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. ADJ11254123
Regular
Oct 28, 2019

SAMANTHA HANSEN vs. ALERE HEALTH SYSTEMS, INC., THE HARTFORD INSURANCE GROUP

This case concerns a workers' compensation claim for a neck and spine injury. The applicant's attorney provided proof of service for the claim form on the defendant employer on March 16, 2018, and later sent a copy to the defendant insurance carrier. The defendant denied the claim on April 29, 2019, and argued that the claim should not be presumed compensable as the applicant did not prove receipt of the claim form. The Board upheld the WCJ's decision, finding that the proof of service created a presumption of receipt that the defendant failed to rebut. Therefore, the applicant's claim is presumed compensable under Labor Code Section 5402 as the defendant did not reject liability within 90 days.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardLabor Code Section 5402Presumption of CompensabilityReconsiderationFindings of Fact and OrdersPetition for ReconsiderationRN Case ManagerCumulative InjuryProof of ServiceClaim Form
References
Case No. ADJ2648520
Regular
Mar 17, 2011

REYLENE ROSAS vs. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the lien claimant's petition for reconsideration because it was filed 61 days after the Administrative Law Judge's decision, exceeding the 25-day jurisdictional deadline. The Board found proof of timely service by mail on the lien claimant's official address of record. Even if service were defective, the petition would still be untimely as it was filed 26 days after the claimant acknowledged receiving the decision, exceeding the 20-day period for filing after actual receipt in such cases. The Board would have also denied the petition on its merits had it not been dismissed for untimeliness.

Lien ClaimantPetition for ReconsiderationUntimely FilingDismissalFindings and OrderWCJService by MailJurisdictional Time LimitsOfficial Address RecordDeclaration of Mailing
References
Case No. ADJ9373269, ADJ9373270
Regular
Dec 12, 2017

SOCORRO SALAZAR vs. MV TRANSPORTATION, ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the applicant's petition for reconsideration, upholding the WCJ's finding that the applicant failed to prove her injury was presumptively compensable under Labor Code section 5402. The Board clarified that the 90-day presumption period begins when an employee files a claim form, not when the employer receives notice of injury. The Board affirmed that a claim form, not an Application for Adjudication of Claim, is the legally mandated method for initiating a workers' compensation claim. Therefore, the applicant did not meet her burden of proof for presumptive compensability.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationLabor Code section 5402presumption of compensabilityclaim formdenial of liabilityApplication for Adjudication of Claimrebuttable presumptionfraudulent attemptsstatutory references
References
Case No. ADJ1703796
Regular
Sep 05, 2025

Diane Minish vs. Hanuman Fellowship, State Compensation Insurance Fund

Applicant Diane Minish sought reconsideration of a Findings and Order (F&O) issued by a WCJ on January 22, 2021, which found she did not rebut the presumption of receiving an Order Dismissing her case. Minish contended she was not served with the Order Dismissing and that due process requires actual notice. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) reviewed the record and concluded that Minish successfully rebutted the presumption of receipt, giving great weight to the WCJ's credibility determinations regarding her testimony of non-receipt. The WCAB found that the failure to provide adequate notice and opportunity to be heard violated due process and constituted good cause to set aside the Order Dismissing. Consequently, the WCAB rescinded the original F&O, granted Minish's Petition to Vacate, and rescinded the Order Dismissing her case.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationNotice of IntentionOrder DismissingPresumption of ReceiptRebuttedGood CausePetition to VacateDue ProcessSubstantial Justice
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. SDO 244774
Significant
Dec 11, 2003

Walter Faust vs. City of San Diego

The Appeals Board held that under the amended Labor Code section 3212.1, a firefighter only needs to show exposure to a known carcinogen to establish a presumption of industrial cancer, shifting the burden to the defendant to prove no reasonable link.

Labor Code section 3212.1cumulative industrial injuryfirefightercancerpresumptionrebutting presumptionqualified medical evaluatorcarcinogencadmiumplating company fire
References
Case No. ADJ9312112
Regular
Apr 17, 2017

CUONG PHAN vs. CITY OF SANTA CLARA

In this case, the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the defendant City of Santa Clara's petition for reconsideration. The Board upheld a prior finding that applicant Cuong Phan sustained industrial injuries to his lower back, resulting in 29% permanent disability. The key issue was the application of the "duty belt presumption" under Labor Code section 3213.2, which presumes lower back impairments in long-term peace officers required to wear duty belts arise from employment. The Board found the presumption applicable and not rebutted, deeming it a legislative intent to protect officers with these specific conditions.

Duty belt presumptionLabor Code section 3213.2police officerlower back impairmentpeace officerpermanent disabilityjoint findings and awardpetition for reconsiderationBenson apportionmentLabor Code section 4663(e)
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. ADJ13057590; ADJ13058223
Regular
Aug 25, 2025

HEATHER RAMOS vs. PIH HEALTH, ATHENS ADMINISTRATORS

Applicant Heather Ramos sought reconsideration of a WCJ's Findings of Fact and Orders (F&O) which found defendant PIH Health and Athens Administrators had provided proof of service for a supplemental job displacement voucher (SJDV). The WCJ applied the presumption of timely mailing and receipt, finding applicant failed to rebut it and was not entitled to a penalty. Applicant contended there was no valid proof of service, and defendant did not meet the burden to invoke the presumption, thus entitling her to a penalty and attorney's fees. The Appeals Board upheld the WCJ's decision, concluding that the defendant's proof of service was valid, and applicant's evidence was insufficient to overcome the mailing presumption, therefore denying reconsideration.

Supplemental Job Displacement VoucherPresumption of ReceiptMailbox RuleProof of ServiceRebuttal EvidenceWCABPetition for ReconsiderationPenaltiesAttorney's FeesLabor Code Section 5814
References
Case No. ADJ7485771
Regular
Sep 25, 2015

HUGO CANO vs. AMCOR PET PACKAGING, TRAVELERS INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied a lien claimant's Petition for Reconsideration, which sought to overturn the dismissal of its lien. The dismissal occurred because the lien claimant failed to appear at a lien conference and subsequently failed to overcome the presumption of receipt of a Notice of Intention to Dismiss. Furthermore, the petition itself was unverified, providing an independent ground for denial under Labor Code section 5902. The Board adopted the WCJ's report, finding insufficient grounds for reconsideration based on the lack of evidence to rebut the mailing presumption and the unverified petition.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationOrder Dismissing LiensLien ClaimantNotice of Intention to DismissService of ProcessProof of ServicePresumption of ReceiptUnverified PetitionLabor Code section 5902
References
Showing 1-10 of 623 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