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. 13-07-00301-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 04, 2010

Centocor, Inc. v. Patricia Hamilton, Thomas Hamilton, and Dr. Michael Bullen

Patricia and Thomas Hamilton sued Centocor, Inc. after Patricia developed a drug-induced lupus-like syndrome allegedly caused by her use of Remicade, a drug manufactured by Centocor. The Hamiltons alleged fraud and other causes of action, claiming Centocor's direct-to-consumer advertising for Remicade over-emphasized benefits while omitting warnings about severe side-effects like lupus-like syndrome. The jury found in favor of the Hamiltons, awarding them actual and punitive damages. On appeal, Centocor argued the "learned intermediary" doctrine precluded the Hamiltons' claims and challenged the sufficiency of causation evidence and the adequacy of its warnings. The Court of Appeals recognized an exception to the learned intermediary doctrine, holding that a drug manufacturer cannot rely on warnings to physicians when it directly advertises to patients in a misleading fashion. The court affirmed the findings of fraud and causation but reversed the award for future pain and mental anguish damages, as Patricia's symptoms ceased after discontinuing Remicade and no evidence of future suffering was presented. The court affirmed the punitive damages award as properly capped.

Pharmaceutical liabilityDrug-induced lupus-like syndromeRemicade side effectsDirect-to-consumer advertisingLearned intermediary doctrineProduct liabilityFraudulent misrepresentationCausation evidenceMedical marketingPunitive damages
References
44
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 03, 1988

Billsborrow v. Dow Chemical, U.S.A.

This opinion addresses motions for summary judgment by Dow Chemical, U.S.A., and Pride Solvent Chemical Company, Inc., in a negligence and strict products liability action. Plaintiff Nancy Ann Billsborrow, as administratrix, sued after her husband, Christopher Billsborrow, died from exposure to Neu-Tri solvent. Defendants argued they fulfilled their duty to warn through the "responsible intermediary" and "knowledgeable user" doctrines. The court declined to extend the responsible intermediary doctrine to bulk chemical sales in this context, citing significant distinctions from pharmaceutical cases. Furthermore, it found questions of fact regarding the adequacy of warnings and Pride's knowledge. The court also rejected the knowledgeable user doctrine's application, stating it does not apply to unskilled workers and an employer's knowledge cannot be imputed to an employee. Consequently, the motions for summary judgment were denied.

products liabilitynegligencesummary judgmentduty to warnresponsible intermediary doctrineknowledgeable user doctrinebulk chemical salestrichloroethylene exposurefatal injurychemical hazards
References
22
Case No. 03-11-00072-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 06, 2014

State of Texas' Agencies and Institutions of Higher Learning Office of Public Utility Counsel Steering Committee of Cities Served by Oncor Oncor Electric Delivery Company, LLC// Public Utility Commission of Texas v. Public Utility Commission of Texas Office of Public Utility Counsel Steering Committee of Cities Served by Oncor// State of Texas' Agencies and Institutions of Higher Learning Steering Committee

This case is an administrative appeal concerning a final order from the Public Utility Commission (PUC) that increased rates for Oncor Electric Delivery Company, LLC. The Texas Court of Appeals, Third District, at Austin, reviewed the district court's judgment on various regulatory and financial issues. The appellate court affirmed the district court's judgment on eight of twelve issues but reversed and remanded four issues back to the Commission for further proceedings. These reversed issues included the university discount, municipal franchise-fee expenses, the calculation of 'lead days' for the franchise-tax component of cash working capital, and the federal income-tax expense. The court's decision hinged on statutory interpretation and the application of regulatory standards in the context of utility ratemaking.

Electric Utility RegulationRate IncreaseAdministrative LawAppellate ReviewTexas Public Utility CommissionOncor Electric Delivery CompanyState Universities DiscountFranchise TaxFederal Income Tax ExpenseAutomated Metering Systems
References
110
Case No. 2018 NY Slip Op 01829 [159 AD3d 1457]
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 16, 2018

Rickicki v. Borden Chem.

The Appellate Division, Fourth Department, heard an appeal concerning two actions, Rickicki v Borden Chemical and Crowley v C-E Minerals, Inc., both involving claims for damages due to silicosis from silica dust exposure at Dexter Corporation. The core legal dispute centered on the applicability of the 'sophisticated intermediary doctrine,' which asserts that product manufacturers have no duty to warn ultimate users if an informed intermediary, like an employer, is aware of the product's dangers. Reversing the Supreme Court's grant of summary judgment for the defendants, the Appellate Division declined to recognize this doctrine under the specific facts of this case. Consequently, the court reinstated negligence and products liability causes of action based on failure to warn, along with loss of consortium claims, against the defendant silica manufacturers. The decision emphasized that whether adequate warnings were provided to the injured workers and if failure to warn was a proximate cause remained triable issues of fact.

Sophisticated Intermediary DoctrineFailure to WarnProducts LiabilityNegligenceSilica Dust ExposureSilicosisProximate CauseSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewEmployer Liability
References
36
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

CENTOCOR, INC. v. Hamilton

Patricia and Thomas Hamilton sued Centocor, Inc. after Patricia developed a lupus-like syndrome allegedly caused by Remicade, a drug manufactured by Centocor. Hamilton claimed Centocor engaged in fraudulent direct-to-consumer advertising that misleadingly emphasized benefits and omitted warnings. A jury found in favor of Hamilton, awarding significant actual and punitive damages. The appellate court affirmed the finding of fraud, recognizing an exception to the "learned intermediary" doctrine when manufacturers directly advertise fraudulently. However, the court reversed the award for future pain and mental anguish damages due to insufficient evidence. The judgment was modified to reflect this change.

Product LiabilityFraudDirect-to-Consumer AdvertisingLearned Intermediary DoctrineDrug-Induced LupusRemicadeMedical MalpracticePunitive DamagesCausationWarning Defect
References
38
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Brumley v. Pfizer, Inc.

This case involved a product liability and negligence claim filed by the estate of Earnest Brumley and his family against Pfizer, Inc., manufacturer of Viagra. Mr. Brumley died of cardiac complications after taking Viagra, leading to allegations of marketing defects and inadequate warnings. Pfizer moved for summary judgment, arguing adequate warnings were provided and there was no causal link between Viagra and Mr. Brumley's death. The Court granted Pfizer's motion, applying the learned intermediary doctrine and finding that the prescribing physician was adequately warned of the cardiac risks associated with Viagra and strenuous activity. Additionally, the Court determined that Viagra merely furnished the condition for the injury and was not the legal cause of death, thus dismissing all claims with prejudice.

Product liabilitySummary judgmentPharmaceuticalsViagraMarketing defectNegligenceLearned intermediary doctrineCausationCardiac riskWarning adequacy
References
38
Case No. E2008-01596-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 14, 2009

Evelyn Nye, Individually and as Surviving Spouse and Next-of-Kin of Hugh Todd Nye v. Bayer Cropscience, Inc.

Evelyn Nye, individually and as surviving spouse of Hugh Todd Nye, brought a product liability action against Bayer Cropscience, Inc., and later solely against National Service Industries, Inc., d/b/a North Brothers, alleging her husband's mesothelioma was caused by asbestos exposure from products sold by North Brothers to his employer, DuPont. The jury initially found in favor of North Brothers, a verdict approved by the Trial Court. On appeal, the Court of Appeals of Tennessee reversed the trial court's judgment, finding errors in jury instructions, specifically regarding the application of the 'learned intermediary' or 'sophisticated buyer' doctrine to DuPont's knowledge of asbestos hazards, which improperly functioned as a directed verdict. The court also clarified the distinction between cause in fact and proximate cause concerning employer immunity under workers' compensation law. The case was remanded for a new trial with directives for proper jury instructions and verdict forms.

Asbestos ExposureMesotheliomaProduct LiabilityStrict LiabilityFailure to WarnJury InstructionsLearned Intermediary DoctrineSophisticated User DoctrineComparative FaultWorkers' Compensation Immunity
References
66
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Evelyn Nye v. Bayer Cropscience, Inc.

In this products liability case, a widow sought compensation for the death of her husband from mesothelioma allegedly caused by exposure to asbestos at his workplace. She sued National Service Industries, Inc., successor to North Brothers, Inc., alleging strict liability due to defective products and failure to warn. The jury found North Brothers at fault but awarded nothing, deeming the employer DuPont the sole cause. The Court of Appeals reversed and remanded for a new trial due to erroneous jury instructions. On review, the Supreme Court of Tennessee held that North Brothers was subject to strict liability because the product manufacturers were not amenable to service of process due to bankruptcy. The Court further ruled that the trial court erred by applying the 'learned intermediary doctrine' in jury instructions and misidentifying the employer, DuPont, as the consumer who needed to be warned, instead of the employee, Mr. Nye. This error affected the jury's judgment, leading to a reversal of the trial court's decision and a remand for a new trial.

Products liabilityAsbestosMesotheliomaStrict liabilityFailure to warnJury instructionsLearned intermediary doctrineCausationBankruptcyService of process
References
60
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

North Star Reinsurance Corp. v. Continental Insurance

The court addresses the novel legal issue of "preindemnification" and the application of the "antisubrogation rule" in cases involving disputes among insurance carriers over work site injuries. It rejects the "preindemnification" doctrine, which contractors asserted would prioritize owners' insurance coverage over their own, citing lack of support from contractual language, premium disparities, or common-law indemnification principles. However, the court affirms and extends the narrower antisubrogation rule, preventing an insurer from seeking recovery from its own insured for the same risk, even when multiple policies are involved. This rule is applied to bar subrogation claims in the cases of Prince and Valentin, but not in North Star due to specific policy exclusions.

Insurance LawIndemnificationSubrogationPreindemnification DoctrineAntisubrogation RuleWorkers' CompensationGeneral Contractors' Liability (GCL) InsuranceOwners' Contractors' Protective (OCP) InsuranceVicarious LiabilityContractual Obligation
References
29
Showing 1-10 of 1,072 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