In Henderson v. County of Butte Probation Department, a significant workers’ compensation decision, the WCAB has affirmed that a probation officer who performed peace officer duties during emergency response to California wildfires qualified for the cancer presumption under Labor Code § 3212.1. The case expands the application of the cancer presumption to probation officers when they are called upon to perform peace officer duties during declared emergencies.
Case Overview
The case involved a 43-year-old probation officer supervisor who participated in mutual aid response during the 2017 and 2018 California wildfires, including the devastating Camp Fire. The applicant was diagnosed with colon cancer in July 2021 and filed a workers’ compensation claim citing cumulative exposure to carcinogens.
Key Holdings
The WCAB panel affirmed the WCJ’s findings that:
- The applicant qualified as a peace officer under both Penal Code § 830.1 and § 830.5 when performing emergency response duties
- The cancer presumption under Labor Code § 3212.1 applied to her case
- The medical evidence supported that her cancer fell within the applicable latency period
Defense Arguments and WCAB’s Response
The defense argued that extending the cancer presumption to probation officers providing mutual aid would effectively nullify statutory limitations on coverage. However, the WCAB rejected this argument, emphasizing that:
- The applicant was performing specific peace officer duties (evacuation assistance, looting patrol, roadblocks) during a declared emergency
- The duties were performed under the California Mutual Aid System
- The applicant was in full tactical gear, including a duty belt and weaponry
- The circumstances were highly specific to emergency response during catastrophic wildfires
Practice Points for Defense Counsel
This decision raises several important considerations for workers’ compensation defense practitioners:
- The cancer presumption may apply to probation officers and similar personnel when they are called upon to perform peace officer duties during emergencies
- The key factor is not the employee’s regular job classification but rather the actual duties performed during the period of claimed exposure
- Documentation of specific duties performed during emergency response becomes crucial in determining whether the presumption applies
- Medical evidence regarding latency periods remains a critical component in these cases
Looking Forward
While the WCAB emphasized the narrow circumstances of this case, the decision potentially opens the door for similar claims by probation officers and other law enforcement personnel who participate in emergency response activities. Defense counsel should carefully evaluate:
- The specific nature of duties performed during emergency response
- Whether those duties align with peace officer functions under relevant Penal Code sections
- The timing and documentation of exposure to known carcinogens
- Medical evidence regarding cancer latency periods
Conclusion
This decision highlights the evolving nature of cancer presumptions in California workers’ compensation law, particularly as they intersect with emergency response duties. Defense practitioners should be prepared to thoroughly investigate and document the specific nature of duties performed during emergency response situations when evaluating the application of the cancer presumption.
This case analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific questions about workers’ compensation claims or defense strategy, please contact Yrulegui & Roberts directly.
