What the panel ordered
The WCAB granted reconsideration, rescinded the WCJ's decision, and issued a new decision finding that applicant sustained presumptive industrial injury in the form of coccidioidomycosis (valley fever).
Applicant sought reconsideration of the WCJ's Findings and Order of March 3, 2023, which found no industrial injury. The WCAB granted reconsideration and rescinded the WCJ's decision.
This docket was decided more than once. Shown here is the latest released decision; we also hold June 18, 2021.
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 presumption of industrial causation under Labor Code section 3212.10 was established but not successfully rebutted by the defense, leading to a finding of industrial injury.
From the decision · page 51. the applicant, age 41 on the date of injury, while employed on 1- 26-2019 as a correctional officer, Occupational Group 490, at Delano, California, by the State of California, sustained injury arising out of and in the course of employment to the in the form of coccidioidomycosis.
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
Labor Code section 3212.10 presumption of industrial causation was established for applicant's valley fever injury.
Favours Applicant prevailed
This presumption shifts the burden of proof to the employer to rebut industrial causation, which the employer failed to do.
From the decision · page 2As relevant to the instant proceedings, Labor Code section 3212.10 states:
Dr. Freesemann stated causation was impossible to determine due to applicant living in a hyperendemic area but did not provide substantial medical evidence to rebut the presumption.
Favours Applicant prevailed
Without substantial evidence to rebut, the presumption stands and favors the applicant.
From the decision · page 3presumption did not apply in the applicant's case was that he lived in a hyperendemic area, in which, my QME gave a rebuttal to the presumption of the pneumonia due to the fact that he lived in a hyperendemic area, and by several studies by the CDC with prisons in the Valley, that is impossible to determine the causation at this point of Valley Fever, in the Valley, in a hyperendemic area. In other words, the applicant could have contracted Valley Fever at any number of areas where he lived. Beyond that, there are other medical factors in play that I believe caused the patient's significant symptoms and significant hospital stays, but I am not at liberty to discuss due to HIPPA laws. However, I do think those things did contribute to his long illness.
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. Freesemann opined that the pneumonia presumption was rebutted because the applicant lived in a hyperendemic area, making it impossible to determine causation of valley fever as work-related. However, he did not provide substantial medical evidence to overcome the presumption.
The defense did not meet its burden to rebut the presumption as Dr. Freesemann stated causation was impossible to determine but did not provide substantial evidence to rebut the presumption.
From the decision · page 3presumption did not apply in the applicant's case was that he lived in a hyperendemic area, in which, my QME gave a rebuttal to the presumption of the pneumonia due to the fact that he lived in a hyperendemic area, and by several studies by the CDC with prisons in the Valley, that is impossible to determine the causation at this point of Valley Fever, in the Valley, in a hyperendemic area. In other words, the applicant could have contracted Valley Fever at any number of areas where he lived. Beyond that, there are other medical factors in play that I believe caused the patient's significant symptoms and significant hospital stays, but I am not at liberty to discuss due to HIPPA laws. However, I do think those things did contribute to his long illness.
The rules the panel named
Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Labor Code section 3212.10
Labor Code section 3212.10 creates a rebuttable presumption that pneumonia developing during service as a correctional officer is industrial injury, shifting the burden of proof to the employer to rebut.
The presumption was established but the defense did not successfully rebut it, so the injury was found industrial.
From the decision · page 2As relevant to the instant proceedings, Labor Code section 3212.10 states:
What proof carried it
The evidence the panel weighed, by kind.
Applicant lived in a hyperendemic area for valley fever, which was cited by the QME as a reason to rebut the presumption, but this was not sufficient to overcome the presumption.
From the decision · page 3presumption did not apply in the applicant's case was that he lived in a hyperendemic area, in which, my QME gave a rebuttal to the presumption of the pneumonia due to the fact that he lived in a hyperendemic area, and by several studies by the CDC with prisons in the Valley, that is impossible to determine the causation at this point of Valley Fever, in the Valley, in a hyperendemic area. In other words, the applicant could have contracted Valley Fever at any number of areas where he lived. Beyond that, there are other medical factors in play that I believe caused the patient's significant symptoms and significant hospital stays, but I am not at liberty to discuss due to HIPPA laws. However, I do think those things did contribute to his long illness.
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.