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. ADJ7318651
Regular
Jan 12, 2012

JERRY CHAVEZ, Jr. vs. CITY OF VERNON

This case concerns a police officer diagnosed with renal cell carcinoma who sought workers' compensation benefits under Labor Code section 3212.1's cancer presumption. The applicant presented evidence of industrial exposure to known carcinogens such as diesel exhaust and benzene. The defense failed to rebut the presumption by failing to present evidence that the primary cancer site was identified and that the identified carcinogen was not reasonably linked to the cancer. The Appeals Board affirmed the judge's findings, denying the defendant's petition for reconsideration.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardCity of VernonJerry Chavez Jr.Petition for ReconsiderationFindings and Ruling and Awardcancer presumptionLabor Code section 3212.1industrial exposurecarcinogenic substancesWCJ
References
Case No. SFO 0496923
Regular
Jan 15, 2008

ROBERT THOMPSON (Deceased) NATALIA THOMPSON (Widow) vs. STATE OF CALIFORNIA, CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL, Legally Uninsured; STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND, Adjusting Agency

This case concerns a California Highway Patrol officer who died from melanoma. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration, rescinded the prior award of death benefits, and found the injury was not industrial. The Board concluded the applicant failed to demonstrate a reasonable link between his employment and the melanoma, citing non-industrial risk factors such as childhood sun exposure and family history.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardRobert ThompsonNatalia ThompsonCalifornia Highway PatrolLegally UninsuredState Compensation Insurance FundSFO 0496923Opinion and Order Granting ReconsiderationDecision After ReconsiderationFindings and Award
References
Case No. ADJ17298965
Regular
Apr 28, 2025

SETH FRANKLIN vs. CITY OF REDLANDS, ADMINSURE

Applicant Seth Franklin, a police officer, sought reconsideration of a WCJ's decision that denied his claim for industrial injury in the form of melanoma. The WCJ initially found applicant was not entitled to the cancer presumption under Labor Code section 3212.1. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, concluding that the WCJ erred. The Board determined that applicant, as a police officer, was exposed to solar radiation (a known carcinogen) and his melanoma developed or manifested during his employment, thus entitling him to the cancer presumption. The case has been returned to the trial level for further proceedings to determine if the presumption can be rebutted.

Labor Code section 3212.1cancer presumptionpolice officermelanomaindustrial injurycarcinogensolar ultraviolet radiationlatency periodrebuttal of presumptioncumulative trauma
References
Case No. ADJ8218969
Regular
Feb 05, 2015

JOSE CARRILLO (Deceased) ELVIRA CARRILLO (Widow) vs. ESTERLINE TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION, ARCH INSURANCE, Administered by ESIS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration of a taken nothing order concerning the death claim of Jose Carrillo, who died of renal cell carcinoma. The initial decision found the widow failed to prove her husband's cancer was industrially caused by toxic exposure during his employment. The Board found the Qualified Medical Evaluator's opinion equivocal and the record insufficient to determine the extent of the decedent's exposure to carcinogens. Therefore, the case was returned to the trial judge for further development of the record regarding chemical exposure and a new determination of industrial causation.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardElvira CarrilloJose CarrilloEsterline Technologies CorporationArch InsuranceESISADJ8218969Petition for ReconsiderationFindings and Ordertaken nothing order
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. SDO 244774
En Banc
Dec 11, 2003

Walter Faust vs. City of San Diego

The Appeals Board, in an en banc decision, clarifies the burden of proof under Labor Code §3212.1 for cancer claims by firefighters, holding that once exposure to a carcinogen is shown, the burden shifts to the defendant to prove no reasonable link. The prior decision was rescinded and the case returned for re-evaluation under this standard.

Labor Code section 3212.1en bancreconsiderationcumulative industrial injurycancerfirefighterpresumptionrebutting presumptionqualified medical evaluator (QME)Prakash Jay
References
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
Case No. SRO 134400, SRO 139130
Regular
Sep 11, 2007

COBY RICHARDS vs. COUNTY OF SONOMA AND G.B. BRAGG AND ASSOCIATES, CITY OF CLOVERDALE AND REMIF

The applicant, a police officer, claimed a cumulative trauma injury resulting in a brain tumor, asserting exposure to x-rays as a known carcinogen under Labor Code section 3212.1. The Appeals Board denied reconsideration, affirming the finding that the applicant did not establish an industrial injury. While acknowledging the applicant's exposure to x-rays, the Board found this exposure did not present a reasonable link to the brain tumor, as per the Agreed Medical Examiner's opinion that only direct radiation to the brain is a known risk factor.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardIndustrial injuryAstrocytomaBrain tumorCarcinogenLabor Code section 3212.1Presumption of injuryPeace officerCumulative traumaX-rays
References
Case No. ADJ7676148
Regular
Oct 17, 2013

CAMERON PRATT vs. SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY SHERIFF DEPARTMENT, COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the Sheriff Department's Petition for Reconsideration regarding a Deputy Sheriff's Hodgkin's Lymphoma claim. The WCJ found the applicant established a prima facie case for a work-related cancer injury under Labor Code section 3212.1. The defendant failed to rebut the presumption of injury with substantial medical evidence, specifically regarding the latency period and a reasonable link between carcinogen exposure and the applicant's aggressive cancer. The Board adopted the WCJ's report and reasoning in its denial.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationDeniedDeputy SheriffContinuous TraumaCancerHodgkin's LymphomaArising Out of and Occurring in the Course of Employment (AOE/COE)Rebutting the PresumptionLabor Code section 3212.1
References
Case No. ADJ11721215
Regular
Mar 20, 2023

GLEN HODGES vs. STATE OF CALIFORNIA

This case concerns a firefighter's claim for melanoma under Labor Code section 3212.1, which presumes cancer is industrially caused. While the applicant raised the presumption through evidence of carcinogen exposure, the Appeals Board overturned the initial finding of industrial injury due to melanoma. The Board found the presumption was rebutted by expert medical opinion concluding the applicant's melanoma was not reasonably linked to industrial sun exposure, citing significant childhood sun exposure, tanning bed use, family history, and minimal workplace sun exposure to the affected area. The Board therefore granted reconsideration and amended the decision to exclude melanoma as an industrial injury, though actinic keratosis was still found to be industrially caused.

Labor Code section 3212.1cancer presumptionrebutted presumptionqualified medical evaluatorindustrial injuryactinic keratosismelanomafirefightercarcinogenInternational Agency for Research on Cancer
References
Showing 1-10 of 47 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