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. ADJ8157891
Regular
Apr 15, 2016

JESSE CASTELLON vs. ORANGE COUNTY VECTOR CONTROL, ACCLAMATION INSURANCE MANAGEMENT SERVICES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the defendant's petition for reconsideration of a finding that pesticide exposure contributed to the applicant's lymphoma, diabetes, and hypertension. The defendant argued the relied-upon medical expert erred by discussing Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma instead of the applicant's diagnosed Hodgkin's Lymphoma. However, the Board found the expert's report sufficiently addressed Hodgkin's Lymphoma and its link to benzene exposure, incorporating the WCJ's reasoning. Therefore, the Board affirmed the original findings and denied the petition.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationFindings of Factindustrial causationpesticide exposurelymphomadiabeteshypertensionsubstantial medical evidenceDr. Nachman Brautbar
References
1
Case No. ADJ10685699
Regular
Jan 22, 2019

DAVID CISAR vs. ORANGE COUNTY FIRE AUTHORITY

This case involved a fire captain who claimed industrial injury for melanoma and lymphoma, with the latter being the focus of the appeal. While the applicant was presumed compensable for leukemia/lymphoma under Labor Code section 3212.1 due to benzene exposure, the defendant successfully rebutted this presumption. The rebuttal was based on an independent medical evaluator's opinion that the short period between negative diagnostic tests and the cancer's manifestation made an industrial link unreasonable. The Board adopted this reasoning, denying the petition for reconsideration.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardOrange County Fire AuthorityPermissibly Self-InsuredCorvel CorporationFire CaptainCumulative InjuryMelanomaLymphomaChronic Lymphocytic LeukemiaSmall Lymphocytic Lymphoma
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Messier v. Bouchard Transportation

Plaintiff Richard Messier, a seaman, filed a maritime action against Bouchard Transportation Co., Inc., initially alleging negligence and unseaworthiness, and seeking maintenance and cure for B-cell lymphoma. Messier later dropped his Jones Act claim. The primary legal question was the definition of "manifest" for admiralty purposes: whether an asymptomatic illness contracted while in service but diagnosed later qualifies for maintenance and cure. The court denied Messier's motion for summary judgment and granted Bouchard's cross-motion, ruling that "manifest" requires the exhibition of symptoms while in the service of the ship. Additionally, the court rejected Messier's alternative theory that he was entitled to maintenance and cure for lymphoma because it manifested while he was potentially eligible for maintenance and cure for a back injury, as he was not actively receiving such benefits. As a result, Messier's motion for leave to amend his complaint was denied as moot.

Maritime LawJones ActMaintenance and CureSeamanB-cell LymphomaAsymptomatic DiseaseManifestation of IllnessSummary JudgmentSecond CircuitDisease Onset
References
29
Case No. ADJ4327434
Regular
Mar 09, 2010

MICHAEL WALKER vs. CENTRAL STRIPING SERVICE, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND, SEDGWICK, CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION, BROADSPIRE

This case involves a worker claiming industrial cancer, initially alleging "lung cancer." While the applicant's petitions to reconsider the initial adverse finding were untimely, the Appeals Board granted reconsideration on its own motion due to the WCJ's recommendation. The Board rescinded the initial finding, returning the case for further proceedings to address whether the applicant's diagnosed "mantle cell lymphoma" is industrially caused, as this issue was implicitly litigated. A new Agreed Medical Examiner has been appointed to resolve the medical causation dispute.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetitions for ReconsiderationUntimely FilingJurisdictionMotion of Appeals BoardDecision After ReconsiderationFindings of FactIndustrial InjuryLung CancerMantle Cell Lymphoma
References
3
Case No. ADJ7250315
Regular
Feb 14, 2020

ROBYN ARIAS vs. STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS & REHABILITATION

This case involves a correctional officer's cumulative trauma claim. The employer sought reconsideration, arguing the cumulative trauma ended on July 8, 2014, as the applicant allegedly sustained no disability prior to that date. However, the Board denied reconsideration, affirming the WCJ's finding that the applicant experienced disability earlier due to chemotherapy for non-Hodgkins lymphoma. This disability, occurring from February 2007 to February 2008, establishes the injury's cumulative trauma period under Labor Code section 5412.

Cumulative traumaCorrectional officerLumbar spine injuryPsyche injuryNon-Hodgkins LymphomaPermanent disability indemnityCompensable consequence injuryLabor Code section 5412Date of injuryCumulative injury end date
References
5
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
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Adler v. Guild Electronics

The claimant appeals a Workers' Compensation Board decision from July 1, 1982, which found no causal relationship between the decedent's employment and his death from immunoblastic lymphoma. The claimant's expert testified to a direct link with toxic substance exposure at work, while the employer's expert and an impartial specialist found no such connection due to limited medical research. The Board resolved this factual dispute against the claimant, a decision supported by substantial evidence. The court, noting that the Board is responsible for weighing conflicting medical evidence, affirmed the Board's finding.

Workers' CompensationCausal RelationshipImmunoblastic LymphomaToxic ExposureMedical Expert OpinionFactual DisputeSubstantial EvidenceAppellate ReviewDiseaseEmployment
References
2
Case No. ADJ9924024
Regular
Feb 01, 2016

JOHN RAMOS vs. COUNTY OF SONOMA

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration of an administrative law judge's (WCJ) finding that the applicant's claim for occupational disease (non-Hodgkin's lymphoma) was not barred by the statute of limitations. The WCAB found the WCJ erred in determining the date of injury and statute of limitations had not begun to run. However, the WCAB noted the record raises the issue of whether the defendant is estopped from asserting the statute of limitations due to the actions of its claims administrator. Therefore, the case is returned to the trial level for further development of the record and decision specifically on the issue of estoppel.

Occupational diseaseNon-Hodgkin's lymphomaProbation officerStatute of limitationsLabor Code section 5412Date of injuryDisabilityEstoppelThird-party claims administratorNotice of Delay
References
3
Showing 1-8 of 8 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