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. 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. ADJ14723140
Regular
Aug 08, 2025

Phillip Howlett, et al. vs. California Highway Patrol, State Compensation Insurance Fund

Defendant California Highway Patrol sought reconsideration of a 'Findings and Award' which applied a presumption of compensability for cancer, resulting in the applicant's death. Defendant argued it had rebutted the presumption and that applicant's subsequent employer, University of California Police Department, was liable. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration to correct technical errors in the original F&A, rescinding and reissuing it without substantive changes. The Board affirmed that the Labor Code section 3212.1 cancer presumption applied to CHP employment and was not rebutted. It further clarified that the presumption does not extend to the University of California Police Department, and the defendant provided no evidence of causation under traditional analysis for the subsequent employer.

ADJ14723140Phillip HowlettCalifornia Highway Patrollegally uninsuredState Compensation Insurance FundPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and AwardLabor Code Section 3212.1cancerpresumption of compensability
References
2
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. 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
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Cardno v. State

The petitioner, a police officer for the Port Authority, sought World Trade Center accidental disability retirement benefits after being diagnosed with colitis, which he attributed to his work at the WTC site on 9/11 and subsequent extended shifts at JFK. The Comptroller denied the application, finding that while the WTC presumption applied, it was rebutted by competent evidence, and the petitioner failed to establish a causal connection between his disability and his work at the WTC site. The court affirmed the Comptroller's determination, ruling that the work performed at JFK did not fall within the scope of the World Trade Center site presumption and that sufficient medical evidence existed to rebut the presumption for the WTC site work, thus upholding the denial of benefits.

World Trade Center benefitsaccidental disability retirementulcerative colitiscausationstatutory presumptionpolice officerCPLR article 78 proceedingmedical evidencestress-related illness9/11 workers
References
3
Case No. CV-23-1971
Regular Panel Decision
May 01, 2025

In the Matter of the Claim of Anthony Stabile

Claimant Anthony Stabile, a nurse, sought workers' compensation benefits after experiencing an unwitnessed cardiac arrest in his employer's parking lot. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge initially established the claim under the Workers' Compensation Law § 21 presumption. However, the Workers' Compensation Board reversed this decision, finding that the employer successfully rebutted the presumption with medical testimony linking the cardiac event to claimant's preexisting conditions. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, ruling that its findings were supported by substantial evidence and that claimant failed to prove a causal link between his condition and employment. The court emphasized that while the statutory presumption applies to unwitnessed accidents, it does not establish the occurrence of an accident itself and can be rebutted by contrary substantial evidence.

Workers' CompensationAccidental InjuryArising Out of EmploymentCourse of EmploymentUnwitnessed AccidentCardiac ArrestPreexisting ConditionsMedical EvidenceStatutory PresumptionRebuttal of Presumption
References
9
Case No. No. 46
Regular Panel Decision
May 16, 2024

In the Matter of the Claim of Justin Timperio

This case clarifies the operation of the rebuttable presumption set forth in Workers' Compensation Law § 21 (1). Justin Timperio, a first-year resident at Bronx-Lebanon Hospital, was severely injured during a mass shooting by a former employee with whom he had no prior contact. While a Workers' Compensation Law Judge and the Workers' Compensation Board initially found the injuries compensable, the Appellate Division reversed, arguing that the lack of evidence regarding the assailant's motivation rebutted the WCL § 21 (1) presumption. The Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division's decision, holding that a lack of evidence regarding the motivation for an assault does not rebut the presumption that an injury arising in the course of employment also arises out of employment. The Workers' Compensation Board's decision was therefore reinstated.

Workplace AssaultRebuttable PresumptionCourse of EmploymentArising Out of EmploymentWCL Section 21(1)Lack of EvidenceMotivation for AssaultAppellate Division ReversalCourt of Appeals DecisionMedical Staff Injury
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 08, 2005

Claim of Marcus v. City of Troy

The claimant appealed a Workers’ Compensation Board decision from June 8, 2005, which determined that the death of her husband, a truck driver/sewer maintenance worker for the City of Troy, Department of Public Utilities, was not causally related to his employment. The decedent died suddenly while driving a company truck with a coworker. Initially, a Workers’ Compensation Law Judge awarded benefits, citing the presumption in Workers’ Compensation Law § 21 for deaths occurring during employment. However, the Board disagreed, finding the presumption rebutted by the employer’s evidence. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that the employer presented substantial medical evidence, based on the decedent's history of health issues, to support the determination that the death was unrelated to his employment, thereby successfully rebutting the presumption of compensability.

Workers' Compensation Law § 21Presumption of compensabilityCausationMedical EvidenceRebuttal evidenceUnexplained deathCardiac eventsEmployment-related deathBurden of proofAppellate review
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
Showing 1-10 of 791 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