What the panel ordered
Petition for Reconsideration granted; Findings of Fact of December 3, 2020 affirmed except that the issue of industrial injury in the form of prostate cancer is deferred for further development; heart presumption does not extend to kidney injury.
Applicant sought reconsideration of the WCJ's Findings of Fact of December 3, 2020, which found industrial injury to heart, circulatory system, and excretory system but not prostate cancer; the WCJ filed a Report and Recommendation on Petition for Reconsideration.
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.
The heart presumption of Labor Code section 3212.5 does not extend to injury to the kidney, as affirmed by the WCAB.
From the decision · page 53. The heart presumption of Labor Code section 3212.5 does not extend a presumption of injury to the kidney.
The issue of industrial injury in the form of prostate cancer is deferred for further development to allow a supplemental report from Dr. Padova.
From the decision · page 52. The issue of industrial injury in the form of prostate cancer is deferred, with jurisdiction reserved.
The facts that decided it
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.
What the panel did with the medical opinions
The role the physician served, and the weight the opinion carried. Physicians are named here as the decision names them; we do not score them.
Dr. Padova opined that the elevated PSA levels in 2005 indicated prostate cancer likely predating employment with the County of Riverside, making it unlikely that industrial exposure caused the prostate cancer.
Dr. Padova's report and deposition testimony rebutted the Labor Code section 3212.1 cancer presumption regarding prostate cancer causation.
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 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 for public safety officers
Presumption arises when a peace officer develops cancer during or after service and was exposed to a known carcinogen; defendant must rebut this presumption.
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.
Labor Code section 3212.5
Heart trouble presumption for deputy sheriffs
The heart presumption applies to deputy sheriffs but does not extend to 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.
What proof carried it
The evidence the panel weighed, by kind.
Dr. Padova's report and deposition testimony
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 same issues, filtered across the whole corpus — or paste your own facts and let the search rank by factor match.
About this page
- A published decision of the California Workers' Compensation Appeals Board, taken apart by what it turned on. The Board publishes the decision itself; this page adds the extraction and quotes the passage behind every claim.
- The injured worker is not named here, and the case caption is not printed. Physicians appear as the decision names them, because a medical opinion is an act in a public proceeding.
- Issues, outcomes and weights were extracted by AI and released only where the source passage checked. Read the official decision before relying on anything here. Not legal advice.
- If you are named in this decision and want this page removed, write to privacy@similarcase.com.