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. ADJ10002681
Regular
Sep 07, 2018

ALLISON WIGGINS vs. KERN VALLEY STATE PRISON, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration to address the applicant's claim of industrial heart injury, which was initially denied by the administrative law judge despite a finding of industrial hypertension. The Board found that the applicant, a correctional officer, is entitled to a rebuttable presumption of industrial causation for heart trouble under Labor Code § 3212.2. Crucially, the Court determined that the record needs further development to clarify industrial contribution to the applicant's valvular insufficiency, considering the absence of an anti-attribution clause in § 3212.2 which differs from other related statutes. Therefore, the case is returned to the trial level for further development of evidence and a decision on rebuttal of the presumption.

Labor Code section 3212.2heart trouble presumptioncorrectional officerbicuspid aortic valvevalvular diseaseindustrial injurypermanent disabilitycumulative periodrebuttal of presumptionagreed medical evaluator
References
7
Case No. A.D. No. 69820
Regular Panel Decision

Rochester Telephone Corp. v. Public Service Commission

The Public Service Commission (PSC) reduced Rochester Telephone Corporation's (RTC) utility rates by imputing a 2% royalty due to improper cost-shifting and uncompensated transfers of RTC’s intangible assets to its subsidiaries. Concurrently, PSC created a rebuttable presumption of a 2% royalty for other regulated utilities. RTC challenged these actions in a CPLR article 78 proceeding, which the Appellate Division confirmed. This Court affirmed the Appellate Division's decision, finding both the royalty and the rebuttable presumption to be rational means for establishing just and reasonable utility rates. Additionally, the Court dismissed constitutional claims, ruling the Commerce Clause claim justiciable but the takings issue non-justiciable due to specific case circumstances and a Joint Stipulation.

Utility RegulationRate-making PolicyIntangible Asset ValuationRoyalty ImputationCost ShiftingPublic Service Commission AuthorityAppellate ReviewConstitutional ClaimsCommerce ClauseTakings Clause
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Panas v. Reno

This case involves a challenge by five Polish nationals against a federal regulation that provides a rebuttable presumption of extreme hardship to Guatemalan and Salvadoran nationals in immigration proceedings. The plaintiffs argued that this regulation denied them due process and equal protection by not extending the same presumption to them. They sought class certification and a preliminary injunction to gain the benefit of this presumption. The court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss, concluding that the plaintiffs lacked standing and ripeness for their due process claim, as their alleged harm was conjectural. Furthermore, the equal protection claim failed because the regulation fell within Congress's broad power over immigration, supported by a legitimate reason of administrative efficiency.

Immigration LawDue ProcessEqual ProtectionRebuttable PresumptionExtreme HardshipAsylum SeekersClass ActionSubject Matter JurisdictionRipeness DoctrineAdministrative Efficiency
References
13
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. ADJ7284210
Regular
Apr 18, 2012

Kevin Kennedy vs. CITY OF OAKLAND, JT2 INTEGRATED OAKLAND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration, reversing a trial judge's decision that denied a firefighter's claim for a stroke. The Board found that Labor Code section 3212's anti-attribution clause prevents rebuttal of the industrial injury presumption based on a pre-existing congenital heart condition. Therefore, the presumption of industrial causation applies, and the matter is returned for further proceedings.

Labor Code section 3212anti-attribution clauserebuttable presumptionindustrial injurycongenital heart conditionfirefightercerebrovascular systempatent foramen ovaleAgreed Medical Examiner (AME)non-industrial causation
References
5
Case No. ADJ9052242
Regular
Dec 13, 2016

VALENTINO DOUGLAS vs. RIALTO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, PIPS 10, Administered by KEENAN & ASSOCIATES

The Board rescinded the WCJ's Findings and Award because the applicability of the Labor Code § 5402(b) presumption of compensability could not be determined. Crucially, the record lacked evidence of when the claim form was filed, which is necessary to establish the 90-day period for denial and rebuttal. Furthermore, the presumption was not raised as an issue at trial, potentially violating due process. The matter was returned to the WCJ for further proceedings to clarify these foundational issues and ensure all relevant medical evidence is considered by expert witnesses.

ADJ9052242Rialto Unified School DistrictValentino DouglasReconsiderationFindings and Award90-day presumptionLab. Code § 5402(b)RebuttalApplicant's credibilitySub-rosa videos
References
23
Case No. ADJ9468922
Regular
Aug 11, 2025

THEODORE DAVIS vs. CITY OF MODESTO, ATHENS ADMINISTRATORS CONCORD

The applicant, Theodore Davis, a firefighter for 36 years, developed prostate cancer which was denied by the City of Modesto. The case revolves around the application of Labor Code section 3212.1, which establishes a rebuttable presumption of compensability for cancer in firefighters. The Workers' Compensation Judge found that the medical opinion of PQME Dr. Allems, which stated that prostate cancer was not industrially caused in firefighters, was based on an incorrect legal theory and contained inconsistencies. Consequently, this opinion was deemed not substantial evidence to rebut the statutory presumption, leading to the denial of the Petition for Reconsideration by the Appeals Board.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationLabor Code Section 5909Electronic Adjudication Management System (EAMS)Industrial CausationAOE/COELabor Code Section 3600Cancer PresumptionLabor Code Section 3212.1Firefighter
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Booker v. Intermagnetics General Corp.

Claimant fainted at her workstation, suffering a traumatic head injury. She filed for workers' compensation, which the employer and carrier controverted. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge determined the injury arose out of and in the course of employment, applying the Workers' Compensation Law § 21 (1) presumption, and found the carrier's rebuttal evidence speculative. The Workers' Compensation Board affirmed this decision. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that the carrier's medical expert's opinion, attributing the collapse to metabolic acidosis from prior alcohol/substance abuse, was insufficient to overcome the statutory presumption, especially given evidence of 18 months of sobriety.

Workers' Compensation LawStatutory PresumptionAccidental InjuryArising Out of EmploymentCourse of EmploymentUnwitnessed AccidentEmployer LiabilityCarrier RebuttalMedical Expert TestimonyMetabolic Acidosis
References
8
Case No. No. 46
Regular Panel Decision
May 16, 2024

The Matter of the Claim of Justin Timperio v. Bronx-Lebanon Hospital

This case clarifies the operation of the rebuttable presumption under New York Workers' Compensation Law § 21 (1). The claimant, Justin Timperio, a resident at Bronx-Lebanon Hospital, was injured during a workplace shooting. While the Workers' Compensation Board found his injuries compensable, the Appellate Division reversed, citing a lack of evidence regarding the assailant's motivation. The Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division, holding that when an injury occurs in the course of employment, it is presumed to arise out of employment unless substantial evidence to the contrary exists. The Court emphasized that a lack of evidence concerning the assailant's motivation does not, by itself, rebut this presumption, especially in the absence of any established personal animosity between the parties.

Workplace ShootingWorkers' CompensationRebuttable PresumptionCourse of EmploymentArising Out of EmploymentLack of MotivationAssault InjuryStatutory InterpretationAppellate ReviewNew York Law
References
14
Case No. ADJ830218 (LAO 0885923)
Regular
Mar 12, 2012

Michael Evans vs. STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, CALIFORNIA YOUTH AUTHORITY, c/o STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied Michael Evans' petition for reconsideration. The Board adopted the Workers' Compensation Judge's report, which found that the presumption of industrial heart injury was rebutted. This rebuttal was based on Dr. Levister's opinion that the applicant's heart disease was caused by alcoholism, not industrial hypertension or stroke. Additionally, the applicant's attorney was admonished for attaching inappropriate documents to the petition.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationDr. Levisterrebuts presumptionnon-industrial causationheart diseaseAppeals Board Rule 10842(c)sanctionable conductAppeals Board Rule 10561Findings and Award
References
9
Showing 1-10 of 682 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