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. ADJ137248 (MON 0283474)
Regular
May 21, 2009

GARY BYRNES vs. KAR INVESTMENTS, INC., dba RIGOLI FIRE EXTINGUISHER, SIMPLEX GRINNELL, dba RIGOLI FIRE EXTINGUISHER, KURT REXIUS

This case involves an applicant's Labor Code section 132a discrimination claim against KAR Investments, Inc. (dba Rigoli Fire Extinguisher) and its successor, Simplex Grinnell. The WCAB rescinded a prior finding that barred the applicant from pursuing Simplex due to a statute of limitations issue. The Board ordered Kurt Rexius, the sole shareholder of KAR, joined as a necessary party defendant for full adjudication. The matter is returned to the trial level to determine if discrimination occurred and who is liable.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardKAR InvestmentsInc.Rigoli Fire ExtinguisherSimplex GrinnellKurt RexiusLabor Code section 132asuccessor-in-intereststatute of limitationreconsideration
References
Case No. ADJ1748495 (SAC 0288002)
Regular
Jan 25, 2010

ERIC STEWART vs. SOLON FIRE CONTROL, CAMBRIDGE SAN DIEGO

This case involves an applicant claiming workers' compensation for sarcoidosis allegedly caused by occupational exposure to dry fire extinguisher chemicals. The administrative law judge initially found no industrial causation, favoring the defendant's medical examiner over the applicant's. On reconsideration, the Appeals Board affirmed this decision, finding the applicant failed to prove it was reasonably probable his condition arose from employment due to a lack of early irritative symptoms and the presence of prior skin lesions. The dissenting commissioner argued that the applicant's credible testimony and the applicant's QME's report sufficiently established industrial causation, as sarcoidosis can have an insidious onset.

SarcoidosisIndustrial causationQualified Medical Examiner (QME)Dry fire extinguisher chemicalsCumulative traumaPulmonary systemSkin involvementMedical evidenceOccupational exposureImmunologic processes
References
Case No. ADJ6892644
Regular
Nov 23, 2016

William Davis, III vs. STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DEPARTMENT OF FORESTRY AND FIRE PROTECTION, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

This case involves a firefighter, William Davis III, claiming cumulative trauma injury to his nervous and respiratory systems due to exposure to fire retardant. The applicant sought reconsideration of a "take nothing" order, arguing entitlement to a statutory presumption of industrial causation under Labor Code section 3212.85. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board affirmed the prior order, denying reconsideration. The Board found that the applicant failed to establish the applicability of the presumption because the fire retardant was not a "biochemical substance" as defined for weapons of mass destruction, and even if it were, the presumption was rebutted by the Agreed Medical Examiner's opinion attributing the applicant's condition to an infectious process rather than occupational exposure.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardIndustrial InjuryCumulative TraumaFirefighterDepartment of Forestry and Fire ProtectionLabor Code Section 3212.85Presumption of Industrial CausationAgreed Medical Examiner (AME)Dr. Robert HarrisonToxic Exposure
References
Case No. ADJ137248
Regular
Aug 25, 2010

GARY BYRNES vs. KAR INVESTMENT, INC., dba RIGOLI, FIRE EXTINGUISHER; SIMPLEX, GRINNELL, dba RIGOLI FIRE, EXTINGUISHER; KURT REXIUS

The applicant, Gary Byrnes, sought reconsideration of a decision denying his claim for workers' compensation discrimination under Labor Code section 132a. The administrative law judge found that while Byrnes sustained an industrial back injury, he failed to prove discrimination related to a denied $1,000 reimbursement. The Board denied reconsideration, agreeing that Byrnes failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination by showing he was singled out for disadvantageous treatment due to his industrial injury. The Board found no evidence that the denial of the reimbursement was causally linked to the industrial injury or that other employees were treated differently.

Labor Code section 132aindustrial injurydiscriminationprima facie casedisparate treatment$1000 insurance reimbursementburden of proofbusiness realitiesreinstatement
References
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
Case No. ADJ11329391, ADJ13022586
Regular
Dec 11, 2020

Richard Mancha vs. California Department of Forestry and Fire Prevention, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

This case involves a firefighter, Richard Mancha, who claimed injury to his heart, memory, and cognitive abilities. Both the applicant and the defendant Department of Forestry and Fire Prevention appealed an earlier award. After reconsideration, the parties reached a Compromise and Release agreement for $150,000, which the Board found adequate and in the applicant's best interest. The Board rescinded the prior Findings and Award and approved the settlement.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardRichard ManchaCalifornia Department of Forestry and Fire PreventionLegally UninsuredState Compensation Insurance FundADJ11329391ADJ13022586Opinion and Decision After Reconsiderationapparatus/engineer fire fighterheart trouble presumption
References
Case No. VEN 0115536
Regular
Aug 04, 2008

ROBERT FROELICH vs. CONTRACTORS LABOR POOL, INC., CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCATION, RELIANCE NATIONAL INSURANCE CO., GM NORTHROP CORP., NATIONAL FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY OF HARTFORD

This case concerns a dispute over workers' compensation liability following an industrial injury sustained by an employee who was a general employee of Contractors Labor Pool (insured by insolvent Reliance) and a special employee of GM Northrup Corp. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration to reverse a prior finding, determining that National Fire Insurance Company's policy for GM Northrup Corp. constituted "other insurance." Consequently, National Fire Insurance Company is now liable for the applicant's benefits, and the California Insurance Guarantee Association is not liable as the claim is not a "covered claim."

CIGAReliance National InsuranceNational Fire Insurance Companycovered claimsother insurancegeneral employerspecial employerjoint and several liabilitypolicy constructionInsurance Code section 1063.1
References
Case No. ADJ7651682
Regular
Apr 18, 2016

DEAN MCLAUGHLIN vs. HESPERIA FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT, CITY OF HESPERIA, COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO

This case involves a firefighter's workers' compensation claim for prostate cancer and related conditions. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration to amend the permanent disability indemnity rate from $270.00 to $230.00 per week, as agreed by the parties and the WCJ. The WCAB affirmed the original finding that the City of Hesperia was liable for Labor Code section 4850 benefits, despite the City's argument that the applicant's employment had terminated prior to the disability period. This decision corrects a statutory error in the indemnity rate while upholding the employer's responsibility for benefits.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and AwardLabor Code Section 4850Temporary Total DisabilityPermanent DisabilityFire CaptainProstate CancerErectile DysfunctionUrinary Incontinence
References
Case No. ADJ2854178 (VNO 0456317)
Regular
Jun 07, 2010

BELITA RIGOLI-BETANCOURT vs. VONS, A SAFEWAY COMPANY

This case involves Vons disputing a 100% permanent disability award for an employee, Belita Rigoli-Betancourt. Vons argues the award is erroneous due to a lack of proper apportionment of prior disability and the incorrect application of the Permanent Disability Rating Schedule. The Appeals Board found that the medical evidence supporting the 100% award was speculative and lacked substantial evidence regarding apportionment. Therefore, the case was returned to the trial level for further proceedings to develop the record and issue a new decision.

ADJ2854178VNO 0456317Rigoli-BetancourtVonsSafeway Companypermanent disabilityapportionmentLabor Code section 4664Labor Code section 4663prior permanent disability award
References
Case No. ADJ105804 (ANA 0388145)
Regular
Jul 20, 2012

MICHAEL FEENEY vs. CITY OF ANAHEIM FIRE DEPT., permissibly self-insured

This case involves a fire captain's claim for industrial injury to his upper extremities, specifically bilateral carpal tunnel and canal of Guyon entrapments. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) rescinded the previous award, finding insufficient evidence to support industrial causation for these specific upper extremity injuries. The WCAB remanded the case for further development of the record, as medical reports did not definitively link the conditions to his employment. The determination of permanent disability and apportionment for these issues remains deferred pending further medical evaluation.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardIndustrial InjuryFire CaptainUpper ExtremitiesCarpal Tunnel SyndromeCanal of Guyon EntrapmentBilateral EntrapmentIndustrial CausationAgreed Medical EvaluatorOrthopedist
References
Showing 1-10 of 643 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