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. 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. 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. 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. 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. ADJ11254123
Regular
Oct 28, 2019

SAMANTHA HANSEN vs. ALERE HEALTH SYSTEMS, INC., THE HARTFORD INSURANCE GROUP

This case concerns a workers' compensation claim for a neck and spine injury. The applicant's attorney provided proof of service for the claim form on the defendant employer on March 16, 2018, and later sent a copy to the defendant insurance carrier. The defendant denied the claim on April 29, 2019, and argued that the claim should not be presumed compensable as the applicant did not prove receipt of the claim form. The Board upheld the WCJ's decision, finding that the proof of service created a presumption of receipt that the defendant failed to rebut. Therefore, the applicant's claim is presumed compensable under Labor Code Section 5402 as the defendant did not reject liability within 90 days.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardLabor Code Section 5402Presumption of CompensabilityReconsiderationFindings of Fact and OrdersPetition for ReconsiderationRN Case ManagerCumulative InjuryProof of ServiceClaim Form
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. ADJ885979 (LBO 0310057)
Regular
Feb 20, 2014

WALTER CERVANTES vs. UNITED AIRLINES INFLIGHT SERVICES, GALLAGHER BASSETT SERVICES, INC.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted the applicant's Petition for Removal to address the WCJ's exclusion of the Labor Code section 5402 presumption of compensability. The Board held that this presumption can be raised for the first time at trial, even if not listed on the pre-trial conference statement. The case is returned to the trial level for the WCJ to consider the presumption, ensuring the defendant has an opportunity to present evidence and witnesses on the issue. This decision aligns with precedent allowing presumptions to be raised at trial under certain circumstances.

Petition for RemovalPresumption of CompensabilityLabor Code Section 5402Mandatory Settlement ConferencePretrial Conference StatementWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardWCJOrder Granting PetitionDecision After RemovalDue Process
References
Case No. ADJ9719037
Regular
Jun 13, 2019

WILLIAM MICHELS vs. UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO

In this workers' compensation case, the defendant sought reconsideration of a finding that the applicant sustained a cumulative trauma injury. The defendant argued that a Qualified Medical Examiner's report, obtained after the 90-day statutory period, should be admissible to rebut the presumption of compensability. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the petition, adopting the judge's reasoning that the defendant failed to timely deny the claim, triggering the presumption. The Board found no admissible evidence presented to overcome this presumption within the required timeframe.

cumulative trauma injuryLabor Code section 5402presumption of compensabilitytimely denialQualified Medical ExaminerEli HendelM.D.90-day periodrebut presumptionPetition for Reconsideration
References
Case No. ADJ9623149
Regular
Jun 25, 2018

ADAM PALSGROVE vs. CITY OF PALO ALTO, YORK RISK SERVICES GROUP, INC.

This case involves a firefighter diagnosed with basal cell carcinoma, claiming it's industrially caused under the Labor Code section 3212.1 presumption. The defendant employer attempted to rebut this presumption by arguing the cancer's latency period exceeded the applicant's employment duration. However, medical evidence indicated that cumulative exposure to UV light during employment contributed to the cancer's development. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, finding the employer failed to rebut the presumption of industrial causation based on this medical evidence.

Labor Code 3212.1Firefighter presumptionBasal cell carcinomaIndustrial causationRebuttal of presumptionKnown carcinogenLatency periodCumulative effectUV light exposureMedical evidence
References
Showing 1-10 of 457 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