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. AD10634736
Regular
Nov 16, 2019

ORACIO CARRANZA vs. COUNTY OF IMPERIAL

This case concerns a deputy probation officer's claim for industrial heart injury. Initially, the administrative law judge (WCJ) found the applicant's claim rebutted the presumption of industrial injury. Both applicant and defendant sought reconsideration, with the defendant arguing the presumption didn't apply and the applicant asserting it was improperly rebutted. The Appeals Board denied both petitions, affirming the applicant is covered by the presumption under Labor Code section 3212.10, but agreeing the presumption was rebutted by independent medical evidence pointing to non-industrial causes.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardLabor Code section 3212.10peace officer presumptionheart troubleindustrial injurydeputy probation officerindependent medical evaluatorpresumption rebuttalanti-attribution clausepreponderance of the evidence
References
4
Case No. SBR 0330847
Regular
Apr 28, 2008

PEDRO SANDOVAL vs. UNITED TRANSMISSION EXCHANGE, AKA, RK SERVICES, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration and returned the case to the trial level, rescinding the previous decision. The Board found that the vocational expert's testimony did not adequately explain why the 2005 Permanent Disability Rating Schedule was inadequate, nor did it demonstrate how diminished future earning capacity rebutted the schedule. Therefore, the case requires further development of the record to determine the appropriate rating schedule and whether the applicant sufficiently rebutted the 2005 Schedule.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardSB 899Labor Code section 46602005 Schedule1997 Schedulepermanent disability ratingdiminished future earning capacityDFECvocational expertrebuttal evidence
References
4
Case No. ADJ10653999
Regular
Feb 11, 2020

Rodney McMillan vs. CITY OF RIVERSIDE

Applicant, a police officer, sought reconsideration after a WCJ denied his heart trouble claim under Labor Code § 3212.5. The parties stipulated the heart trouble presumption applied, shifting the burden to the employer to rebut it. While the Agreed Medical Examiner identified alcoholism as the probable cause of applicant's cardiomyopathy, he could not definitively state it was the "sole cause" or that employment played no role. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, rescinded the original order, and remanded the case for further proceedings to determine if the presumption was adequately rebutted.

Heart trouble presumptionLabor Code section 3212.5Rebuttal of presumptionAgreed Medical ExaminerDilated cardiomyopathyNon-industrial alcoholismSole causeIndustrial causationPetition for ReconsiderationFindings of Fact and Order
References
1
Case No. ADJ8151109 ADJ8652587
Regular
Jun 04, 2019

GIANCARLO BERMUDEZ vs. TECHTRANS, INC., ZURICH NORTH AMERICA INSURANCE COMPANY, SUSSEX INSURANCE COMPANY, INTERCARE HOLDINGS INSURANCE SERVICES

This case involves lien claimant Scripte Corporation's petition for reconsideration after its lien was dismissed for failing to appear at a lien conference. Scripte claimed it did not receive notice of the conference, but the WCAB upheld the dismissal, finding the presumption of proper mail service was not rebutted by a bare declaration of non-receipt. Commissioner Gaffney dissented, arguing the office manager's declaration provided sufficient evidence to rebut the presumption and warrant a new hearing. The majority denied reconsideration based on the WCJ's reasoning, adopting it as their own.

Lien ClaimantPetition for ReconsiderationOrder Dismissing LienLien ConferenceNotice of HearingGood CauseRebuttable PresumptionProof of ServiceCompromise and ReleaseWorkers' Compensation Appeals Board
References
0
Case No. ADJ100201 (GRO 0034542) ADJ2946755 (GRO 0034543)
Regular
Mar 08, 2010

Bradley Lorenz vs. STOWASSER PONTIAC, INTERCARE ROSEVILLE

This case concerns an applicant's claim for workers' compensation benefits due to back injuries. The applicant sought reconsideration of a prior award, arguing the permanent disability rating was too low, as he believed he had successfully rebutted the rating based on the AMA Guides. The Appeals Board affirmed the WCJ's decision, finding that the applicant failed to provide substantial medical evidence to rebut the scheduled rating. The Board clarified that the burden of proof for rebuttal rests with the applicant and that a conclusory statement of "loss of function" is insufficient.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPermanent DisabilityAMA GuidesReconsiderationJoint Findings and AwardIndustrial InjuryRebuttalWhole Person ImpairmentMedical OpinionAgreed Medical Evaluator
References
9
Case No. GRO 0033226
Regular
Aug 31, 2007

FRANCISCO CHAGOLLA vs. LOS DOS VALLES HARVESTING, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

This case concerns an applicant who sustained a lumbar spine injury and appealed a permanent disability rating. The applicant challenged the validity of the 2005 Permanent Disability Rating Schedule (PDRS) and argued a vocational consultant's testimony rebutted the rating. The Board affirmed the original decision, finding the applicant failed to prove the PDRS was invalid and that the consultant's testimony did not rebut it. However, the Board reversed the denial of reimbursement for the consultant's expert testimony, finding him qualified as an expert in diminished future earning capacity.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDFrancisco ChagollaLos Dos Valles HarvestingState Compensation Insurance FundGRO 0033226Opinion and Decision After Reconsiderationindustrial injurylumbar spinepermanent disabilitydiminished future earning capacity
References
4
Case No. ADJ1932557 (SJO 0267873)
Regular
Mar 20, 2009

JOHN VLCEK vs. THE HOME DEPOT, permissibly self-insured

This case involves an admitted industrial knee injury where the applicant disputed the awarded 4% permanent disability. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration to address how diminished future earning capacity (DFEC) and AMA Guides impairments are rebutted under the 2005 Schedule. The Board is returning the case to the trial level to allow the judge and parties to apply recent en banc decisions in *Ogilvie* and *Almaraz*. These decisions clarify the methods for rebutting the DFEC and AMA Guides portions of the permanent disability rating schedule.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationPermanent DisabilityDiminished Future Earning CapacityDFECAMA Guides2005 ScheduleOgilvieAlmarazPanel Qualified Medical Evaluator
References
3
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
7
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
7
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
0
Showing 1-10 of 441 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