CompFox Logo
AboutWorkflowFeaturesPricingCase LawInsights

Updated Daily

Case Law Database

Access over workers' compensation decisions, including En Banc, Significant Panel Decisions, and writ-denied cases.

Case No. 15-24-00104-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 27, 2025

In Re Sanofi-Aventis U.S. LLC v. the State of Texas

Defendant-Relator Sanofi-Aventis U.S. LLC submits a Notice of Supplemental Authority to the Fifteenth Court of Appeals in Austin, Texas. This notice draws the court's attention to a brief filed by the State of Texas on November 20, 2024, in the *In re Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp.* case. The State's brief supports the constitutionality of qui tam provisions in the Texas Health Care Program Fraud Prevention Act (THFPA), which deputize private whistleblowers to pursue fraud claims on behalf of the State. Sanofi-Aventis highlights the State's argument that the THFPA preserves the Attorney General's authority and that such cases are effectively brought by and for the State, contending this is relevant to the Court's jurisdiction in the present qui tam action.

Qui TamTexas Health Care Program Fraud Prevention ActMedicaid FraudWhistleblowerAssignee StandingConstitutional LawSeparation of PowersMandamusAppellate ProcedureOriginal Proceeding
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

George v. Aventis Pharmaceutical, Inc.

This order addresses a motion for summary judgment filed by Aventis Pharmaceutical, Inc., in a case brought by Sam George. George alleged age discrimination under the ADEA and THRA, along with common law torts of outrageous conduct and negligent supervision, stemming from denied promotions and a hostile work environment. The Court granted summary judgment for the defendant on the hostile work environment, THRA, and common law claims, primarily deeming them time-barred. However, the Court denied summary judgment on George's disparate treatment age discrimination claim concerning the denial of the PCP2 Area Manager position, finding a genuine issue of material fact regarding the defendant's reasons for not promoting him. This means the age discrimination claim related to the PCP2 Area Manager position will proceed to trial.

Age DiscriminationEmployment LawSummary JudgmentHostile Work EnvironmentFailure to PromoteStatute of LimitationsPretextDisparate TreatmentTennessee Human Rights ActADEA
References
18
Case No. 06-24-00005-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 15, 2023

In Re Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation v. the State of Texas

This case involves a qui tam action brought by Health Selection Group, LLC and the State of Texas against Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation under the Texas Medicaid Fraud Prevention Act (TMFPA). The plaintiffs allege Novartis engaged in three unlawful marketing schemes, including providing free nurse educator services, reimbursement support, and 'white coat marketing,' to illegally induce prescribers to prescribe its drugs, resulting in fraudulent claims to Texas Medicaid. Novartis filed a Plea to the Jurisdiction and Motion to Dismiss, arguing that Health Selection Group lacks constitutional standing due to no personal injury and that the TMFPA's qui tam provisions are unconstitutional, violating the separation of powers. The District Court denied Novartis's motion. This document is Novartis's Petition for Writ of Mandamus to the Court of Appeals, challenging the District Court's denial and seeking dismissal of the case. The State of Texas supports the TMFPA's constitutionality and Health Selection Group's standing.

Medicaid FraudQui Tam ActionAnti-Kickback SchemePharmaceutical MarketingNurse Educator ProgramReimbursement SupportConstitutional StandingSeparation of PowersTexas Medicaid Fraud Prevention ActCivil Penalties
References
65
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Davis v. Wyeth Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

A construction laborer (plaintiff) sustained injuries while moving a heavy filtration unit, leading him to file a negligence claim and allege violations of Labor Law §§ 200 and 241 (6) against Wyeth Pharmaceuticals, Inc., and three Stantec-related entities. After consolidating the actions, the plaintiff sought to add a claim under Labor Law § 240 (1), which the Supreme Court denied. On appeal, the court affirmed this denial, ruling that the proposed amendment lacked merit. The appellate court clarified that the Runner precedent did not broaden the scope of Labor Law § 240 (1) to include injuries not arising from a significant elevation differential. The decision concluded that the plaintiff's injury, resulting from an object tipping during horizontal movement, did not fall under the statute's protections for elevation-related risks.

Construction accidentLabor LawStatutory interpretationElevation-related riskMotion to amendAppellate procedurePersonal injuryWorkplace safetyHorizontal movementGravity
References
16
Case No. CA 15-01567
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 29, 2016

ST. JOHN, KATHLEEN v. WESTWOOD-SQUIBB PHARMACEUTICALS, IN

Plaintiff Kathleen St. John initiated a Labor Law and common-law negligence action for injuries sustained while preparing lighting equipment in a parking lot owned by the defendant, Westwood-Squibb Pharmaceuticals, Inc. The plaintiff alleged the accident occurred due to debris, leading to a trip or slip. Defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint was initially denied by the Supreme Court. On appeal, the Appellate Division modified the order by partially granting the defendant's motion, dismissing the Labor Law § 241 (6) cause of action premised on alleged violations of 12 NYCRR 23-1.7 (d), (e) (1), and (e) (2), finding these regulations inapplicable to the case facts. However, the court affirmed the denial of summary judgment for the Labor Law § 241 (6) cause of action based on 12 NYCRR 23-2.1 (b) and the Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence claims, citing unresolved issues of control and constructive notice.

Labor LawCommon-Law NegligenceSummary JudgmentPremises LiabilityConstruction SiteDangerous ConditionOut-of-Possession OwnerCollateral EstoppelAppellate ReviewStatutory Interpretation
References
24
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Skelaxin (metaxalone) Antitrust Litigation

This memorandum addresses two motions for class certification in a pharmaceutical antitrust case concerning the muscle relaxant Skelaxin. Plaintiffs, comprised of Indirect Purchasers and End Payors, alleged that defendants King Pharmaceuticals LLC and Mutual Pharmaceutical Company, Inc. colluded to delay the entry of a generic drug. The Court denied both class certification motions, finding the End Payors' proposed class not ascertainable due to the need for individualized contractual inquiries. For Indirect Purchasers, certification was denied primarily for failure to establish a proper choice-of-law for a nationwide class and inadequate support for state-specific subclasses. Additionally, End Payors' related motions for partial summary judgment and to strike expert testimony were denied without prejudice.

AntitrustClass ActionPharmaceuticalsSkelaxinMetaxaloneGeneric DrugClass CertificationIndirect PurchasersEnd PayorsChoice of Law
References
64
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Yamanouchi Pharmaceutical Co. v. Danbury Pharmacal, Inc.

This Memorandum and Order addresses the determination of reasonable attorneys' fees and disbursements following a finding that defendants willfully infringed plaintiffs' patent for famotidine in a previous trial. Judge Owen reviews objections from the defendants regarding various billing practices, including rates, staffing, hotel expenses, and in-house counsel fees. The court ultimately reduces the requested attorneys' fees by 30% to $1,635,440 and awards adjusted disbursements of $400,000, deeming these amounts a fair resolution of the defendants' contentions.

Patent InfringementAttorneys' FeesDisbursement AwardHatch-Waxman ActExceptional CaseLodestar MethodBilling RatesLegal StaffingIn-house CounselExpert Witness Fees
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Havner

This case addresses the legal sufficiency of evidence that the prescription drug Bendectin caused Kelly Havner to be born with a limb reduction birth defect. The Havners' suit alleged negligence, defective design, and defective marketing against Merrell Dow, focusing on the scientific reliability of causation expert testimony. While the trial court found for the Havners and the court of appeals initially reversed then affirmed for actual damages on rehearing, the Supreme Court of Texas reviewed the scientific evidence, including epidemiological and animal studies. The Court held that the evidence presented was legally insufficient to establish causation and therefore reversed the judgment of the court of appeals.

Toxic TortProduct LiabilityCausationScientific EvidenceEpidemiologyExpert TestimonyDrug LitigationBirth DefectsBendectinLimb Reduction
References
67
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 07, 2008

Maldonado v. Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp.

The plaintiff, an employee of American Building Maintenance Company of New York (ABM), sought damages for personal injuries after slipping on snow and ice on a storm drain grate at property owned by Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation. The Supreme Court, Rockland County, granted summary judgment to Novartis, dismissing the complaint. On appeal, the order was affirmed. The appellate court found that Novartis had no duty to clear snow and ice from the grate and did not create the hazardous condition. Furthermore, the plaintiff failed to establish that Novartis had actual or constructive notice of the ice.

personal injurypremises liabilityslip and fallsnow and icesummary judgmentduty of careactual noticeconstructive noticeproperty owner liabilitymaintenance contract
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Eddins v. Geneva Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

Plaintiff, Jerome Scott Eddins, sued his employer, Geneva Pharmaceuticals, Inc., for retaliatory discharge after his termination following grand jury service in Knox County. Eddins alleges his jury service was a substantial factor in his termination, citing derogatory comments from his supervisor regarding his jury duty. Defendant argues Eddins was terminated for failing to report to work when the grand jury was not in session and for lying to his supervisors about his attendance. The court denied the defendant's motion for summary judgment, finding genuine issues of material fact regarding whether the plaintiff was on approved vacation during the disputed days and the credibility of the parties' accounts, which are matters for a jury to decide.

Retaliatory DischargeJury Service ProtectionWrongful TerminationSummary Judgment MotionCredibility DisputeMaterial Fact DisputeEmployment LawTennessee LawFederal Civil ProcedureBurden of Proof
References
26
Showing 1-10 of 38 results

Ready to streamline your practice?

Apply these legal strategies instantly. CompFox helps you find decisions, analyze reports, and draft pleadings in minutes.

CompFox Logo

The AI standard for workers' compensation professionals. Faster research, deeper analysis, better outcomes.

Product

  • Platform
  • Workflow
  • Features
  • Pricing

Solutions

  • Defense Firms
  • Applicants' Attorneys
  • Insurance carriers
  • Medical Providers

Company

  • About
  • Insights
  • Case Law

Legal

  • Privacy
  • Terms
  • Trust
  • Cookies
  • Subscription

© 2026 CompFox Inc. All rights reserved.

Systems Operational