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. 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. 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. 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The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration and rescinded a prior award finding Sandra Kimber's death compensable under the police officer pneumonia presumption.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
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. ADJ8734182
Regular
Dec 17, 2018

JONATHAN MCINTYRE vs. COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

This case involves an applicant, Jonathan McIntyre, a deputy sheriff, claiming bladder cancer as a work-related injury. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) rescinded the prior decision, finding that the medical evidence regarding the latency period of the applicant's bladder cancer was insufficient. The WCAB determined further development of the medical record is required to accurately assess when the cancer "developed" and "manifested" relative to the statutory presumption period. Therefore, the case is returned to the trial level for further proceedings and a new decision by the Workers' Compensation Judge.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardDeputy SheriffBladder CancerLabor Code section 3212.1Presumption of CompensabilityLatency PeriodAgreed Medical EvaluatorManifestation of DiseaseDevelopment of CancerStatutory Presumption
References
Case No. ADJ8984554; ADJ8984560
Regular
Dec 30, 2020

LLOYD DEGONIA vs. CITY OF TORRANCE

This case involves a police officer's cumulative trauma claim for spinal injuries, heart condition, and skin cancer. The defendant argued the claim was barred by the statute of limitations and that apportionment of disability was not properly addressed. The Appeals Board affirmed the initial findings, holding that the statute of limitations was not a bar because the applicant did not know or reasonably should not have known his disability was work-related. Furthermore, specific statutory presumptions for police officers prevented apportionment of permanent disability to pre-existing factors in this case.

AOE/COEstatute of limitationsapportionmentagreed medical examinerqualified medical examinerpermanent disabilitycumulative injuryactinic keratosisbasal cell carcinomahypertension
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. 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
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
Showing 1-10 of 1,924 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