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. 10-0775
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 11, 2014

Susan Elaine Bostic, Individually and as Personal Representative of the Heirs and Estate of Timothy Shawn Bostic, Helen Donnahoe And Kyle Anthony Bostic v. Georgia-Pacific Corporation

Timothy Bostic died of mesothelioma. His relatives (Plaintiffs) sued Georgia-Pacific (and others) alleging exposure to asbestos from Georgia-Pacific's drywall joint compound caused his disease. The jury found Georgia-Pacific liable, but the court of appeals rendered a take-nothing judgment, finding insufficient evidence of causation. The Supreme Court of Texas affirmed the court of appeals' judgment. The Court held that the "substantial factor causation" standard applies to mesothelioma cases, rejecting the "any exposure" theory. It clarified that "but for causation" is not a separate strict requirement in multiple-exposure cases. It stated that proof of causation requires scientifically reliable evidence that the plaintiff's exposure to the defendant's product more than doubled the risk of contracting the disease. The Court found the evidence of causation legally insufficient as the plaintiffs did not establish an approximate dose or show that Georgia-Pacific's product more than doubled Bostic's risk.

MesotheliomaAsbestosCausationSubstantial FactorBut For CausationToxic TortProducts LiabilityEpidemiologyDose-ResponseScientific Reliability
References
36
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Kurz v. St. Francis Hospital

The defendants moved to preclude plaintiffs' expert testimony on causation or, alternatively, for a pretrial hearing regarding the plaintiff's vision loss. The plaintiff developed visual disturbances shortly after receiving Amiodarone intravenously following cardiac bypass surgery in 2008. Defendants argued a lack of scientific evidence linking short-term Amiodarone use to optic neuropathy, while the plaintiff's expert contended that rapid drug absorption could cause optic disc edema, a known side effect. Furthermore, the plaintiff highlighted medical records where defendant physicians themselves initially attributed the vision loss to the medication. The court, applying the Frye standard, determined that general causation—Amiodarone causing vision loss—is an established medical theory. It further ruled that the specific causation tests from Parker and Cornell, typically applied to toxic tort cases, were not strictly applicable here due to the distinct nature of medical malpractice. Consequently, the court denied the defendants' motion, finding an adequate foundation for the admissibility of the plaintiff's expert testimony, with any disputes regarding specific timing affecting only the weight of the evidence, not its admissibility.

Medical MalpracticeExpert TestimonyCausationAmiodaroneOptic NeuropathyVision LossMotion in LimineFrye StandardParker StandardCornell Standard
References
9
Case No. 09-22-00376-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 12, 2023

Interflow Factors Corporation v. Hilton Holdings, LLC

This case involves a dispute between Interflow Factors Corporation, a factoring company, and Hilton Holdings, LLC, an account debtor. Interflow purchased accounts owed to Gulf Coast Security & Investigation by Hilton, and Hilton was notified of this assignment. Despite the notification, Hilton later paid Gulf Coast directly instead of Interflow, totaling $155,152.58. Interflow sought to collect these funds from Hilton, arguing that under UCC section 9.406, Hilton was obligated to pay the assignee. The trial court initially granted summary judgment for Hilton and denied Interflow's. The Court of Appeals reversed both decisions, holding that the Factoring Agreement constituted a valid security agreement and that Hilton could not rely on estoppel or a Rule 11 Agreement between Interflow and Gulf Coast to avoid its obligation to Interflow. The case was remanded for a determination of attorney's fees, costs, and interest.

Factoring AgreementAccount DebtorAssignment of AccountsUniform Commercial CodeSecurity InterestSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewTexas LawBreach of ContractRule 11 Agreement
References
24
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 29, 2012

Bostic v. Georgia-Pacific Corp.

This Texas Supreme Court case clarifies the causation standards for asbestos-related mesothelioma lawsuits. The Court reaffirms the 'substantial factor' test from Flores, rejecting a strict 'but for' causation requirement in cases with multiple exposures. However, it emphasizes that plaintiffs must present scientifically reliable evidence, including quantifying the dose of asbestos from the defendant's product, and demonstrate that this exposure more than doubled the risk of disease. Ultimately, the Court affirmed the 'take-nothing' judgment, finding the plaintiffs' evidence of causation insufficient due to its reliance on an 'any exposure' theory without dose quantification.

AsbestosMesotheliomaCausationToxic TortProduct LiabilityNegligenceSubstantial FactorBut-For CausationEpidemiologyExpert Testimony
References
49
Case No. MDL No. 1038
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 26, 2002

In Re Norplant Contraceptive Products Liability Litigation

This multidistrict products liability action involved thousands of plaintiffs alleging injuries from the Norplant contraceptive device against American Home Products Corporation and its subsidiaries. The court considered two motions for partial summary judgment. The first, concerning the 'learned intermediary doctrine' and 26 primary side effects, was granted in part and denied for 10 plaintiffs whose cases were governed by New Jersey law due to an advertising exception. The second motion, addressing over 950 'exotic conditions' for which no causation evidence was presented, was granted against all plaintiffs. Ultimately, the court granted summary judgment against 2,960 plaintiffs, effectively concluding the MDL proceedings for the majority of the non-settling cases.

Products LiabilityNorplantContraceptive DeviceLearned Intermediary DoctrineCausationSummary JudgmentMultidistrict LitigationFailure to WarnPharmaceuticalsTexas Law
References
61
Case No. ADJ7324566
Regular
Apr 09, 2013

BRANDON CLARK DECEASED, JOVELYN CLARK (WIDOW), GUARDIAN AD LITEM FOR JOANNA CLARK (MINOR CHILD), BRITTANY CLARK (MINOR CHILD), BENJAMIN CLARK (MINOR CHILD) vs. SOUTH COAST FRAMING, INC., REDWOOD FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY, BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY HOMESTATE COMPANIES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration of a death claim where the decedent, Brandon Clark, died from combined toxic effects of sedating drugs. The defense argued that industrially prescribed medications did not significantly contribute to the death, but the Board upheld the finding that the industrially prescribed amitriptyline was a contributing factor. The Board found ample evidence supported industrial causation, rejecting the defense's attempt to limit causation solely to non-industrial medications and their untimely raised claim of intentional overdose.

Death ClaimIndustrial InjuryReconsiderationWidows BenefitsMinor DependentsToxicologyDrug InteractionCausationExpert OpinionMedical Examiner
References
0
Case No. ADJ8701916
Regular
Jan 30, 2015

CHRISTOPHER RICE vs. CITY OF JACKSON, Permissibly Self-Insured, Adjusted by YORK SERVICES GROUP, INC.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration to review the administrative law judge's apportionment of the applicant's permanent disability. The applicant, a police officer injured on the job, argued that the Qualified Medical Evaluator's apportionment to genetic factors was not supported by substantial evidence. The Board agreed, finding that apportionment to immutable genetic factors was impermissible and that the QME's opinion lacked sufficient reasoning on the specific causation of the disability. Consequently, the Board amended the decision to defer the issue of permanent disability and returned the matter for an unapportioned award.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardChristopher RiceCity of JacksonYork Services GroupCumulative traumaNeck injuryPolice officerPermanent disabilityApportionmentPanel Qualified Medical Evaluator (QME)
References
0
Case No. ADJ3449073 (LBO 0392250) ADJ3573639 (LBO 0393361)
Regular
Sep 17, 2012

STEPHEN KEMBLE vs. BAY VIEW PUMBING AND HEATING, ENDURANCE INSURANCE COMPANY, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Appeals Board granted reconsideration of prior decisions that apportioned the applicant's 100% permanent disability between two industrial injuries and non-industrial factors. The Board found the psychiatric Agreed Medical Examiner's opinion unsubstantial due to a lack of review of pre-injury records and a misunderstanding of apportionment duties. Consequently, the matter was returned to the trial level for further proceedings, including appointing a new medical examiner to address causation and apportionment issues more thoroughly. The Board emphasized the need for a fully developed record on complex medical causation concerning the psyche injury.

ReconsiderationFindings and AwardsIndustrial InjuryRight KneeLow BackBoth FeetPsychePlumberPermanent DisabilityApportionment
References
7
Case No. ADJ7087449
Regular
Nov 02, 2012

ELVIRA VASQUEZ vs. DEL MONTE FOODS, ZURICH INSURANCE

This case involves a workers' compensation claim by Elvira Vasquez against Del Monte Foods. The defendant sought reconsideration of a prior Appeals Board decision that found applicant sustained an industrial injury and that the defendant failed to prove intoxication was the proximate cause. The defendant argued the applicant's amphetamine use was established and impaired her function, making it a substantial factor in the injury. The Appeals Board denied reconsideration, holding that a positive drug test alone is insufficient to prove intoxication or causation, citing precedent that requires further evidence of impaired function or substantial evidence of causation.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationIndustrial InjuryLabor Code Section 3600(a)(4)Proximate CauseIntoxicationBurden of ProofAmphetaminesDrug TestImpaired Function
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Amigos Meat Distributors, L.P. v. Guzman

Julian Guzman, a truck driver for Amigos Meat Distributors, sustained a back injury in May 2011 while lifting a frozen cow carcass. Amigos, a non-workers' compensation subscriber, was sued by Guzman and his wife, Catherine Montejano, for negligence. A jury awarded Guzman over $587,000 in damages for past medical expenses, pain, mental anguish, and physical impairment. Amigos appealed, challenging the causation of Guzman's medical expenses, the admission of medical bills related to a factoring company, and alleged improper jury arguments by Guzman's counsel. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding there was legally sufficient evidence of causation, the medical bills were properly admitted, and no incurable error occurred due to the jury arguments.

Workers' Compensation Non-SubscriberNegligencePersonal InjuryBack InjurySpinal SurgeryMedical CausationEconomic DamagesFactoring CompanyJury ArgumentAppellate Review
References
29
Showing 1-10 of 2,659 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