City of Santa Clara v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Castro)
Oct 22, 2009OUTCOME: Finding and Award of Industrial Causation
Fernando Castro worked as a police officer for the City of Santa Clara beginning in 1989, was diagnosed with a rare brain tumor (pinealoblastoma) in November of 2004, and passed away from the tumor on ... July 28, 2005. His dependents claimed that his death was industrial by virtue of the presumption set forth in Labor Code section 3212.1. The dependents produced evidence that the decedent was exposed to numerous IARC Group I carcinogens during the course of his employment. This included exposures while the decedent fueled his vehicle, patrolled congested traffic areas, controlled crowds at fire scenes, raided methamphetamine laboratories, qualified at a shooting range, and was exposed to second-hand cigarette smoke. Accordingly, the dependents argued that the decedent was entitled to the presumption that his cancer and death was industrial by virtue of Labor Code section 3212.1. The City of Santa Clara argued that the decedent was not entitled to the presumption of Labor Code section 3212.1, as the dependents did not produce sufficient evidence that the decedent was exposed to known Group I carcinogens. The City also attempted to rebut the presumption of compensability by arguing that the period between the decedent's exposure to carcinogens and the manifestation of his cancer was not within the relevant latency period, and the quantity of the carcinogens to which the decedent was exposed, or length of time of the exposure, was too small or too brief to have had any detrimental effect. Finally, the City argued that Labor Code section 3212.1 itself is unconstitutional. After a trial on the issue of industrial causation, the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) ruled that the decedent was in fact entitled to the presumption that his cancer was industrial by virtue of Labor Code section 3212.1. Furthermore, the WCAB found that the City did not rebut this presumption. A subsequent petition for reconsideration filed by the City was denied on March 19, 2009. A petition for writ of review was denied by the California Court of Appeal on August 27, 2009, and the California Supreme Court denied review on October 22, 2009.
