What the panel ordered
Petition for Reconsideration denied
Petition for Reconsideration filed 6/2/2025, denied by WCAB panel decision on 8/11/2025
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 prevailedprostate
The WCAB found that the applicant met the presumption of compensability under Labor Code section 3212.1 for prostate cancer as a firefighter and that the defense PQME's contrary opinion was not substantial evidence due to incorrect legal theory and internal inconsistencies.
From the decision · page 4For the reasons stated in the Report and Opinion on Decision, we agree with the WCJ that applicant met his prima facia burden to prove that the presumption pursuant to section 3212.1 applies based on the preponderance of the evidence (Lab. Code, § 3202.5, 5705), i.e., that he was a firefighter, that he was exposed to a known carcinogen, and that he developed prostate cancer. We note that panel qualified medical evaluator (PQME) Thomas Allems, M.D., stated that it was indisputable that firefighters are exposed to carcinogens in smoke and post-fire gasses (Report of Dr. Allems, 1/17/15, at pp. 6-7, Exhibit B) and that there is "limited evidence" of association between cadmium and arsenic with prostate cancer (id. at p. 4, emphasis in original). We also note