural defects and substantive failures, including that it was not Infantolino's employer. The court found JIB to be a 'joint labor-management committee' and thus a 'covered entity' under the ADA, refuting the employer argument. The court denied summary judgment regarding the retaliation claims, finding genuine issues of fact as to whether JIB's stated reasons for its actions were pretexts for impermissible retaliation. However, the motion for summary judgment was granted in part, denying punitive and compensatory damages for the ADA retaliation claim and punitive damages for the New York State Human Rights Law claim, but allowing punitive damages for the New York City Human Rights Law claim.

ADA RetaliationDisability DiscriminationSummary JudgmentBurden-Shifting FrameworkCausal ConnectionPretextPunitive DamagesCompensatory DamagesNew York City Human Rights LawNew York State Human Rights Law
References
36
Case No. ADJ8835979
Regular
Aug 27, 2015

Antonio Vera Munoz vs. Parkwood Landscape Maintenance, AMTRUST

This case concerns a worker who sustained a fall and claimed injury to his head, brain, back, and knee. The defendant failed to deny the claim within 90 days, triggering a presumption of compensability. While the defendant presented medical evidence suggesting the applicant's seizure was non-industrial, the Appeals Board found insufficient evidence to rebut the presumption for all claimed injuries. Consequently, the Board amended the findings to include head injury as presumed industrial, affirmed the back and knee injuries, and ordered further development on the wrist injury claim, while denying removal.

WCABDWC-190-day presumptionLabor Code section 5402Petition for ReconsiderationPetition for Removalindustrial injuryorthopedic injuryseizurecysticercosis
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 02, 1983

Claim of Gardeski v. Dynamic Auto Body, Inc.

This case involves an appeal from a Workers’ Compensation Board decision regarding an industrial accident claim. The claimant sustained a right knee injury after it collapsed while stepping out of a truck on the employer's premises. The employer and its insurance carrier argued that the lack of an explanation for the fall, coupled with prior non-work-related knee injuries, should preclude a finding of an industrial accident. However, the court affirmed the Board's decision, citing established precedent that unexplained falls on employer premises can constitute industrial accidents. The court further noted that the presumption under Workers’ Compensation Law section 21, in the absence of substantial evidence to the contrary, meant the fall arose out of employment, and prior injuries were insufficient to overcome this presumption.

Workers' CompensationIndustrial AccidentUnexplained FallPresumption of CompensabilityPrior InjuryScope of EmploymentAppellate ReviewSubstantial EvidenceKnee Injury
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Foulton v. Martec Industries

The claimant, a laborer for Martec Industries, sought workers' compensation benefits for a back injury allegedly sustained on June 7, 2006. Martec and its workers' compensation carrier controverted the claim, citing the claimant's history of prior back injuries in 1998 and 2000. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge initially awarded benefits, concluding the June 7, 2006 incident constituted an accidental work-related aggravation of prior injuries, a decision affirmed by the Workers' Compensation Board. On appeal, the court reversed the Board's decision, finding insufficient evidence that the June 7, 2006 incident caused a new disability. Evidence showed the claimant had experienced chronic back pain since 1998, and physicians attributed his disability primarily to preexisting conditions. The matter was remitted to the Workers' Compensation Board for further proceedings.

Workers' CompensationBack InjuryAggravationPreexisting ConditionMedical EvidenceDisability BenefitsAppellate ReviewReversalRemittalEmployer Liability
References
3
Case No. ADJ6761550, ADJ6761551
Regular
Dec 14, 2010

JUAN SANCHEZ vs. CITY OF SANTA CLARA, Permissibly Self-Insured, Adjusted By CAMBRIDGE, SUBSEQUENT INJURIES BENEFITS TRUST FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board affirmed a prior decision finding applicant Juan Sanchez totally and permanently disabled. This disability stemmed from a combination of industrial injuries, including a stroke, which qualified for a conclusive presumption of total disability under Labor Code section 4662(d). The defendant City of Santa Clara had argued for apportionment of this disability based on prior awards and the distinct nature of the current injuries. However, the Board found that the conclusive presumption of total disability under section 4662 precluded apportionment. The concurring opinion agreed with the outcome but differed on the strict interpretation of unapportionability, asserting that apportionment might be possible in other section 4662 cases if properly proven.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardSubsequent Injuries Benefits Trust FundCity of Santa Clarapermanent total disabilityLabor Code section 4662incurable mental incapacitystrokecumulative injuryspecific injuryapportionment
References
6
Case No. ADJ11721215
Regular
Mar 20, 2023

GLEN HODGES vs. STATE OF CALIFORNIA

This case concerns a firefighter's claim for melanoma under Labor Code section 3212.1, which presumes cancer is industrially caused. While the applicant raised the presumption through evidence of carcinogen exposure, the Appeals Board overturned the initial finding of industrial injury due to melanoma. The Board found the presumption was rebutted by expert medical opinion concluding the applicant's melanoma was not reasonably linked to industrial sun exposure, citing significant childhood sun exposure, tanning bed use, family history, and minimal workplace sun exposure to the affected area. The Board therefore granted reconsideration and amended the decision to exclude melanoma as an industrial injury, though actinic keratosis was still found to be industrially caused.

Labor Code section 3212.1cancer presumptionrebutted presumptionqualified medical evaluatorindustrial injuryactinic keratosismelanomafirefightercarcinogenInternational Agency for Research on Cancer
References
3
Case No. ADJ1970560 (OAK 0344240)
Regular
Mar 09, 2016

VAZGEN MANAS vs. THE DIRECTOR OF THE DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, as administrator of the SUBSEQUENT INJURIES BENEFITS TRUST FUND

This case concerns a credit sought by the Subsequent Injuries Benefits Trust Fund (SIBTF) for permanent disability advances paid to the applicant. The SIBTF argued that its liability for combined permanent disability should be calculated under Labor Code section 4751, which limits liability to the difference between the combined disability and the disability from the subsequent injury alone. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board agreed, reversing the prior finding that allowed a credit under section 4753 for the employer's payments. The Board clarified that section 4753 applies to payments for preexisting disability, not the subsequent industrial injury, and thus SIBTF's credit is limited by section 4751.

Subsequent Injuries Benefits Trust FundLabor Code section 4751Labor Code section 4753permanent disability advancespreexisting permanent disabilitysubsequent industrial injurycombined permanent disabilitycreditWCJFindings of Fact
References
6
Showing 1-10 of 13,925 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