What the panel ordered
Petition for Reconsideration denied; WCJ's Findings and Award and Order affirmed.
Defendant sought reconsideration of the WCJ's Findings and Award and Order of December 29, 2025, which found applicant sustained industrial injury in the form of kidney cancer causing compensable permanent disability of 22%.
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.
Medical evidence showed applicant's kidney cancer is a progressive, insidious disease with potential for recurrence, justifying extension of jurisdiction beyond the 5-year statute of limitations.
From the decision · page 5Doctor Fishman also stated his opinion that applicant's cancer was a "insidious, progressive disease" warranting the extension of the Board's jurisdiction beyond the 5-year statute of limitations set forth in Labor Code § 5410 pursuant to General Foundry Service v. WCAB (Jackson), (1986) 42 C3d 331. He states:
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
Applicant diagnosed with kidney cancer removed by nephrectomy with clear margins but with potential for recurrence.
Favours Applicant prevailed
This medical fact supported finding the disease as progressive and insidious, justifying extension of jurisdiction.
From the decision · page 5Ultimately, the kidney was removed with the doctors noting complete removal of the tumor with "clean margins." (See Joint Exhibit J2 pg. 19 ("Diagnostic imaging and surgical pathology analysis were consistent with right kidney cancer (clear renal cell carcinoma Grade 2 (PTlb) with clear surgical margins) removed in toto by right total nephrectomy without evidence of local, regional, or distant cancer spread (to the present no need for adjuvant therapy nor evidence of any metastases.")) There has been no recurrence of cancer since the tumor was removed February 22, 2022. Notwithstanding, Applicant continues to undergo regular CT scans of the abdomen to monitor for any recurrence of cancer. (See, e.g., Exhibit J1, at pg. 6 ("To the present, the applicant has been having an abdominal CT scan every six months and there has been no evidence of tumor recurrence.")
Dr. Fishman's medical opinion that the cancer is an insidious, progressive disease with a 10% or more chance of recurrence and increased risk of second cancer.
Favours Applicant prevailed
This expert opinion was relied upon to extend jurisdiction beyond the 5-year statute of limitations.
From the decision · page 5Doctor Fishman also stated his opinion that applicant's cancer was a "insidious, progressive disease" warranting the extension of the Board's jurisdiction beyond the 5-year statute of limitations set forth in Labor Code § 5410 pursuant to General Foundry Service v. WCAB (Jackson), (1986) 42 C3d 331. He states:
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.
Applicant's kidney cancer is an insidious, progressive disease warranting extension of jurisdiction beyond the 5-year statute of limitations due to potential for recurrence and increased risk of second cancer in remaining kidney.
Fishman opined that there is a reasonable medical probability that the cancer could recur or a second cancer could develop, justifying extension of jurisdiction under General Foundry Service v. WCAB (Jackson).
From the decision · page 5Doctor Fishman also stated his opinion that applicant's cancer was a "insidious, progressive disease" warranting the extension of the Board's jurisdiction beyond the 5-year statute of limitations set forth in Labor Code § 5410 pursuant to General Foundry Service v. WCAB (Jackson), (1986) 42 C3d 331. He states:
The rules the panel named
Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Ruffin v. Olson Glass Co., 52 Cal. Comp. Cases 335 (1987)
Characteristics of an insidious, progressive disease include causation by remote and undramatic work exposure, and potential for progression to disabling condition.
Applied to determine that applicant's kidney cancer met criteria for insidious, progressive disease.
General Foundry Service v. WCAB (Jackson), 42 Cal. 3d 331 (1986)
The Board may reserve jurisdiction and award permanent disability benefits after expiration of the 5-year statute of limitations for insidious, progressive diseases.
Applied to extend jurisdiction for applicant's kidney cancer as a progressive, insidious disease.
From the decision · page 6In General Foundry Service v. WCAB (Jackson), the California Supreme Court recognized that in cases of an insidious, progressive disease, the Board may reserve jurisdiction and award permanent disability benefits after expiration of the 5-year statute of limitations. This is because in certain cases, such as asbestosis, the applicant's condition may continue to deteriorate many years after the date of injury. The Supreme Court stated:
What proof carried it
The evidence the panel weighed, by kind.
Medical evidence from Dr. Fishman indicating potential for cancer recurrence and chronic nature of disease
From the decision · page 5Doctor Fishman also stated his opinion that applicant's cancer was a "insidious, progressive disease" warranting the extension of the Board's jurisdiction beyond the 5-year statute of limitations set forth in Labor Code § 5410 pursuant to General Foundry Service v. WCAB (Jackson), (1986) 42 C3d 331. He states:
Applicant continues regular CT scans every six months with no recurrence to date
From the decision · page 5Ultimately, the kidney was removed with the doctors noting complete removal of the tumor with "clean margins." (See Joint Exhibit J2 pg. 19 ("Diagnostic imaging and surgical pathology analysis were consistent with right kidney cancer (clear renal cell carcinoma Grade 2 (PTlb) with clear surgical margins) removed in toto by right total nephrectomy without evidence of local, regional, or distant cancer spread (to the present no need for adjuvant therapy nor evidence of any metastases.")) There has been no recurrence of cancer since the tumor was removed February 22, 2022. Notwithstanding, Applicant continues to undergo regular CT scans of the abdomen to monitor for any recurrence of cancer. (See, e.g., Exhibit J1, at pg. 6 ("To the present, the applicant has been having an abdominal CT scan every six months and there has been no evidence of tumor recurrence.")
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.