Ruling on cancer presumption under Labor Code section 3212.1 is upheld

This is an order denying appellate review

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

The applicant was employed as a probation officer. He was assigned to the
Narcotics Task Force under his employment for nearly two years. This was
through the State Bureau of Narcotics Enforcement. However, the County
where he was a probation officer paid his salary.

He was designated a Special Agent of the State and reported directly to the State. He had job duties that included incinerator operations and exposure to known carcinogens. The applicant later developed pancreatic cancer while employed by the County and filed a Workers’ Compensation claim asserting the cancer presumption of Labor Code section 3212.1.

The case went to trial and the Workers’ Compensation Judge (WCJ) found that there was substantial medical evidence supporting the applicant’s entitlement to the Labor Code section 3212.1 cancer presumption.
The applicant filed a petition for reconsideration and the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) in a Board panel decision agreed with the WCJ.

This resulted in the defendant filing for a Writ of Review with the appellate court. The appellate denied defendant’s petition for writ of review, concluding that substantial medical evidence supported a finding of the cancer presumption.


Applicant is ruled Initial Physical Aggressor and the case is ruled Non Industrial

This is a Board Panel decision

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

The applicant was a school teacher. The teacher blocked a doorway to prevent students form leaving the classroom after class was over. He intended on telling several students they were failing the class.

A student attempted to exit the doorway. The teacher told the student to sit down. The student told the teacher to get out of his way. At that time some spit from the students mouth appeared to go toward the teacher. The teacher slapped the student in the face. The student them punched the teacher in the chest.

The teacher filed a workers’ compensation claim alleging a psychiatric injury with post traumatic stress. The case went to trial and the Workers’ Compensation Judge (WCJ) ruled the applicant suffered a psychiatric injury but compensation was denied by the initial physical aggressor rule. 3600 (a)(7). The applicant filed a petition for reconsideration. The Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) reviewed case law including Mathews v. WCAB and Gegic v. WCAB.

The WCAB reviewed the psychiatrist report that applicant had sustained a psychiatric injury. Even though he had a psychiatric injury he was denied compensation as the initial physical aggressor.

The Board determined the student did not deliberately spit on the teacher it was just liquid released from his mouth while he was talking.


Applicant established Special Mission Exception to Going and Coming Rule

This is a Board Panel decision

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

The applicant was a doctor. He worked five days a week, 40 hours a week unless his supervisor asked him to work overtime.

His supervisor emailed him asking him to prepare a presentation. He walked to work. He left the hospital at 8 p.m. to walk home carrying his computer with the presentation. His supervisor called him to discuss the presentation. As he was talking to the supervisor he stepped off the curb and was hit by a car. He filed a claim and the defendant denied the claim base on the Going and Coming Rule. The case went to trial and the Workers’ Compensation Judge (WCJ) found the applicant was on a special mission and therefore, the claim was compensable.

The defendant appealed. The Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) indicated that under the going and coming rule injuries do not normally arise out of and in the course of employment. However, there are numerous exceptions.

The special mission exception is where the employee is performing (1) an extraordinary duty in relation to the employees duties; (2) is within the course of employment: and (3) has undertaken the duty at the express of
implied request of the employer for the benefit of the employer.

Here it was ruled the applicant was providing a service to the employer within the special mission exception.


This is a Board panel decision where a workplace cut or scrape led to an amputation that could become industrial

This is a Board panel decision

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

The applicant suffered a cut or scrape at work.  He also got a blister on his left toe.  The toe turned gangrene.  The applicant had new onset diabetes. His left foot progressively got worse.  The applicant first had an amputation to the low shin.  The condition spread and then he had an above-the-knee amputation.

The applicant saw an orthopedist who found the left toe gangrene was industrial.  The applicant then saw an internist that indicated the injury was not industrial.

The Workers’ Compensation Judge (WCJ) did not find applicant credible.  The applicant did not report any wounds to his foot to the employer.  The applicant filed a petition for reconsideration.

The Board reviewed the liberal construction code section 3202.  They also reviewed the case of Kimbol v IAC.  Then they reviewed McAllister v WCAB.  The Board indicated the question is whether there is a reasonable inference to support the claim for injury.

They looked at the existing medical opinions.  They concluded that the record was insufficient to determine causation. They suggested that the current physicians address the issue and if they cannot make a determination the WCJ should appoint a physician.

Therefore, they rescinded the decision and remanded for a determination on causation.


Board En Banc decision on supplemental job displacement benefit voucher

This is a Board En Banc panel decision

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

The applicant sustained an admitted injury. The parties resolved the injury by way of Stipulations with Request for Award. The award did not include a Supplemental Job Displacement (SJDB) voucher.

Prior to the settlement the defendant sent a Notice of Offer of Regular, Modified or Alternative Work. The letter accompanying the notice indicated that the applicant must verify that he is qualified to accept employment as an inmate laborer. You have voluntarily terminated your employment due to your release from prison.

The applicant filed a Request for Dispute Resolution and asked for resolution of the SJDB. The Administrative Director did not issue a determination and therefore, it was denied by operation of law.

The case went to trial and the Workers Compensation Judge (WCJ) indicated the appeal was untimely an denied the SJDB. The applicant filed a petition for reconsideration and the Workers Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) ruled the applicant was entitled to a voucher. Defendant appealed.

The WCAB ruled AD rule 10133.54 invalid. They also ruled an employer must show a bona fide offer of regular work to avoid liability for a SJDB. Here there was no bona fide offer.


Newsletter Sign up

SUBSCRIBE to our
Workers Compensation Feed

Recent Newsletters

Categories

Archives