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. ADJ6892644
Regular
Nov 23, 2016

William Davis, III vs. STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DEPARTMENT OF FORESTRY AND FIRE PROTECTION, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

This case involves a firefighter, William Davis III, claiming cumulative trauma injury to his nervous and respiratory systems due to exposure to fire retardant. The applicant sought reconsideration of a "take nothing" order, arguing entitlement to a statutory presumption of industrial causation under Labor Code section 3212.85. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board affirmed the prior order, denying reconsideration. The Board found that the applicant failed to establish the applicability of the presumption because the fire retardant was not a "biochemical substance" as defined for weapons of mass destruction, and even if it were, the presumption was rebutted by the Agreed Medical Examiner's opinion attributing the applicant's condition to an infectious process rather than occupational exposure.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardIndustrial InjuryCumulative TraumaFirefighterDepartment of Forestry and Fire ProtectionLabor Code Section 3212.85Presumption of Industrial CausationAgreed Medical Examiner (AME)Dr. Robert HarrisonToxic Exposure
References
Case No. ADJ10685699
Regular
Jan 22, 2019

DAVID CISAR vs. ORANGE COUNTY FIRE AUTHORITY

This case involved a fire captain who claimed industrial injury for melanoma and lymphoma, with the latter being the focus of the appeal. While the applicant was presumed compensable for leukemia/lymphoma under Labor Code section 3212.1 due to benzene exposure, the defendant successfully rebutted this presumption. The rebuttal was based on an independent medical evaluator's opinion that the short period between negative diagnostic tests and the cancer's manifestation made an industrial link unreasonable. The Board adopted this reasoning, denying the petition for reconsideration.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardOrange County Fire AuthorityPermissibly Self-InsuredCorvel CorporationFire CaptainCumulative InjuryMelanomaLymphomaChronic Lymphocytic LeukemiaSmall Lymphocytic Lymphoma
References
Case No. ADJ10954204
Regular
Sep 15, 2022

MARIA FLORES vs. PINNACLE HEALTH CORP., SUMMARY OF EVIDENCE INSURANCE COMPANY OF THE WEST, AFFINITY HOME HEALTH CARE SERVICES, FALLS LAKE FIRE & CASUALTY INSURANCE, SEDGWICK CMS, HOME HEALTH CARE SOLUTIONS, INC.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied a petition for reconsideration filed by Home Health Care Solutions. The applicant, an LVN, was injured in a car accident while traveling between patients for multiple agencies. The Board adopted the WCJ's report, which found the injury arose out of and occurred in the course of employment for Home Health Care Solutions. This decision was based on the fact that the applicant was required to use her own vehicle, which extended the employer-employee relationship beyond direct service. The WCJ also found the going and coming rule did not bar the claim due to the required use of transportation between patient locations.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationGoing and Coming RuleAOE/COELVNCar AccidentAutomobile ExceptionTransitEmployment RelationshipRequired Vehicle Use
References
Case No. ADJ11329391, ADJ13022586
Regular
Dec 11, 2020

Richard Mancha vs. California Department of Forestry and Fire Prevention, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

This case involves a firefighter, Richard Mancha, who claimed injury to his heart, memory, and cognitive abilities. Both the applicant and the defendant Department of Forestry and Fire Prevention appealed an earlier award. After reconsideration, the parties reached a Compromise and Release agreement for $150,000, which the Board found adequate and in the applicant's best interest. The Board rescinded the prior Findings and Award and approved the settlement.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardRichard ManchaCalifornia Department of Forestry and Fire PreventionLegally UninsuredState Compensation Insurance FundADJ11329391ADJ13022586Opinion and Decision After Reconsiderationapparatus/engineer fire fighterheart trouble presumption
References
Case No. ADJ6720899
Regular
May 15, 2012

MELISSA ROSAS vs. CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO POLICE DEPARTMENT, CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the City of San Bernardino Police Department's petition for reconsideration. The Board adopted the judge's report, which found the applicant, Melissa Rosas, sustained a compensable injury in the form of cancer. This decision was based on the applicant being a police officer exposed to known carcinogens and the presumption under Labor Code § 3212.1 not being rebutted by the defense. The judge found the applicant's treating physician's opinion on variable cancer latency periods more persuasive than the defense expert's.

Labor Code § 3212.1cancer presumptionpolice officercarcinogen exposurebenzenecigarette smokegasoline fumesauto accidentsvehicle firesresidence fires
References
Case No. ADJ8241674
Regular
Dec 24, 2014

DAMON BAGLEY vs. CITY OF CLOVIS POLICE DEPARTMENT

This case concerns whether a police officer injured in a commute-related car accident sustained an industrial injury. The Appeals Board rescinded the WCJ's finding, determining the injury was not compensable under the "going and coming" rule. The majority found no special mission because the employer lacked sufficient control and the officer's early arrival provided no clear benefit. A dissenting opinion argued the officer fell under the uniformed officer exception and was on a special mission due to the emergency call-in.

Going and coming ruleSpecial mission exceptionIndustrial injuryWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardCity of Clovis Police DepartmentUniformed officer exceptionMotor vehicle accidentCall-inEmergency callDepartment-issued cell phone
References
Case No. SBR 0332348
Regular
Dec 07, 2007

WILLIAM VOGT vs. HERNANDEZ, KROONE & ASSOCIATES, TRAVELERS PROPERTY CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration, rescinded the initial denial of benefits, and found that the applicant sustained industrial injury. The Board determined that the applicant, a civil engineer who was provided a vehicle and paid for travel time, was acting within the course and scope of employment at the time of his vehicle collision, despite being found traveling in the opposite direction of his commute. The case was returned to the trial level for further proceedings.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardIndustrial InjuryMotor Vehicle CollisionCourse of EmploymentGoing and Coming RuleMaterial DeviationEmployer Provided VehiclePaid Travel TimePreponderance of EvidencePetition for Reconsideration
References
Case No. ADJ9896370
Regular
Oct 19, 2017

GUILLERMO RESTREPO vs. SAN GORGONIO MEMORIAL HOSPITAL, ALPHA FUND

The applicant sought compensation for an industrial injury sustained in a car accident while commuting to work, arguing it fell under exceptions to the going and coming rule. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) affirmed the administrative law judge's denial of the claim. The WCAB found the applicant's testimony regarding the necessity of using his personal vehicle for work-related tasks lacked credibility. Crucially, the evidence did not establish that the employer expressly or impliedly required the applicant to use his vehicle or that such use was a custom and practice relied upon by the employer.

Going and Coming RuleIndustrial InjuryWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and OrdersWCJDirector of Environmental ServicesMotor Vehicle AccidentEmployment ContractJob Duties
References
Case No. ADJ137248 (MON 0283474)
Regular
May 21, 2009

GARY BYRNES vs. KAR INVESTMENTS, INC., dba RIGOLI FIRE EXTINGUISHER, SIMPLEX GRINNELL, dba RIGOLI FIRE EXTINGUISHER, KURT REXIUS

This case involves an applicant's Labor Code section 132a discrimination claim against KAR Investments, Inc. (dba Rigoli Fire Extinguisher) and its successor, Simplex Grinnell. The WCAB rescinded a prior finding that barred the applicant from pursuing Simplex due to a statute of limitations issue. The Board ordered Kurt Rexius, the sole shareholder of KAR, joined as a necessary party defendant for full adjudication. The matter is returned to the trial level to determine if discrimination occurred and who is liable.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardKAR InvestmentsInc.Rigoli Fire ExtinguisherSimplex GrinnellKurt RexiusLabor Code section 132asuccessor-in-intereststatute of limitationreconsideration
References
Case No. ADJ17834281
Regular
Nov 10, 2025

JOSE MARTINEZ vs. CUSTOM PIPE COUPLING, FEDERAL INSURANCE CO.

Applicant Jose Martinez sought reconsideration of a finding that his injury did not arise out of and occur in the course of employment, as it fell under the "going and coming" rule. The WCJ's initial finding was based on a May 26, 2023 motor vehicle accident occurring while Martinez was driving a company truck home for personal use, specifically to transport scrap metal given to him by his employer. The Appeals Board, adopting the WCJ's report, denied reconsideration, concluding that none of the exceptions to the "going and coming" rule applied, as there was no benefit to the employer for Martinez to take the company truck home once the delivery task was removed.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationLabor Code section 5909Electronic Adjudication Management SystemGoing and Coming RuleSpecial Mission ExceptionSpecial Errand ExceptionAOE/COEMotor Vehicle AccidentCompany Vehicle
References
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