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. 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. ADJ6722603
Regular
Jun 16, 2010

TONY PEAK vs. REC SOLAR, PRAETORIAN INSURANCE COMPANY c/o AARLA

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) denied the applicant's Petition for Reconsideration in the case of Tony Peak v. REC Solar and Praetorian Insurance Company. The WCAB adopted and incorporated the reasons provided in the Workers' Compensation Administrative Law Judge's (WCJ) report. This order formally denies the reconsideration of the prior decision.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsideration deniedWCJ reportAdministrative law judgeADJ6722603ADJ6722349REC SolarPraetorian Insurance CompanyAARLATony Peak
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. ADJ383777
Regular
Apr 04, 2011

Roxanna Ortiz vs. ONE SOURCE, ESIS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied Roxanna Ortiz's petition for reconsideration of a prior findings and order. The initial ruling determined she sustained industrial injury only to her cervical spine as a janitor, not to other body parts or any resulting temporary/permanent disability or need for further medical treatment. Ortiz argued the judge erred by favoring defense medical reports and discrediting her testimony due to minor inconsistencies in her injury description. The Board adopted the WCJ's report, emphasizing deference to credibility determinations and that admissibility of medical reports should have been challenged at trial, not on reconsideration. A dissenting opinion argued the judge overemphasized minor variations in Ortiz's account and that medical evidence did not sufficiently support denial of other injuries or further treatment.

OrtizOne SourceESISWCABFindings and OrderPetition for ReconsiderationWorkers' Compensation Administrative Law Judgeindustrial injurycervical spineright arm
References
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. SDO 0312666
Regular
Jul 09, 2007

FELINO CARIASO vs. SOLAR TURBINES, INC.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board awarded applicant's counsel $5,000 in attorney's fees for responding to defendant's petition for writ of review, disallowing a portion of the requested hours and reducing the hourly rate from $275 to $250. The Board found the complexity of the issues and cited authorities to be of "average complexity." Additionally, $486.45 in costs were awarded for reproduction and binding of legal documents, supported by submitted bills.

Labor Code § 5801Labor Code § 5811Attorney's FeesCostsPetition for Writ of ReviewCourt of AppealRemandSupplemental AwardAppellate Attorney's FeesReasonable Hourly Rate
References
Case No. SRO 134400, SRO 139130
Regular
Sep 11, 2007

COBY RICHARDS vs. COUNTY OF SONOMA AND G.B. BRAGG AND ASSOCIATES, CITY OF CLOVERDALE AND REMIF

The applicant, a police officer, claimed a cumulative trauma injury resulting in a brain tumor, asserting exposure to x-rays as a known carcinogen under Labor Code section 3212.1. The Appeals Board denied reconsideration, affirming the finding that the applicant did not establish an industrial injury. While acknowledging the applicant's exposure to x-rays, the Board found this exposure did not present a reasonable link to the brain tumor, as per the Agreed Medical Examiner's opinion that only direct radiation to the brain is a known risk factor.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardIndustrial injuryAstrocytomaBrain tumorCarcinogenLabor Code section 3212.1Presumption of injuryPeace officerCumulative traumaX-rays
References
Case No. ADJ9835514
Regular
Nov 07, 2017

CARLO MAGNO vs. AMERICAN SOLAR DIRECT, INC., CYPRESS INSURANCE COMPANY

This case concerns a lien claimant, Med-Legal Photocopy, seeking reimbursement for costs incurred in obtaining medical records. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the lien claimant's petition for reconsideration. The Board found the claimant failed to meet its burden of proof to establish that the expenses were incurred for a "contested claim" as required by Labor Code section 4620. Therefore, the defendant is not liable for the lien claimant's expenses related to obtaining these records.

Med-Legal PhotocopyPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and AwardEDEXSCPMG/KFHGreen River Family DentistryRancho Physical TherapyBerkshire HathawayAmerican Solar DirectDr. Prescott
References
Case No. ADJ14099837; ADJ18327322
Regular
Aug 21, 2025

ROBERT SCHLIESMANN vs. SOLAR OPTIMUM DESIGN AND ELECTRICAL, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The applicant, Robert Schliesmann, sustained an injury to his lumbar spine, lower extremities, left leg, and bilateral feet while employed as a solar tech. The case was initially dismissed due to the applicant's perceived inaction. However, the Workers' Compensation Administrative Law Judge (WCJ) vacated the dismissal, finding that the defendant failed to comply with the Qualified Medical Evaluator's (QME) requests for diagnostic testing and documents, thereby impeding the QME process. The Appeals Board affirmed this decision, emphasizing the constitutional mandate for substantial justice and the defendant's duty to conduct a reasonable and timely investigation of claims.

PQMEAdjudication NumbersFindings and OrdersPetition for ReconsiderationReport and RecommendationLabor Code Section 5803Good CauseOrder of DismissalPetition to ReopenRescind
References
Showing 1-10 of 25 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