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. 01-17-00146-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 27, 2019

Michael Fallon, M.D. v. the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center and Craig Henderson as Officer for the Public Information for the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center

Michael Fallon, M.D. sued the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center and Craig Henderson under the Texas Public Information Act (PIA) after they denied his request for certain information, claiming it was held by an affiliated private entity, the MD Anderson Physicians Network. The trial court dismissed Fallon's suit. The appellate court reversed the dismissal of Fallon's mandamus claim, finding a genuine issue of material fact regarding whether the Cancer Center had a right of access to the Physicians Network's records, thereby making the information "public information" under the PIA. However, the court affirmed the dismissal of Fallon's declaratory judgment claim, stating that the Declaratory Judgments Act does not waive sovereign immunity for such claims. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the opinion.

Public Information ActSovereign ImmunityDeclaratory JudgmentMandamusGovernmental BodyNon-profit OrganizationPhysicians NetworkMedical Peer ReviewSummary JudgmentPlea to Jurisdiction
References
56
Case No. ADJ9773810
Regular
Oct 25, 2017

Michele Ligouri vs. CITY OF CONCORD, YORK RISK SERVICES GROUP

This case involves a police officer's claim for workers' compensation benefits for breast cancer. The applicant was entitled to a legal presumption that her cancer was industrially caused. The defendant argued the presumption was rebutted because the latency period for her cancer exceeded her period of employment, based on a QME's opinion. However, the Appeals Board found the QME's opinion did not definitively rule out a shorter latency period for the applicant's aggressive cancer, thus failing to rebut the presumption. The Board granted reconsideration, amended the findings to include the presumption, and returned the case for further proceedings.

Labor Code section 3212.1presumptionindustrial cumulative trauma injurybreast cancerlatency periodQualified Medical Evaluator (QME)rebuttedmedical probabilityaggressive form of cancercarcinogens
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 23, 2000

Ramnarine v. Memorial Center for Cancer & Allied Diseases

Jagdeo Ramnarine, an employee of Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, suffered a laceration at the Memorial Center for Cancer and Allied Diseases. He subsequently filed a negligence lawsuit. The defendant, Memorial Center, moved for summary judgment, arguing that the plaintiff's claim was barred by the Workers’ Compensation Law § 11, as both the Center and the Hospital operate as a single integrated employer despite their separate legal entities. The Supreme Court initially denied this motion. However, the appellate court reversed the decision, granting summary judgment to the defendant. The court found substantial evidence supporting the integrated employer argument, thereby limiting the plaintiff's remedy to workers' compensation benefits and dismissing the complaint and all cross-claims against the defendant.

Workers' Compensation ExclusivityIntegrated Employer DoctrineSummary Judgment ReversalNegligence ClaimCross Claims DismissedCorporate Alter EgoCommon ControlBronx CountyAppellate DivisionLabor Law
References
11
Case No. 2025 NY Slip Op 02445 [237 AD3d 1500]
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 25, 2025

Matter of Cooper (Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Ctr.)

This case involves an appeal from an order that vacated an arbitration award concerning the termination of a registered nurse, Wendy Cooper, from Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center. Cooper was terminated for failing to comply with a COVID-19 vaccine mandate, which was later declared null and void in an unrelated case. The arbitrator, however, upheld Cooper's termination based on the collective bargaining agreement. The Supreme Court vacated the arbitration award, reinstating Cooper, finding it irrational and against public policy. The Appellate Division reversed the Supreme Court's order, confirming the arbitration award. It held that the Supreme Court erred in vacating the award, as petitioners failed to prove it violated a strong public policy or was irrational under CPLR 7511 (b), reaffirming the limited scope of judicial review for arbitration awards.

Arbitration AwardVacaturPublic PolicyIrrationalityCOVID-19 Vaccine MandateEmployment TerminationCollective Bargaining AgreementCPLR Article 75Appellate ReviewJudicial Review Limitation
References
9
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. ADJ8518473
Regular
Apr 15, 2015

Gregory Oyler vs. COUNTY OF SONOMA, NORTHERN CLAIMS MANAGEMENT

Applicant sought workers' compensation for kidney cancer, invoking a presumption under Labor Code section 3212.1 due to alleged exposure to benzene as a deputy sheriff. The agreed medical evaluator opined that the cancer's established latency period (11-30+ years) and the applicant's history of tobacco use and hypertension rebutted this presumption. The Board affirmed the WCJ's finding that the presumption was rebutted, as the expert's opinion on latency and pre-existing risk factors constituted substantial evidence. Therefore, the applicant's claim for kidney cancer was denied compensation.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardGregory OylerCounty of SonomaNorthern Claims ManagementADJ8518473Deputy SheriffKidney CancerLabor Code section 3212.1Peace OfficerBenzene
References
0
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. ADJ14723140
Regular
Aug 08, 2025

Phillip Howlett, et al. vs. California Highway Patrol, State Compensation Insurance Fund

Defendant California Highway Patrol sought reconsideration of a 'Findings and Award' which applied a presumption of compensability for cancer, resulting in the applicant's death. Defendant argued it had rebutted the presumption and that applicant's subsequent employer, University of California Police Department, was liable. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration to correct technical errors in the original F&A, rescinding and reissuing it without substantive changes. The Board affirmed that the Labor Code section 3212.1 cancer presumption applied to CHP employment and was not rebutted. It further clarified that the presumption does not extend to the University of California Police Department, and the defendant provided no evidence of causation under traditional analysis for the subsequent employer.

ADJ14723140Phillip HowlettCalifornia Highway Patrollegally uninsuredState Compensation Insurance FundPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and AwardLabor Code Section 3212.1cancerpresumption of compensability
References
2
Case No. ADJ1402736
Regular
Jan 04, 2010

SANDY BASTIAN vs. COUNTY OF VENTURA

This case involves a firefighter diagnosed with breast cancer who claimed industrial injury under California Labor Code section 3212.1. The defendant employer argued the statutory presumption of industrial causation was rebutted by an Agreed Medical Examiner's opinion stating the cancer was non-industrial, citing a lack of studies linking female firefighter exposures to breast cancer. The Appeals Board affirmed the WCJ's decision, finding the applicant sufficiently demonstrated exposure to carcinogens and the defendant failed to meet its burden to prove the exposure was "not reasonably linked" to the cancer. The court clarified that the mere absence of specific epidemiological studies does not rebut the presumption under section 3212.1.

Labor Code section 3212.1firefightercancer presumptionindustrial injuryrebuttable presumptioncarcinogen exposureAgreed Medical Examiner (AME)non-industrial causationindustrial causationAppeals Board
References
4
Case No. ADJ8150668
Regular
Aug 21, 2014

STEVEN JUDD vs. CITY OF DESERT HOT SPRINGS, CORVEL CORVEL CORPORATIONS

This case concerns Steven Judd's workers' compensation claim for kidney cancer. The Appeals Board affirmed the finding that Judd sustained an industrial injury as a peace officer, granting him the presumption of compensability under Labor Code section 3212.1. The Board found the cancer developed during his employment, satisfying the statute's requirements even though it manifested later. The defendant failed to rebut the presumption by proving no reasonable link between the carcinogens Judd was exposed to and his cancer.

Labor Code section 3212.1peace officerkidney cancercumulative traumapresumptioncarcinogenlatency periodmanifestationdevelopmentAgreed Medical Evaluator (AME)
References
13
Showing 1-10 of 1,037 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