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 applies to peace officers including police officers of a city.
The presumption applies to the applicant as a police officer and shifts the burden to the defendant to rebut.
From the decision · page 1As explained below, we will deny the defendant's Petition.
At trial, the parties stipulated that "applicant was a full-time police officer with the City of
Pacific Grove." (Minutes of Hearing and Summary of Evidence of May 4, 2022 trial at p. 2.)
Thus, as a peace officer as defined in Penal Code section 830.1(a), which includes "a police officer... of a city," applicant was subject to the Labor Code section 3212.1, which states in pertinent
part:
Faust v. City of San Diego (2003) 68 Cal.Comp.Cases 1822 (Appeals Bd. en banc)
To rebut the cancer presumption, defendant must establish the primary site of the cancer and show that the carcinogen exposure is not reasonably linked to the cancer.
Defendant failed to meet this burden as the medical opinion was vague and insufficient.
From the decision · page 2In Faust v. City of San Diego (2003) 68 Cal.Comp.Cases 1822 (Appeals Bd. en banc), we
City of Long Beach v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Garcia) (2005) 126 Cal.App.4th 298
Defendant may rebut presumption by showing exposure to carcinogen was too small or brief to have detrimental effect.
Dr. Larach's opinion that exposure was too brief was vague and lacked a solid basis, thus insufficient to rebut presumption.
From the decision · page 3However, a defendant may rebut the presumption with evidence that "the quantity of the
carcinogen to which the employee was exposed, or length of time of the exposure, was too small
or too brief to have any detrimental effect." (City of Long Beach v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.
(Garcia) (2005) 126 Cal.App.4th 298, 317-318 [70 Cal.Comp.Cases 109].) Dr. Larach did appear
to opine that applicant's exposure to benzene was too brief to have detrimental effect. (February
17, 2021 deposition at p. 15.) However, there must be a solid and reasonable basis for the
physician's final conclusion. It is not sufficient for the WCJ to blindly accept a medical opinion
that lacks a solid underlying basis. (National Convenience Stores v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.
(Kessler) (1981) 121 Cal.App.3d 420, 427 [46 Cal.Comp.Cases 783].) Here, Dr. Larach never
expounded upon his conclusion that the exposure to benzene was too brief to be reasonably linked
to applicant's cancer. In any case, it is not clear that Dr. Larach opined that the exposure to benzene
was too small to be reasonably linked to applicant's cancer. Dr. Larach's opinion is somewhat
vague on this issue given that he appears to testify that the exposure to benzene was too small to