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

Cupples Products Co. v. Marshall

Diana Wright filed a gross negligence claim against Cupples Products, her husband’s employer, after his death, subsequent to settling a workers’ compensation claim with Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, Cupples’ insurer. Wright sought discovery from Liberty Mutual, requesting statements, reports, photographs, diagrams, sketches, and accident/inspection reports related to her husband's accident. The trial court, presided over by Judge John McClellan Marshall, ordered the production of these documents for an in camera inspection. Cupples Products and Liberty Mutual, as relators, filed a petition for a writ of mandamus, contending that the documents were exempt from discovery under TEX.R.CIV.P. 166b(3)(b) and (d), arguing they were privileged communications made in connection with the investigation of the occurrence. The appellate court agreed with the relators, holding that any investigation by an agent of a party, made subsequent to the occurrence out of which the claim has arisen, is privileged and exempt from discovery, even if it was initially for a different claim (workers' compensation). The court conditionally granted the petition for the writ of mandamus, expecting the trial judge to vacate the discovery orders.

Discovery DisputeMandamusPrivileged CommunicationsWork Product DoctrineGross NegligenceWorkers' CompensationInsurance InvestigationTexas Rules of Civil ProcedureIn Camera InspectionWitness Statements
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Enterprise Products Co. v. Sanderson

The Ninth Court of Appeals addressed a Petition for Writ of Mandamus filed by Enterprise Products Company against Judge Gary Sanderson, who had ordered the production of documents in a lawsuit filed by David and Wanda Ling. The Lings' employee, David Ling, suffered a severe injury at an Enterprise facility. Enterprise claimed the documents were privileged work product or prepared in anticipation of litigation. The Court affirmed Judge Sanderson's ruling that documents prepared before the lawsuit was filed (June 12, 1987) were discoverable, citing a lack of 'outward manifestation' of impending litigation. The Court denied the Writ of Mandamus but modified some paragraphs of the trial judge's order, particularly regarding future safety procedures and the sharing of production costs.

Discovery DisputeWrit of MandamusWork Product PrivilegeAnticipation of LitigationTexas Rules of Civil ProcedurePost-Accident InvestigationOutward Manifestation TestJudicial DiscretionAdmissibility of EvidenceScope of Discovery
References
13
Case No. E2007-00816-SC-WCM-WC
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 30, 2008

Clarence Trosper v. Armstrong Wood Products, Inc. - Dissenting

Clarence Trosper sought workers\' compensation benefits from Armstrong Wood Products, Inc., alleging his pre-existing osteoarthritis was permanently worsened by work activities in 1997-1998, leading to bilateral thumb surgeries in 2004 and 2005. The trial court initially awarded him 40% vocational disability based on Dr. William E. Kennedy\'s expert testimony. However, the Special Workers’ Compensation Appeals Panel reversed this, finding Dr. Kennedy\'s opinion speculative due to a six-year gap in symptoms and lack of medical documentation. This document presents a dissenting opinion by Justice William C. Koch, Jr., who concurs with the Appeals Panel, arguing that Trosper failed to prove his work, rather than natural disease progression, caused the disability. Despite this dissent, the Supreme Court\'s majority decision reversed the Appeals Panel, entitling Mr. Trosper to benefits.

Workers' CompensationOsteoarthritisPre-existing ConditionCausationMedical Expert TestimonyDissenting OpinionBurden of ProofJoint InjuryDisability BenefitsAppellate Review
References
57
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Engstrum & Nourse-Stolte v. E.C. Ernst, Inc. (In re E.C. Ernst, Inc.)

E.C. Ernst, Inc. (Ernst), a debtor-in-possession in a Chapter XI bankruptcy proceeding, entered into a subcontract with Engstrom & Nourse-Stolte (ENS) for electrical work. After Ernst filed for bankruptcy, a Supplemental Agreement allowed Ernst to continue the project. ENS later filed a Proof of Claim for expenses, which Ernst moved to expunge or allow only as a general unsecured claim. Both parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment regarding the priority of ENS's claim and the interpretation of their agreements. Additionally, Ernst sought to expunge ENS's claim for failure to produce documents. The court denied both motions for summary judgment, citing disputes over the intent behind the Supplemental Agreement and potential breach of contract, and directed ENS to comply with document production.

Bankruptcy ActChapter XI ReorganizationExecutory ContractsSummary JudgmentDebtor-in-PossessionSubcontract AgreementProof of ClaimPriority ClaimContract InterpretationDocument Production
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 20, 1994

Twyford v. Production Associates, Inc.

Production Associates, Inc. appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Richmond County, which granted McDonald’s Corporation’s motion to dismiss a third-party complaint. The primary action involved Thomas E. Twyford, a McDonald's employee, who sued Production Associates for injuries suffered at a convention. Production Associates then sought contribution from McDonald's. The Supreme Court initially applied Pennsylvania law, leading to the dismissal of the third-party complaint. However, the appellate court reversed this decision, concluding that Illinois law should apply based on an 'interests analysis' approach, as both Production Associates and McDonald's have significant ties to Illinois. Illinois workers' compensation law, unlike Pennsylvania's or New Jersey's, does not preclude third-party contribution claims against an employer.

Personal InjuryThird-Party ActionWorkers' CompensationChoice of LawConflict of LawsContribution ClaimsSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewIllinois LawPennsylvania Law
References
4
Case No. No. M21-88
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 29, 2007

In Re Mtbe Products Liab. Lit.

Plaintiffs, residents and business owners in Fort Montgomery, New York, brought actions against gas station owners and suppliers, including Sunoco, Inc. and ExxonMobil, alleging MTBE contamination of their private wells. They claimed various harms including lowered property values and fear of future health issues due to exposure. Plaintiffs asserted claims for strict product liability, negligence (including negligent infliction of emotional distress), trespass, nuisance, intentional interference with water resources, unfair competition, outrageous conduct, and New York State Navigation Law violations. Defendants moved for summary judgment on the emotional distress claims. The court granted in part and denied in part the defendants' motion, allowing claims for negligent infliction of emotional distress to proceed based on evidence of subcellular damage (MTBE-DNA adducts) as a rational basis for fear, but dismissed claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress due to insufficient evidence of extreme and outrageous conduct or intent to cause severe emotional distress. The court also ordered plaintiffs to submit to mental exams regarding their negligent infliction of emotional distress claims.

MTBE contaminationGroundwater pollutionToxic tortEmotional distressNegligent infliction of emotional distressProduct liabilitySummary judgmentEnvironmental lawFear of cancerSubcellular damage
References
132
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Smith v. Positive Productions

Jonathan Smith, known as Lil Jon, petitioned the District Court to vacate or modify an arbitration award in favor of Positive Productions, a Japanese concert promoter. The dispute arose from Smith's failure to perform three concerts in Japan as per initial and rescheduled agreements, leading to their cancellation. The International Centre for Dispute Resolution arbitrator, Mark Diamond, awarded Positive Productions $379,874.00 for lost profits, expenses, legal fees, and loss of reputation. Smith argued improper notice of arbitration, lack of arbitrator jurisdiction, and manifest disregard of New York law regarding damages. The District Court, presided by Judge Mukasey, denied Smith's petition and granted Positive Productions' cross-petition to confirm the award, finding that Smith received sufficient notice, the arbitrator had jurisdiction, and the damage awards were justified under the law.

Arbitration AwardContract BreachLost ProfitsExpensesReputation DamagesAttorneys' FeesNoticeJurisdictionFederal Arbitration ActNew York Law
References
54
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Amity Leather Products Co. v. RGA Accessories, Inc.

Amity Leather Products Co. moved to hold RGA Accessories, Inc. in civil contempt for violating a prior injunction that prohibited RGA from using Amity's product photographs for its own competing products. Amity alleged RGA used a photo of its 'Macro bag' to promote the 'Petite Valise' through their joint venture, Smithy Accessories. The court found clear and convincing evidence of the violation, noting identical markings on the products in photographs. It rejected RGA's defenses of diligence and shifting blame to its joint venture partner. The court granted Amity's motion, ordering RGA to account for and pay profits from sales to J.C. Penney, cease further use of the promotional material, and issue a disclaimer to all recipients.

Contempt of CourtInjunction ViolationLanham ActFalse AdvertisingJoint Venture LiabilityCivil ContemptUnjust EnrichmentCease and DesistDisclaimerPhotographic Evidence
References
7
Case No. 1:00-1898, MDL 1358(SAS), M 21-88, 04-Civ-2389, 04-Civ-5424, 04-Civ-3417, 04-Civ-4968
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 10, 2006

In Re Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether (MTBE) Products

This consolidated multi-district litigation (MDL) concerns groundwater contamination by the gasoline additive MTBE and its degradation product, TBA. Defendants moved for summary judgment in several New York actions and one Orange County Water District action, arguing plaintiffs lacked Article III standing because the contamination levels were below the Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL), thus not constituting an "injury-in-fact." The court analyzed whether the MCL defines the scope of a legally protected interest, distinguishing prior cases involving private well owners or those where remediation expenses were not directly linked to contamination. The court concluded that MCLs are regulatory standards for water providers, not a strict definition of what constitutes an injury for tort liability. It determined that contamination below the MCL can still cause a cognizable injury due to monitoring, testing, treatment costs, and issues like taste and odor. The court denied defendants' motions for summary judgment, finding that factual disputes remain regarding the extent of plaintiffs' alleged injuries from low-level MTBE contamination, making a summary judgment ruling premature.

Groundwater ContaminationMTBE LitigationTertiary Butyl Alcohol (TBA)Product LiabilityMulti-District Litigation (MDL)Article III StandingSummary JudgmentMaximum Contaminant Level (MCL)Environmental LawWater Quality Standards
References
60
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Relco, Inc. v. Consumer Product Safety Commission

Thomas Doss and Releo, Inc. (plaintiffs) filed an action seeking to enjoin the Consumers Product Safety Commission (CPSC) from enforcing certain sections of the Consumers Product Safety Act against their product, the "Wel-Dex" arc welder, and requested a three-judge panel for constitutional questions. The CPSC had issued a public warning about the Wel-Dex after an investigation, despite the plaintiffs' attempts to secure a prior hearing. The plaintiffs challenged the CPSC's delegation of authority for issuing such warnings and sought pre-enforcement judicial review. The court, presided over by District Judge Noel, determined that the plaintiffs had not exhausted their administrative remedies and that the matter was not ripe for judicial review. Consequently, the defendants' motion to dismiss was granted, and the cause was dismissed.

Consumer Product Safety ActAdministrative LawAgency DiscretionSubdelegation of AuthorityPublic WarningPre-enforcement ReviewExhaustion of Administrative RemediesRipeness for ReviewThree-Judge CourtDue Process
References
26
Showing 1-10 of 2,295 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