ADJ17298965 — California WCAB decision

What the panel ordered

WCJ decision amended to find applicant entitled to Labor Code section 3212.1 cancer presumption; all other issues deferred for further trial-level development

Petition for reconsideration of WCJ Findings of Fact and Order of January 28, 2025 granted; matter remanded for further development on rebuttal of presumption

Read the official decision →

What was disputed, and how it came out

Each issue the panel decided, with the reasoning it gave. An outcome is what this panel did on this record — not a rule, and not a prediction.

AOE/COEApplicant prevailedskin · melanoma

Applicant established entitlement to the cancer presumption under Labor Code section 3212.1 because he was a covered police officer exposed to a known carcinogen (solar ultraviolet radiation) during employment, and the melanoma developed or manifested during his employment period. The WCJ erred in denying the presumption. The matter is remanded for further development on rebuttal of the presumption.

The facts that decided it

What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.

Applicant was employed as a police officer in a covered classification during the period 11/26/2018 through 9/29/2022 and was exposed to solar ultraviolet radiation, a known carcinogen.

Favours Applicant prevailed

The rules the panel named

Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.

Labor Code section 3212.1

Labor Code section 3212.1 cancer presumption

Presumption applies to covered police officers exposed to known carcinogens during employment; burden shifts to employer to rebut by showing no reasonable link between exposure and cancer.

From the decision · page 3(d) The cancer so developing or manifesting itself in these cases shall be presumed to arise out of and in the course of the employment. This presumption is disputable and may be controverted by evidence that the primary site of the cancer has been established and that the carcinogen to which the member has demonstrated exposure is not reasonably linked to the disabling cancer. Unless so controverted, the appeals board is bound to find in accordance with the presumption. This presumption shall be extended to a member following termination of service for a period of three calendar months for each full year of the requisite service, but not to exceed 120 months in any circumstance, commencing with the last date actually worked in the specified capacity.

City of Long Beach v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Garcia) (2005) 126 Cal.App.4th 298

Burden of proof to rebut presumption requires showing no reasonable link between cancer and industrial exposure

Employer must prove no reasonable link exists between cancer and exposure; mere absence of medical evidence is insufficient.

From the decision · page 5Therefore, we find that applicant proved his entitlement to the presumption and return this matter to the trial level for further development of the record, analysis and decision on whether the presumption has been rebutted. In order to rebut the section 3212.1, "the employer must prove the absence of a reasonable link between the cancer and industrial exposure to the carcinogen. A mere showing of an absence of medical evidence that the carcinogen has been shown to cause the particular cancer contracted by the employee is not sufficient to rebut the presumption." (City of Long Beach v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Garcia) (2005) 126 Cal.App.4th 298, 305-306 [70 Cal.Comp.Cases 109].) However, "the statute does not require the employer to prove `the absence of any possible link.' (Italics added.) The statute requires proof no reasonable link exists. A link that is merely remote, hypothetical, statistically improbable, or the like, is not a reasonable link. The employer need not prove the absence of a link to a scientific certainty; instead, it must simply show no such connection is reasonable, i.e., can be logically inferred." (Id. at p. 316.) A defendant may rebut the presumption by demonstrating that "it is highly unlikely the cancer was industrially caused because the period between the exposure and the manifestation of the cancer is not within

ADJ17298965 · April 28, 2025

What the panel ordered

What was disputed, and how it came out

The facts that decided it

Your case already resembles someone else’s. Find whose.

What the panel did with the medical opinions

The rules the panel named

What proof carried it

About this page