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. 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. 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. WCK 45264
En Banc
Aug 25, 2004

James L. Leinon vs. Fishermen's Grotto, Mid-Century Insurance Company

The Appeals Board held that a penalty under Labor Code section 4650(d) does not apply to disputed disability indemnity payments that are made within 14 days of a final order, decision, or award that imposes liability for those benefits.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardLabor Code section 4650(d)Temporary Disability Indemnity (TDI)PenaltyReconsiderationEn Banc DecisionInjury disputeDisability disputeIndemnity rate disputeFinal order
References
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. 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. ADJ9883212
Regular
May 19, 2018

LADONNA PALEGA vs. CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

This case concerns a California Highway Patrol officer diagnosed with adenocarcinoma in situ of the cervix. The defendant, California Highway Patrol, sought reconsideration of a finding that this condition constituted an industrial injury under Labor Code section 3212.1. The defendant argued that the applicant's condition was not considered "cancer" and therefore the statutory presumption of industrial causation did not apply. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration, upholding the finding based on qualified medical evaluator Dr. Ngo's opinion that adenocarcinoma in situ qualifies as cancer under the statute. The Board found the defendant failed to rebut the presumption by providing evidence that the exposure to carcinogens was not linked to the disabling cancer.

Labor Code section 3212.1presumption of injurycervical canceradenocarcinoma in situLoop Electrosurgical Excision Procedure (LEEP)substantial medical evidencepanel qualified medical evaluatordisputable presumptionrebuttal evidencecarcinogen exposure
References
Case No. ADJ7197213
Regular
Oct 03, 2011

Robert Goslin vs. STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS/REHABILITATION; Legally Uninsured, adjusted by STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND/ STATE CONTRACT SERVICES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration and reversed a prior award, finding that the applicant, a correctional officer, was not entitled to the industrial cancer presumption under Labor Code section 3212.1. The Board determined that correctional officers are not among the specifically enumerated "peace officers" eligible for this presumption. Furthermore, the applicant failed to meet the burden of proving his cancer was industrially caused, as the medical expert found insufficient occupational exposure to link it to his employment. Consequently, the applicant's claim for injury arising out of and in the course of employment was denied.

Labor Code section 3212.1Penal Code section 830.2(d)(1)correctional officerpeace officerindustrial cancer presumptionAOE/COEPanel Qualified Medical Evaluator (PQME)nexusdisputable presumptionexpressio unius exclusio alterius
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. SAL 0084267, SAL 0084268, SAL 0090529
Regular
Jan 04, 2008

LARRY MYERS vs. CITY OF SALINAS

In this workers' compensation case, the defendant City of Salinas sought reconsideration of an award granting the applicant, a police captain, 84% permanent disability and lifelong pension. The defendant argued for apportionment of disability to non-industrial causes, disputing the applicability of the Labor Code section 3213.2 "duty belt" presumption. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration, finding the defendant had previously stipulated to the presumption's applicability and that the applicant independently qualified for it based on his employment history and duty belt usage.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardLarry MyersCity of SalinasFindings Award OrdersWCJindustrial injuriesleft kneelower extremitiesspineleft shoulder
References
Case No. LAO 823855, LAO 823856
Regular
Oct 03, 2007

PEDRO M. RODRIGUEZ vs. RALPHS GROCERY COMPANY

The applicant sought reconsideration of a denial of workers' compensation benefits, which was based on the finding that his claims were filed after notice of termination. The Board affirmed the denial, concluding that the applicant's job abandonment led to a termination prior to the filing of his claims. The Board also determined that the employer properly denied both the specific and cumulative trauma claims, thus negating a presumption of compensability.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and OrderFindings of FactAdministrative Law JudgeApplicantDefendantRalphs Grocery CompanySecurity GuardIndustrial Injury
References
Showing 1-10 of 1,681 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