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. ADJ8464782
Regular
Oct 23, 2017

JOAN FEDOR MISKIEWICZ vs. VENTURA ORTHOPEDICS MEDICAL CENTER, EMPLOYERS COMPENSATION INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the defendant's petition for reconsideration, upholding the administrative law judge's finding that the applicant sustained an industrial injury of chronic myelogenous leukemia (CML). The defendant argued the judge erred by not considering an internist's opinion on CML latency and by not allowing further expert development. However, the Board found these arguments premature, as the specific issue of the date of injury or liability period, which would implicate the defendant's coverage dates, had not yet been decided. Therefore, the defendant was not aggrieved by the judge's initial ruling on the existence of industrial injury.

Chronic myelogenous leukemiaIndustrial injuryPetition for reconsiderationQualified medical evaluatorOncologyLatency periodLabor Code section 5412Labor Code section 5500.5Coverage periodAdministrative law judge
References
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
Case No. ADJ9697744
Regular
May 25, 2018

JASON POIRIER vs. CITY OF MENLO PARK, Permissibly Self-Insured; administered by INNOVATIVE CLAIMS SOLUTIONS, CITY OF BRISBANE; Permissibly Self-Insured; administered by INNOVATIVE CLAIMS SOLUTIONS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration, reversing the trial judge's decision that denied Jason Poirier's claim for kidney cancer benefits. The Board found that the City of Menlo Park failed to rebut the presumption under Labor Code section 3212.1 that Poirier's cancer was industrially caused. Crucially, the Board ruled that Poirier's prior employment with the City of Brisbane could be combined with his Menlo Park employment to satisfy the minimum latency period for cancer causation, a point the trial judge had incorrectly excluded. Consequently, the Board amended the findings to establish that Poirier sustained an industrial injury and returned the case for benefit determination.

Labor Code section 3212.1renal cell carcinomacarcinogen presumptionrebuttallatency periodcumulative traumapolice officerCity of Menlo ParkCity of Brisbaneindustrial injury
References
Case No. ADJ6766227
Regular
Mar 25, 2013

DAVID CASE vs. CITY OF FRESNO

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the City of Fresno's petition for reconsideration. The Board affirmed the prior finding that the applicant sustained cumulative industrial injuries of throat/tongue and prostate cancer while employed as a police officer for the City of Fresno. Despite the prostate cancer manifesting after applicant's employment with the City ended, the Board found the City liable based on the long latency period of the cancer and the applicant's presumed exposure to carcinogens during his employment. The defendant failed to rebut the Labor Code section 3212.1 presumption of liability.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardDavid CaseCity of Fresnocumulative industrial injurythroat cancertongue cancerprostate cancerpolice officerLabor Code section 3212.1presumption of compensability
References
Case No. ADJ15278643
Regular
Apr 19, 2023

FRANCIS GOODWIN vs. ORANGE COUNTY FIRE AUTHORITY, CORVEL CORPORATION

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the defendant's petition for reconsideration. The defendant argued that the Labor Code Section 3212.1 cancer presumption did not apply because the applicant's date of injury was beyond the statutory 105-month extension period following his termination of service. However, the Board found that the applicant's essential thrombocytosis, a bone marrow cancer, developed within the statutory period, even though it manifested later. The Board relied on the IME's opinion that bone marrow cancers generally have a 5-10 year latency period, supporting the applicant's claim that the condition developed during his service.

Cancer presumptionLabor Code 3212.1Essential thrombocytosisLatency periodManifestationDevelopmentReasonable medical probabilityIndependent Medical ExaminerCarcinogen exposureFirefighter
References
Case No. ADJ6824732
Regular
Sep 06, 2012

SHEILA CORREIA, KENNETH BURNETT (Deceased) vs. VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS, AMERICAN HOME ASSURANCE COMPANY, CHARTIS, SEDGWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT SERVICES

This case concerns a deceased worker, Kenneth Burnett, diagnosed with mesothelioma due to asbestos exposure. The sole issue was determining the date of last injurious exposure to establish liability. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration of the judge's decision. The judge found the applicant's medical expert's opinion on a five to ten-year latency period to be more persuasive than the defendant's expert's twenty-year period. This led to a finding that the decedent's last injurious asbestos exposure occurred between 1996 and 2001, during his employment with Verizon.

MesotheliomaLatency PeriodAsbestos ExposureDate of Last Injurious ExposureLC §5500.5LC §5412Verizon CommunicationsSedgwick Claims Management ServicesDr. LurosDr. Raybin
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. ADJ1179569 (AHM 0099178)
Regular
Jun 10, 2011

JERRY CHASTAIN vs. COUNTY OF ORANGE, ORANGE COUNTY FIRE AUTHORITY, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND, AMERICAN HOME ASSURANCE COMPANY, CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION, USF&G

In this workers' compensation case, the Appeals Board granted reconsideration to address USF&G's challenge to liability for an applicant's prostate cancer, who died after a prolonged period following exposure. The Board rescinded the prior decision, finding the WCJ erred by not fully addressing liability under Labor Code section 5500.5, specifically regarding the latency period and last date of injurious exposure. The matter was returned to the trial level for further proceedings and a new decision on liability, while affirming the presumption under Labor Code section 3212.1.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardFire Apparatus EngineerProstate CancerContinuous Trauma InjuryLabor Code Section 5412Labor Code Section 5500.5Labor Code Section 3212.1 PresumptionLatency PeriodInjurious ExposureCumulative Injury
References
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
Case No. ADJ15875592; ADJ16732971
Regular
Aug 25, 2025

JAIME LLAMAS vs. CITY OF ANAHEIM, CITY OF DOWNEY

Applicant Jaime Llamas, a police officer, sustained a cumulative brain injury (cancer) while employed by the City of Downey and the City of Anaheim. The WCJ found both employers jointly and severally liable. Defendant City of Downey sought reconsideration, challenging the last injurious exposure and their liability for temporary disability. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, rescinded the original Findings and Award, and substituted new findings. The Board confirmed the cumulative injury, clarified employment periods, affirmed the industrial presumption for both employers, established a specific liability period (December 21, 2016, through December 21, 2017) based on medical evidence of latency, and deferred issues of contribution between the employers.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardCity of AnaheimCity of DowneyLabor Code section 4850Labor Code section 3212.1Labor Code section 5500.5last injurious exposurecumulative injurypolice officerbrain cancer
References
Showing 1-10 of 1,282 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