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

Claim of Valenti v. Penn Plax Plastics

The claimant, exposed to asbestos between 1965 and 1972, developed asbestosis, asbestos-related pleural disease, and lung cancer. His 1995 workers' compensation claim was denied by a Workers' Compensation Law Judge and the Board, which found his lung cancer causally related to asbestos exposure occurring before July 1, 1974, thus falling under the 'dust disease' rule requiring total disability for compensation. The claimant appealed, arguing lung cancer is not a dust disease. The appellate court reversed and remitted the decision, clarifying that while lung cancer itself is not a dust disease, the pre-1974 restriction applies if it's causally related to a dust disease like asbestosis. The court noted the Board failed to make a specific finding on this causal link.

asbestos exposurelung cancerasbestosisworkers' compensationdust diseasetotal disabilitypartial disabilitycausationremittalappellate review
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Roberts v. Agway, Inc.

This case involves an appeal from a Workers' Compensation Board decision that found an occupational disease and resulting death of claimant's husband due to harmful dust exposure during employment, discharging the Special Disability Fund. Appellants, the employer Agway, Inc. and its insurance carrier, contended that the claim should be reimbursable from the Special Disability Fund under provisions relating to silicosis or other dust diseases. The decedent had incurred chronic bronchitis, diffuse pulmonary emphysema, and chronic corpulmonale, resulting in his death. The court affirmed the prior award to the claimant, stating that cereal grain exposure is not a 'dust disease' covered by the specific Workers' Compensation Law sections for reimbursement from the Special Disability Fund. The board's decision, supported by unanimous medical opinion that the decedent did not suffer from silicosis or other pneumoconiosis, was affirmed.

Occupational DiseaseDust DiseaseWorkers' Compensation LawSpecial Disability FundCausal RelationshipChronic BronchitisPulmonary EmphysemaChronic CorpulmonaleSilicosisPneumoconiosis
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Engler v. United Parcel Service

Claimant, a delivery driver for United Parcel Service, filed a workers' compensation claim in 2001, alleging interstitial pulmonary fibrosis due to exposure to dust and irritants. Initially, a Workers' Compensation Law Judge found he suffered an occupational disease and permanent partial disability. The Workers' Compensation Board affirmed, but the Court reversed in 2003, remitting the case to consider accidental injury. In an amended decision, the Board ruled claimant sustained an accidental injury from airborne irritants. The employer and carrier appealed again. The Court affirmed the Board's decision, finding substantial evidence that the claimant's condition arose from unusual environmental factors within his delivery vehicle, consistent with medical opinions linking his lung disease to mixed dust exposure at work.

Interstitial Pulmonary FibrosisOccupational ExposureWorkers' Compensation BenefitsCausally Related InjuryDelivery Vehicle EnvironmentAirborne IrritantsMedical TestimonyBiopsy FindingsSubstantial EvidenceAppellate Review
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 27, 1983

Claim of Lemery v. Flintkote Co.

Claimant, who developed acute pharyngitis and bronchitis in 1967, experienced a significant worsening of his respiratory condition in 1973 when his employer changed to a “dry” cement manufacturing process, exposing him to extreme dust. This exposure led to pneumonia, chronic bronchitis, and eventual incapacitation, forcing him to stop working multiple times. After being advised not to return to work under dusty conditions, he was re-employed as a janitor in a dust-free area, and his symptoms diminished. The Workers' Compensation Board found that his employment exposure aggravated a preexisting nondisabling bronchitis into a disabling condition, allowing his claim for benefits. The employer and carrier appealed, arguing that occupational aggravation of a nonoccupational disease is not compensable. The court affirmed the Board's decision, stating that the ultimate test is whether employment causes a disability that previously did not exist.

Occupational DiseaseAggravation of Preexisting ConditionChronic BronchitisCement Dust ExposureDisabilityCausationWorkers' Compensation Board DecisionMedical EvidenceEmployment-Related IllnessRespiratory Illness
References
3
Case No. 11-04-00172-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 18, 2006

Tomasa Rivera, Individually and as Representative of the Estate of Raul Rivera, Isaiah Rivera Jolene Rivera Rangel Raul Rivera, Jr. And Erica J. Rivera v. Meister Industries, Inc. and Longhorn Custom Coating, Inc.

Appellants, the Riveras, sued appellees Meister Industries, Inc. and Longhorn Custom Coating, Inc. for gross negligence, alleging that Raul Rivera contracted silicosis and died due to exposure to dangerous levels of silica dust while working as a sandblaster. The jury found in favor of the Riveras, awarding $300,000 in exemplary damages. However, the trial court granted a judgment notwithstanding the verdict, finding no evidence of gross negligence. On appeal, the Eleventh Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision. The court concluded there was no legally sufficient evidence that Meister had an actual, subjective awareness of the extreme risk posed by silica dust exposure, a necessary element for gross negligence under Texas law, despite evidence of OSHA regulations and expert testimony on the hazards of silica.

SilicosisGross NegligenceEmployer LiabilitySilica Dust ExposureJudgment Notwithstanding VerdictOccupational DiseaseSandblastingWorkplace SafetyTexas Appeals CourtCausation
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Dosztan v. Kraft Foods

The claimant, an assembly line technician, sought workers' compensation benefits for an occupational airway disease, citing exposure to grinding dust, cardboard dust, and heat-shrinking polyethylene fumes at work. A Workers’ Compensation Law Judge initially awarded benefits, a decision affirmed by the Workers’ Compensation Board. The employer appealed, contending the Board’s determination lacked substantial evidence and relied on speculative medical opinions. However, the court found sufficient support in the medical reports and testimony of physicians Michael Lax and David Rechlin, who established a causal link between the claimant's condition and workplace exposures. The court emphasized that resolving conflicting medical evidence falls within the Board's purview and that the absence of OSHA violations does not preclude a finding of occupational disease, ultimately affirming the Board’s decision.

Occupational DiseaseAirway DiseaseWorkers' Compensation BenefitsMedical CausationWorkplace ExposureSubstantial EvidenceAppellate ReviewConflicting Medical EvidenceOSHA Compliance
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Murphy v. Olean Tile Co.

The case involves an appeal by an employer and its carrier from a Workmen’s Compensation Board decision regarding a claimant's silicosis. The claimant, exposed to silica dust from 1927-1947, stopped work in April 1956 due to the condition. The appellants argued disablement wasn't within two years of last exposure under section 44-a. Initially, a Referee awarded compensation, setting the disablement date as April 6, 1956, which the Board later affirmed after further evidence of exposure in the last four weeks of employment. The court affirmed the decision, finding substantial evidence of exposure and applying a retroactive amendment to section 44-a that deems claims compensable if disablement occurs during continued employment or two years thereafter when an employee is transferred from injurious to non-injurious exposure.

SilicosisOccupational DiseaseWorkmen's Compensation LawSection 44-aInjurious ExposureDisablementRetroactive ApplicationAppellate ReviewMedical TestimonyEmployer Liability
References
1
Case No. 14-04-01133-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 19, 2007

Exxon Mobil Corporation v. Louise Altimore

Louise Altimore sued Exxon Mobil Corporation for contracting mesothelioma, alleging exposure to asbestos from her husband's work clothes while he was an Exxon employee between 1942 and 1977. A jury initially found Exxon negligent, but the trial court only awarded exemplary damages due to settlement credits. On appeal, the Fourteenth Court of Appeals reversed the judgment, concluding that Exxon did not owe a duty to Altimore during the relevant exposure period because the "take-home risk" of asbestos exposure was not foreseeable to the company until 1972, after her husband had ceased working in environments where he was exposed to asbestos dust.

Asbestos ExposureMesotheliomaNegligenceDuty of CareForeseeabilityToxic TortIndustrial HygieneTake-Home ExposureOccupational DiseaseExpert Testimony
References
34
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Berger v. Amchem Products

In this action, defendant DaimlerChrysler Corporation moved to preclude evidence linking exposure to automotive friction products to asbestos disease and to dismiss plaintiffs' complaints, or alternatively, for a Frye hearing. Plaintiffs, whose decedents Herman Berger and Arnold Nygaard died from mesothelioma after extensive exposure to brake and clutch dust, opposed these motions. The court denied both motions, finding that the established link between asbestos exposure and mesothelioma is not novel science warranting a Frye hearing. It concluded that sufficient empirical evidence exists for a jury to consider causation, despite arguments about chrysotile fiber characteristics in friction products.

Asbestos LitigationMesotheliomaAutomotive BrakesChrysotile AsbestosEpidemiological EvidenceFrye HearingDaubert HearingCausation ScienceExpert Opinion AdmissibilityOccupational Exposure
References
23
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Fama v. P & M Sorbara

This case addresses the complex principles of workers' compensation benefit liability for asbestos-exposed workers suffering from both "dust diseases" like asbestosis and "occupational diseases" such as asbestos-related pleural disease (ARPD). The Special Funds Conservation Committee argued for separate claims due to differing statutory treatments for these conditions. The Workers' Compensation Board established the claim for asbestosis, and this decision was affirmed on appeal. The court held that when a claimant's disability is partly due to a dust disease, the dust disease provisions of the Workers' Compensation Law take precedence, and separate claims for nondust diseases arising from the same asbestos exposure are unnecessary.

Workers' CompensationAsbestos ExposureDust DiseaseOccupational DiseaseAsbestosisPleural DiseaseSpecial Disability FundEmployer LiabilityApportionment of LiabilityWorkers' Compensation Board
References
17
Showing 1-10 of 918 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