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. 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
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 The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration, rescinded the prior award of death benefits, and found the injury was not industrial.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. 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
Case No. ADJ1357786 (RDG 0126731)
Regular
May 10, 2010

MARK JAMES vs. PACIFIC BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY; PERMISSIBLY SELF-INSURED ADMINISTERED BY SEDGWICK 14627 ONTARIO

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied Pacific Bell's petition for reconsideration of an award to Mark James. The original award found James sustained a 100% permanent disability due to industrial melanoma, and Pacific Bell argued for apportionment to non-industrial causes. The Board affirmed the finding that the Agreed Medical Evaluator, Dr. Blau, was unable to determine the percentage of disability caused by non-industrial factors due to insufficient information. This inability to apportion, not a failure to consult, meant Pacific Bell failed to meet its burden of proof for apportionment.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPacific Bell Telephone CompanyMark JamesMaintenance Splicing TechnicianMelanomaPermanent DisabilityApportionmentLabor Code Section 4663Agreed Medical Evaluator (AME)Dr. Robert Blau
References
Case No. ADJ9708192
Regular
Jul 05, 2018

BRIAN DANSKIN vs. COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, PEMISSIDLY SELF-INSURED, CITY OF CYPRESS, PEMISSIDLY SELF-INSURED

This case involves Brian Danskin, who claimed industrial cumulative trauma in the form of skin cancer/melanoma sustained during his employment as a police officer and District Attorney's investigator. The defendant, County of Riverside, sought reconsideration of the WCJ's finding that Danskin was entitled to the Labor Code section 3212.1 cancer presumption for his investigator role. The defendant argued the investigator position didn't qualify for the presumption and that the injury predated his employment with the county. The Appeals Board denied reconsideration, adopting the WCJ's report, finding that Danskin's extensive law enforcement duties as an investigator were central to his role and qualified him for the cancer presumption under section 3212.1.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardBrian DanskinCounty of RiversideCity of CypressPetition for ReconsiderationFindings of FactWCJindustrial cumulative traumaskin cancermelanoma
References
Case No. ADJ9137744
Regular
Apr 21, 2023

CHARLES MONTIERTH vs. CITY OF SAN DIEGO, PERMISSIBLY SELF-INSURED

This case concerns whether the applicant's skin cancer qualifies as an insidious progressive disease. The Appeals Board affirmed the WCJ's finding that it does, based on evidence of a significantly elevated risk of recurrence and potential for increased disability, justifying reserved jurisdiction over permanent disability. This ruling aligns with precedent allowing for such reservation in cases of progressive diseases with uncertain future outcomes. Therefore, the original Findings and Award are affirmed.

Insidious progressive diseaseJackson doctrineReservation of jurisdictionPermanent disabilitySkin cancerMalignant melanomaBasal cell carcinomaActinic keratosesLifetime surveillanceMedical monitoring
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. ADJ4547482 (SFO 0498140)
Regular
Oct 06, 2009

DAVID EUERLE (Deceased) vs. CITY OF SANTA CLARA

The WCJ found that David Euerle sustained industrial injury/death due to cancer. Defendant sought reconsideration, arguing that applicant did not prove he was exposed to an IARC human carcinogen and did not prove that his injury and death were proximately caused by his employment. The petition for reconsideration was denied.

Labor Code section 3212.1cumulative traumaindustrial injurydeath benefitscancer presumptionIARC carcinogenbenzeneultraviolet lightmetastatic malignant melanomaprimary site of cancer
References
Showing 1-9 of 9 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