Police officer’s cancer diagnosed 17 years after the last worked is ruled presumptively compensable

This is a Board Panel decision.

This is a very significant case for workers’ compensation principles.

The applicant worked as a police officer from 1982 to 2001.  He received a disability retirement in 2003.

The applicant did not notice symptoms until 2018.  He was diagnosed with bladder cancer.  He filed an application alleging his employment as a police officer caused his cancer and asserted the cancer presumption under Labor Code section 3212.1.

The case went to trial. The Workers’ Compensation Judge (WCJ) noted that section 3212.1 indicated that the presumption only applied if it occurred within the last ten years the applicant actually worked. The applicant in this case had not worked during the last ten years. 

The applicant saw an Agreed Medical Examiner (AME) who indicated that the applicant’s cancer was nonindustrial but there was a latency period of 20 years.

The WCJ used the latency period to determine that the cancer would have developed in 1998, 20 years before being diagnosed.  Therefore, it was while he was employed and the presumption applied. The cancer was compensable.

The defendant filed a petition for reconsideration. The Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) issued a Board panel decision. They reviewed the statute and case law. They determined that where substantial medical evidence established that the cancer began developing during employment, the presumption applies and the case is compensable.

Blair v. City of Torrance

 Editor: Harvey Brown
Samuelsen, Gonzalez, Valenzuela & Brown
3501 Jamboree Suite 602
Newport Beach, Ca 92660
(949) 689-5586

The Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) does not have to reveal the name of the Independent Medical Reviewer

This is an appellate decision

This is a very significant case for workers’ compensation principles.

The applicant had a work related injury that resulted in several surgical procedures. The applicant saw a pain-management specialist who prescribed a pharmaceutical regimen. Five of the prescriptions were approved and four were denied.

The applicant appealed the decision through the Independent Medical Review (IMR) process. IMR organization approved one of the four prescriptions and rejected the other three.

The applicant appealed and a Workers” Compensation Judge (WCJ) reversed the IMR decision and sent it back to the organization for review by a different reviewer.

While it was up for second review the applicant asked the Board to reveal the identity of the first and second reviewer. Before the hearing, the second reviewer issued an opinion.

A hearing was held to reveal the names of the reviewers. The WCJ denied the request to reveal the names based on section 4610.6, subdivision (f). On petition for reconsideration the WCAB agreed with the WCJ and denied the request to reveal the names of the reviewers.

The appellate court reviewed the confidentiality provision of section 4610.6, subdivision (f). The confidentiality section ensures that reviewers are independent and unbiased. This section prevents the Board from revealing the names and does not violate due process.

Newsletter Sign up

Workers Compensation Feed

Recent Newsletters