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. 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. 10-94-104-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 08, 1995

Randall Clark v. Blakely Carpet Crafts, Inc., D/B/A Blakely Floor Studio

Appellants Randall Clark, et al. filed a motion for rehearing challenging two aspects of a previous decision. First, they argued the 'joint enterprise' doctrine applied to business arrangements beyond joint ventures or partnerships, citing *Shoemaker v. Estate of Whistler*. The court reaffirmed its stance that the doctrine was not intended for non-conveyance contexts and found no evidence supporting its application in the conveyance context of Hatten's vehicle. Second, appellants contended the trial court erred in excluding two exhibits, compromise and settlement agreements detailing workers' compensation payments made to Hatten and Edmonson by Blakely Carpet Crafts's carrier. The court ruled that the exclusion was within its discretion, as the exhibits were cumulative of other evidence and testimony, and any error was deemed harmless, not impacting the judgment. Consequently, the Appellants' motion for rehearing was denied.

Joint Enterprise DoctrineWorkers' Compensation BenefitsExclusion of EvidenceCumulative EvidenceHarmless ErrorAppellate ReviewMotion for RehearingTexas Civil ProcedureEvidentiary RulingsEmployment Status
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Mayfield v. Employers Reinsurance Corp.

Calvin A. Mayfield claimed a July 24, 1973, injury while working for Texas Tubular Products, which was appealed by their insurer, Employers Reinsurance Corporation. The case centered on the admissibility of evidence regarding Mayfield's prior injuries and the sufficiency of evidence to support the jury's finding that he was not injured on the date in question. Mayfield's treating physician linked his condition to the 1973 injury, while the defense introduced evidence of other injuries and testimony suggesting no injury occurred on July 24, 1973. The jury found Mayfield was not injured, leading to a take-nothing judgment, which the appellate court affirmed, finding no error in the admission of evidence or the jury's finding.

Workmen's CompensationAdmissibility of EvidenceOther InjuriesSole Producing CauseJury FindingSufficiency of EvidencePrior ClaimsSettlementsLump Sum RecoveryHardship
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Slaughter

R.B. Slaughter, an employee of Basin Testers, Inc., tragically died after a fall in a company shower. His widow subsequently filed a claim for death benefits under the Texas Workers' Compensation Act, which the trial court granted. The insurance company appealed this decision, raising concerns about the admissibility of a res gestae statement and challenging the sufficiency of evidence to prove Slaughter was within the course and scope of his employment. However, the appellate court affirmed the original judgment, concluding that ample independent evidence existed, even without the disputed statement, to establish Slaughter's eligibility for benefits under the personal convenience doctrine.

Workers' CompensationDeath BenefitsPersonal Convenience DoctrineCourse of EmploymentScope of EmploymentRes GestaeHearsayLegal SufficiencyFactual SufficiencyAppellate Review
References
11
Case No. ADJ8070183 ADJ9326618
Regular
Feb 17, 2016

CARLOS VASQUEZ vs. TRINET, AMERICAN HOME ASSURANCE

This case involves a defendant seeking reconsideration of a prior Board decision that found applicant sustained new and further disability from a January 7, 2009 injury and allowed further development of the medical record for a cumulative trauma claim. The defendant argued the treating physicians' reports were not substantial evidence for new and further disability and that there was insufficient evidence to reopen the cumulative trauma claim. The Board denied reconsideration, reaffirming its prior decision based on substantial medical evidence, and noting that the absence of an officially designated primary treating physician does not invalidate the relied-upon medical opinions. The Board further clarified that an Agreed Medical Examiner can be used for further evaluation of the cumulative trauma claim.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationNew and Further DisabilityCumulative Trauma InjuryJoint Findings of Fact and OrderSubstantial EvidenceAgreed Medical ExaminerQualified Medical EvaluatorPrimary Treating PhysicianNon-Substantial Evidence
References
2
Case No. ADJ8734628 ADJ9086734
Regular
Aug 12, 2016

PATRICIA CRUZ MALDONADO vs. WHITE MEMORIAL MEDICAL CENTER, ADVENTIST HEALTH

This case involves White Memorial Medical Center's petition for reconsideration of a Joint Findings and Award finding that applicant Patricia Cruz Maldonado sustained lumbar spine injuries arising out of and occurring in the course of employment as a registered nurse. The defendant argued the findings were erroneous due to alleged inconsistencies in applicant's testimony and a lack of substantial medical evidence for a cumulative injury. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the petition, upholding the Administrative Law Judge's credibility determinations and finding substantial medical evidence, specifically from Dr. Edwin Haronian, supporting the cumulative trauma injury. The Board emphasized that the WCJ observed the witness and considered all admitted evidence, and that deposition testimony not offered into evidence could not be relied upon.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationJoint Findings and AwardWCJcredibility determinationsubstantial medical evidencecumulative traumalumbar spineregistered nurseprimary treating physician
References
5
Case No. ADJ10537232, ADJ10537109, ADJ10058212
Regular
Jan 25, 2018

CHARLES CONLEY vs. STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTHCARE SERVICES

The Appeals Board granted reconsideration to further study the applicant's psychiatric and heart injury claims arising from his employment. The WCJ found the claims barred by the statute of limitations and denied a cumulative trauma claim due to lack of medical evidence. The Board rescinded the Findings and Orders, returning the case for further proceedings to address the WCJ's mischaracterization of specific injuries as cumulative trauma and the potential tolling of the statute of limitations. The Board also noted a need for further development of medical evidence on causation for the cumulative trauma claim.

Petition for ReconsiderationFindings and OrdersQualified Medical EvaluatorStatute of LimitationsCumulative TraumaSpecific InjuryIndustrial CausationEstoppelMyocardial InfarctionCoronary Artery Bypass Surgery
References
9
Case No. ADJ10730997
Regular
Feb 04, 2019

Larry Martinez vs. Priority Box Ship, Inc., The Hartford Insurance

This case involves Larry Martinez's claim for workers' compensation benefits due to cumulative trauma injury. The initial judge denied the claim, finding insufficient evidence of cumulative trauma despite applicant's testimony and some medical references. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration to further examine the case, ultimately affirming the original decision. The Board found that the medical evidence primarily supported specific injuries, not cumulative trauma, and applicant's testimony was contradicted by coworkers. Additionally, the Board noted issues with the post-termination defense for any alleged specific injuries.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationCumulative Trauma InjurySpecific InjuryFindings and OrderQualified Medical EvaluatorBurden of ProofIndustrial InjuryMedical EvidenceTestimony
References
0
Case No. ADJ9805381, ADJ7750980
Regular
Jul 14, 2016

DOROTHY CLAIBORNE vs. PRECIOUS HOME COMPANION, CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION, FIRSTCOMP INSURANCE SERVICES

This case involves a petition for reconsideration by FirstComp Insurance Services regarding a workers' compensation claim for a left knee injury. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration to amend a prior finding that the applicant sustained a cumulative injury ending July 23, 2010. While the consolidation of two prior claims was affirmed, the Board found the evidence supporting the specific July 23, 2010 date of cumulative injury was not based on substantial evidence, specifically citing inconsistencies in medical opinions and applicant testimony. The issue of cumulative injury subsequent to July 23, 2010, is deferred.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardCumulative InjuryLeft KneeAgreed Medical ExaminerQualified Medical EvaluatorPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and OrderSubstantial EvidenceLabor CodeMedical History
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Montiel v. Trico Technologies Corp.

Ofelia Montiel, administrator of her deceased husband's estate, appealed a summary judgment granted in favor of Trico Technologies, Inc. Montiel's husband was allegedly discharged for filing a worker's compensation claim. Trico argued the 'after-acquired evidence doctrine' should bar the suit due to Mr. Montiel's pre-employment misrepresentation about alcoholism treatment. The appellate court reversed the summary judgment, declining to adopt the after-acquired evidence doctrine in Texas. The court found the doctrine inconsistent with employee protection under the Texas Labor Code and that it could unfairly benefit employers who wrongfully terminate employees.

After-acquired evidence doctrineWrongful dischargeWorker's compensationSummary judgmentTexas Labor CodeEmployer misrepresentationEmployee rightsAppellate reviewJudicial precedentCausation
References
6
Showing 1-10 of 16,484 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