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. 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. ADJ7816135
Regular
May 07, 2012

BRYAN FLICKER vs. COUNTY OF BUTTE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration to review the administrative law judge's (WCJ) finding of industrial injury for a correctional lieutenant. The WCJ had applied Labor Code section 3213.3, which presumes lower back impairments in peace officers required to wear duty belts. The Board found insufficient evidence that the applicant was required to wear a duty belt as a condition of employment as a peace officer, which is a prerequisite for the presumption's application. Therefore, the Board rescinded the award and returned the case for a determination of industrial injury without reference to the duty belt presumption, allowing for further record development.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardBryan FlickerCounty of ButteADJ7816135Labor Code section 3213.3correctional lieutenantcumulative injurylow back impairmentpeace officerduty belt presumption
References
Case No. ADJ2596572 (MON 0357137)
Regular
May 29, 2018

CRISTINA CORIA vs. CITY OF SANTA MONICA

This case involves a police officer's claim for industrial injury, specifically to her low back. The applicant contends the WCJ erred by not applying the Labor Code section 3213.2 "duty belt presumption" and improperly apportioning cervical spine disability. The Appeals Board rescinded the WCJ's decision, finding the independent medical evaluator's opinions did not properly rebut the presumption. The case is returned to the trial level for a determination on the applicability of the duty belt presumption and whether the injury manifested within the statutory timeframe. Issues regarding apportionment are preserved for further proceedings.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationPolice OfficerCumulative InjuryBilateral Carpal Tunnel SyndromeBilateral Cubital Tunnel SyndromePermanent DisabilityApportionmentLabor Code Section 3213.2Duty Belt Presumption
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. ADJ8092901
Regular
Dec 08, 2014

ABRAHAM TOLKIER vs. CITY OF PALM SPRINGS

This case involves an applicant police lieutenant claiming industrial injury to his lumbar spine, right knee, and neck. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration, affirming the WCJ's finding of no industrial injury. The denial was based on a qualified medical evaluator's opinion that the applicant's degenerative disc disease was from a single traumatic event, not a cumulative one related to wearing a duty belt, thus rebutting the Labor Code section 3213.2 presumption. The majority also considered the applicant's credibility as determined by the WCJ.

Labor Code section 3213.2presumption of industrial injuryduty beltpeace officercumulative injurypanel qualified medical evaluatororthopedistWCJ credibilityrebuttable presumptioninsubstantial medical opinion
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. ADJ1237800 (AHM0151777)
Regular
Jan 22, 2016

KENNETH ROSENBERG vs. STATE OF CALIFORNIA, CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL DISABILITY AND RETIREMENT, Legally Uninsured, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND/STATE CONTRACT SERVICES, Adjusting Agency

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration to clarify clerical errors in a previous award. The Board amended the award to reflect that the defendant, California Highway Patrol, is "legally uninsured" and affirmed the application of the "duty belt" presumption (Labor Code section 3213.2). The Board also affirmed the finding of $43\%$ permanent disability, temporary disability, and the denial of apportionment, finding that the defendant waived any due process claims regarding temporary disability by not objecting at trial.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardCalifornia Highway PatrolLegally UninsuredState Compensation Insurance FundPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and AwardAdministrative Law JudgePermissibly Self-InsuredLow Back InjuryLeft Shoulder Injury
References
Case No. ADJ11629176
Regular
Dec 30, 2019

Isabel Aguirre vs. STATE OF CALIFORNIA

This case involves an applicant correctional officer who claimed industrial injury to her back, neck, and shoulder. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration, finding the applicant is not entitled to the Labor Code section 3213.2 presumption. This presumption, for lower back impairments, explicitly applies only to specific law enforcement classifications, not correctional officers. The Board amended the prior decision to remove the presumption and ordered further medical record development.

Labor Code ยง3213.2PresumptionPeace OfficerCorrectional OfficerDuty BeltReconsiderationFindings and AwardWCJMedical RecordPeace Officer Classification
References
Case No. ADJ8026817
Regular
Apr 22, 2013

MARIA OCHOA vs. RANGERS DIE CASTING COMPANY, COMPWEST INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration of a decision finding the applicant sustained injury to her respiratory system and psyche AOE/COE. The WCAB rescinded the decision and returned the case to the trial level, finding the medical opinions of Dr. Lipper and Dr. Curtis lacked substantiality. Specifically, the physicians failed to provide clear diagnoses, quantify exposures, or adequately explain causation. The Board noted contradictory testimony from the applicant's supervisor and insufficient evidence to support the initial findings.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardMaria OchoaRangers Die Casting CompanyCOMPWEST INSURANCE COMPANYADJ8026817Los Angeles District OfficeOpinion and Order Granting ReconsiderationDecision After ReconsiderationFindings of FactWorkers' Compensation Administrative Law Judge (WCJ)
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
Showing 1-10 of 850 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

ยฉ 2026 CompFox Inc. All rights reserved.

Systems Operational