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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 28, 1998

Brookshire Bros., Inc. v. Wagnon

Brookshire Brothers, Inc. appealed a worker's compensation nonsubscriber case where a jury awarded Talbert Wagnon $750,000 for a back injury sustained while working as a butcher. Wagnon claimed Brookshire failed to provide a safe workplace and proper training for lifting heavy objects. Brookshire argued comparative causation, errors in admitting prior acts evidence, and insufficient evidence of proximate causation and damages. The court affirmed the judgment, finding that comparative negligence is not applicable in nonsubscriber cases and that there was sufficient evidence to support the jury's findings on negligence and damages, although it noted the submission of future medical expenses as a damage element was harmless error.

Worker's Compensation NonsubscriberNegligenceProximate CauseDamages AwardComparative NegligenceSafe WorkplaceLifting InjuryForeseeabilityJury InstructionsMotion for New Trial
References
34
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Brookshire Bros., Inc. v. Lewis

Carl Dean Lewis sued his employer, Brookshire Brothers, Inc., for back injuries sustained while working in the meat department. Lewis suffered two herniated discs requiring surgery after lifting heavy sausage and ground beef lugs. A jury awarded Lewis $300,000 in damages. Brookshire appealed, challenging the sufficiency of evidence for proximate causation, the non-application of comparative negligence, and the denial of an offset for prior payments. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding sufficient evidence for causation and ruling that comparative negligence is not applicable in this type of suit against a non-subscribing employer under Texas workers' compensation law.

References
46
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. 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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Giuffrida v. Citibank Corp.

Plaintiff, a former firefighter, brought a personal injury action against Citibank Corp. and others under General Municipal Law § 205-a after being injured in a fire at the defendant's property. The lower courts granted summary judgment to the defendant, finding no reasonable connection between alleged code violations and the plaintiff's injuries. The Court of Appeals reversed this decision, holding that the plaintiff presented sufficient evidence to raise a triable issue of fact regarding the indirect causation of his injuries by the defendant's alleged failure to maintain a proper fire suppression system. The court clarified that section 205-a's causation element broadly includes "indirect" causes, requiring only a "practical or reasonable connection." It also reaffirmed that comparative fault principles do not apply as a defense in such actions.

Firefighter's RuleGeneral Municipal Law § 205-aCausationIndirect CausationProximate CauseSummary JudgmentCode ViolationsFire Suppression SystemNegligenceComparative Fault
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Johnson v. Horizon Lines, LLC

Eddie Johnson, a seaman, sued Horizon Lines LLC and the vessel MTV HORIZON CONSUMER for personal injuries suffered after falling through an uncovered hatch on the main deck while working. Johnson alleged negligence under the Jones Act and unseaworthiness, moving for partial summary judgment on liability. He contended that the defendant's violations of specific Coast Guard regulations precluded a comparative negligence defense. The court, presided by Senior District Judge Haight, denied Johnson's motion, determining that the invoked Coast Guard regulations did not apply to an open hatch in the manner argued. Therefore, the court concluded that the conditions did not establish negligence per se or preclude the doctrine of comparative fault. The case will proceed to a jury for determination of negligence, contributory negligence, causation, and damages.

Seaman InjuryMaritime LawJones ActUnseaworthinessComparative NegligenceCoast Guard RegulationsSummary Judgment MotionHatch AccidentVessel SafetyFederal Employers' Liability Act (FELA)
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 18, 2010

Scoran v. Overseas Shipholding Group, Inc.

Plaintiff Jason N. Scoran, a Second Mate on the vessel Overseas New Orleans, suffered a compound leg fracture after falling into an unprotected swash hole in a fuel tank during cleaning operations in 2006. He filed a Jones Act claim alleging negligence and unseaworthiness, also seeking maintenance and cure. Plaintiff moved for partial summary judgment, seeking to dismiss defendants' comparative and third-party negligence defenses, and a finding that the vessel was unseaworthy as a matter of law due to the unguarded hole and alleged violations of work-hour regulations. The court denied plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment in all respects, finding genuine issues of material fact regarding the comparative negligence defense and the unseaworthiness claim, and declining to apply the Pennsylvania Rule for causation.

Jones ActMaritime LawSeaworthinessComparative NegligenceSummary JudgmentShipboard AccidentFuel TankGuard RailsWorking HoursVessel Safety
References
43
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Becton Dickinson and Co. v. Usrey

This interlocutory appeal concerns the propriety of certifying a class action of Texas healthcare workers who sustained needlesticks from defectively designed syringes and needle-bearing medical devices manufactured by Becton Dickinson and Company and Sherwood Medical Company. The class sought reimbursement for post-needlestick testing costs, excluding claims for emotional distress or infection. The trial court certified the class, but the appellate court reversed this decision, concluding that common issues, particularly causation and comparative responsibility, do not predominate over individual issues as required by Rule 42 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, especially under the more conservative approach mandated by Southwestern Refining Co. v. Bernal. The court found that needlestick injuries often involve unique circumstances, including the fault of the healthcare worker, employers, and third parties, which necessitate individual analysis. Furthermore, the trial court's proposed plan for handling individual comparative fault issues was deemed unfair and unduly restrictive.

Product LiabilityClass ActionNeedlestick InjuryHealthcare WorkersDefective DesignCausationComparative FaultRule 42Texas LawInterlocutory Appeal
References
25
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Pilgrim's Pride Corp. v. Cernat

This case involves an appeal by Pilgrim's Pride Corporation concerning a rear-end collision. The plaintiffs, David Cernat and Joseph Ciupitu, sustained injuries when their towed truck was hit by a Pilgrim's Pride vehicle. The jury found both parties partially responsible. The appeals court modified the trial court's judgment, ruling that the initial calculation of damages under comparative negligence statutes was erroneous and should be reduced based on the defendant's liability percentage. However, the court affirmed the sufficiency of evidence supporting the jury's awards for the plaintiffs' lost earning capacity and future medical damages.

Comparative negligencePersonal injuryMotor vehicle accidentRear-end collisionDamagesLost earning capacityFuture medical expensesFactual sufficiencyLegal sufficiencyTexas Civil Practice and Remedies Code
References
29
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 24, 1993

C & H NATIONWIDE, INC. v. Thompson

This case concerns the allocation of liability among defendants under Texas's Comparative Responsibility Law in a wrongful death action. The Supreme Court of Texas reviewed the lower court's judgment regarding the calculation of prejudgment interest, the sufficiency of evidence for lost inheritance damages, and the principles of contribution among jointly and severally liable defendants. The Court reversed the court of appeals' judgment and remanded the case, holding that prejudgment interest applies to the entire judgment including future damages, and found no evidence to support the award of lost inheritance damages. It also clarified the rules for contribution among defendants.

Wrongful DeathComparative ResponsibilityPrejudgment InterestFuture DamagesLost InheritanceSettlementContributionTort LawStatutory InterpretationDue Process
References
24
Showing 1-10 of 1,963 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