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. 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. ADJ8621726
Regular
Jul 18, 2019

LEONARD DE LA ROSA vs. KLOECKNER TRAVELERS COMPANY OF AMERICA, USA PROPERTY AMERICA, HOLDINGS; CASUALTY

This case involves a defendant challenging a permanent total disability award for an applicant who sustained a neurological injury. The defendant argued the QME's revised opinion on causation and disability was not substantial evidence, and that Labor Code section 4662(a)(4)'s conclusive presumption of total disability violates apportionment requirements. The Board denied reconsideration, affirming the WCJ's findings. They found the QME's reporting constituted substantial evidence, and importantly, that the conclusive presumption under LC 4662(a)(4) overrides apportionment requirements.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPermanent Total DisabilityLabor Code section 4662(a)(4)Permanent Mental IncapacityQualified Medical EvaluatorNeurological InjuryNeurodegenerative DisorderApportionmentLabor Code section 4663Medical Evidence
References
2
Case No. ADJ7449576
Regular
May 11, 2016

MANNY WINNINGHAM vs. STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS

This case concerns an applicant seeking total permanent disability benefits based on a brain injury. The applicant argued for conclusive total disability under Labor Code section 4662(a)(4) due to permanent mental incapacity. The Board affirmed the WCJ's finding that while the applicant suffered serious psychiatric impairments leading to overall total disability, the specific cognitive impairments did not meet the threshold for the *conclusive* presumption of total disability under section 4662(a)(4). Therefore, apportionment was still applicable, and the previous award of $84\%$ permanent disability was upheld.

Permanent total disabilityLabor Code section 4662(a)(4)Conclusive presumptionApportionmentBrain injuryPermanent mental incapacityGlobal Assessment of Functioning ScaleCognitive impairmentPsychiatric impairmentCorrectional officer
References
1
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. ADJ6822166
Regular
May 27, 2011

Jackie Thompson vs. Los Angeles Unified School District

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration and reversed a prior finding that a school district police officer was entitled to a cancer presumption for his prostate cancer. The Board found that while the applicant was a peace officer, his authority was defined by Penal Code section 830.32, not section 830.1 as initially determined. Because Labor Code section 3212.1's cancer presumption specifically lists peace officers defined under certain Penal Code sections and does not include those under 830.32, the applicant is not entitled to the presumption.

Labor Code 3212.1Penal Code 830.32Peace OfficerSchool District Police OfficerCancer PresumptionIndustrial InjuryReconsiderationWCABLaw Enforcement ActivitiesWilliam Dallas Jones Cancer Presumption Act
References
3
Case No. ADJ2046824
Regular
Jun 24, 2013

OSCAR CARTER vs. COUNTY OF FRESNO

The Appeals Board granted reconsideration to further develop the record regarding the applicant's 100% permanent total disability finding. While the heart trouble presumption for correctional officers was correctly applied, the medical evidence did not sufficiently establish "incurable mental incapacity" as required by Labor Code section 4662(d) for a conclusive presumption of total disability. The Board rescinded the original award and returned the case to the trial level for supplemental medical reporting on the applicant's mental capacity and consideration of formal rating instructions to ensure substantial justice.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationFindings and AwardLabor Code section 4850Permanent Total DisabilitySubstantial Medical EvidenceLabor Code section 3212.2Heart Trouble PresumptionCorrectional OfficersRebuttal of Presumption
References
8
Case No. ADJ7941040
Regular
Sep 30, 2014

JESSE NICASIO vs. CITY OF MODESTO, Administered by YORK INSURACE SERVICES

The applicant, a former fire chief, sustained industrial injuries to his heart and multiple myeloma. The Appeals Board affirmed the WCJ's finding that his heart trouble was industrially caused, based on the presumption under Labor Code section 3212 and the AME's opinion that it developed during employment. Regarding cancer, the Board found the applicant's multiple myeloma developed within the statutory timeframe, making it presumptively compensable under Labor Code section 3212.1, and the defendant failed to rebut this presumption. Therefore, the applicant is entitled to benefits for both conditions.

Labor Code section 3212.1heart trouble presumptioncancer presumptionmultiple myelomabenzene exposureleft ventricular hypertrophyfire chieflatency periodmanifestationdevelopment
References
21
Case No. VEN 104138
Regular
Jul 08, 2008

CHANDRA DOSHI vs. BLUE CROSS OF CALIFORNIA by BROADSPIRE CLAIMS SERVICES

This case involves a lien claimant seeking reconsideration of a decision that denied a psychological injury claim. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration due to uncertainty regarding the administrative law judge's application of Labor Code sections 5402(b) (presumption of compensability for timely denial) and 3208.3 (threshold for psychiatric injury). The Board remanded the case for further proceedings to clarify whether the section 5402 presumption applies and, if not, to re-evaluate the psychiatric injury claim under section 3208.3 with a clear explanation of the reasoning.

Labor Code section 5402(b)presumption of compensabilitypsychiatric injurythreshold of compensabilitypredominant causeactual events of employmentcompromise and releaselien claimantcumulative traumamedical treatment
References
1
Case No. ADJ9708192
Regular
Jul 05, 2018

BRIAN DANSKIN vs. COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, PEMISSIDLY SELF-INSURED, CITY OF CYPRESS, PEMISSIDLY SELF-INSURED

This case involves Brian Danskin, who claimed industrial cumulative trauma in the form of skin cancer/melanoma sustained during his employment as a police officer and District Attorney's investigator. The defendant, County of Riverside, sought reconsideration of the WCJ's finding that Danskin was entitled to the Labor Code section 3212.1 cancer presumption for his investigator role. The defendant argued the investigator position didn't qualify for the presumption and that the injury predated his employment with the county. The Appeals Board denied reconsideration, adopting the WCJ's report, finding that Danskin's extensive law enforcement duties as an investigator were central to his role and qualified him for the cancer presumption under section 3212.1.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardBrian DanskinCounty of RiversideCity of CypressPetition for ReconsiderationFindings of FactWCJindustrial cumulative traumaskin cancermelanoma
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re Pursuant to Section 304 of the Bankruptcy Code of Banco Nacional De Obras Y Servicios Publicos, S.N.C.

The International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers (IAM) sought relief from a preliminary injunction to pursue an action against Aeronaves de Mexico, S.A. de C.V. (Aeronaves) for declaratory judgment concerning a collective bargaining agreement. Aeronaves, represented by its Mexican bankruptcy trustee Banobras, objected, arguing the claims should be handled in Mexican bankruptcy court. Judge Tina L. Brozman analyzed the request in the context of section 304 of the Bankruptcy Code, emphasizing the specialized nature of American labor law, particularly the Railway Labor Act (RLA). Balancing international comity with the protection of American creditors, the court found that the issues regarding the existence and terms of the collective bargaining agreement required the expertise of an American district court. Therefore, the motion for relief from the stay was granted to permit the IAM action to proceed in the Southern District of New York.

Bankruptcy LawInternational ComitySection 304 StayRailway Labor Act (RLA)Collective Bargaining AgreementForeign BankruptcyAncillary ProceedingsDeclaratory ReliefLabor DisputeCreditor Claims
References
32
Showing 1-10 of 4,195 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