What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
Applicant's prostate cancer is presumed compensable under Labor Code section 3212.1 due to exposure to diesel exhaust during service as a peace officer.
Favours Applicant prevailed
This presumption triggered the dispute over causation and the need for rebuttal evidence.
From the decision · page 2In this matter, it appears uncontested that applicant's prostate cancer is presumed
compensable pursuant to Labor Code section 3212.1. The issue in dispute is whether the defendant
properly rebutted the presumption. The Labor Code section 3212.1 presumption arises when
certain public safety officers (including, as relevant to this matter, peace officers) develop cancer
or leukemia during active service, or a period after service determined by their years of service,
and have shown that they were exposed to a known carcinogen during their period of service.
Here applicant showed that he was exposed to the known carcinogen diesel exhaust during his
service as a peace officer.
Dr. Padova's medical opinion that elevated PSA levels in 2005 indicated prostate cancer predating employment with the County of Riverside.
Favours Defendant prevailed
This opinion rebutted the cancer presumption and supported deferral for further development.
From the decision · page 1Applicant seeks reconsideration of a workers' compensation administrative law judge's
(WCJ) Findings of Fact of December 3, 2020, wherein it was found that while employed during a
cumulative period ending on October 3, 2018 as a correctional deputy, applicant sustained
industrial injury to his heart, circulatory system, and excretory system, and in the form of
hypertension, but did not sustain industrial injury in the form of prostate cancer. In finding that
applicant did not sustain industrial injury in the form of prostate cancer, it was found that the Labor
Code section 3212.1 cancer presumption was rebutted by the report and deposition testimony of
agreed medical evaluator oncologist James Padova, M.D. It was also found in the opinion that,
while industrial injury to the excretory system was found, "The heart presumption on LC 3212
[sic]1 does not extend a presumption of injury to the kidney."
The heart presumption of Labor Code section 3212.5 does not extend to injury to the kidney.
Favours Defendant prevailed
This legal interpretation affirmed the denial of presumption for kidney injury.
From the decision · page 53. The heart presumption of Labor Code section 3212.5 does not
extend a presumption of injury to the kidney.