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

Pecorino v. Raymark Industries, Inc.

This appeal concerns a summary judgment granted in favor of defendants in an asbestos-mesothelioma case. Anthony Pecorino, exposed to asbestos from 1934-1977, contracted asbestosis and, along with his wife Mertice Marie Pecorino, settled a 1980 lawsuit against asbestos manufacturers for $125,000, executing a broad release. After Mr. Pecorino's death from mesothelioma in 1985, Mrs. Pecorino filed a new suit in 1986. The district court granted summary judgment, finding the claim barred by the two-year statute of limitations. The appellate court affirmed, holding that under Texas law, the prior asbestosis and subsequent mesothelioma constituted a single cause of action, which accrued by 1980, and was further barred by the comprehensive 1981 release covering all present and future claims.

Asbestos ExposureMesotheliomaAsbestosisStatute of LimitationsSummary Judgment AppealRelease AgreementSingle Cause of Action DoctrineProducts LiabilityNegligenceBreach of Warranty
References
29
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. M2007-01210-COA-R9-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 13, 2008

Rebecca Woody v. A.W. Chesterton Company

An insulator, Wayne Woody, and his wife, Rebecca Woody, filed suit against multiple corporations after Mr. Woody developed mesothelioma due to asbestos exposure. The defendants moved for summary judgment, asserting that a 1980 release agreement from a prior asbestos-related lawsuit barred the current claims. The trial court denied these motions. On appeal, the Court of Appeals of Tennessee held that the 1980 release bars claims for injuries, including mesothelioma, resulting from pre-release asbestos exposure. However, the release does not bar claims related to asbestos exposure that occurred after the agreement was signed. The judgment of the Circuit Court was affirmed in part and reversed in part.

MesotheliomaAsbestos ExposureProduct LiabilityRelease AgreementSummary JudgmentTort LawComparative NegligenceContract InterpretationFuture ClaimsOccupational Disease
References
25
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 13, 2003

Claim of Cammarata v. Caldwell & Cook, Inc.

Jack Cammarata, a drywall finisher, died in 1996 from mesothelioma, prompting his wife to file for workers' compensation benefits, alleging workplace asbestos exposure during his employment with Azor Drywall Company between 1964 and 1967. The Workers’ Compensation Board found Azor's carrier, Merchants Mutual Insurance Company, liable, ruling that mesothelioma was an occupational disease causally linked to his employment. Azor and Merchants appealed, contending they were not liable because Azor had ceased operations before the disablement. The court affirmed the Board's decision, asserting that liability rests with the last employer in the disease-causing employment, and substantial evidence supported Merchants Mutual as the responsible carrier for Azor's coverage through 1967.

Occupational DiseaseMesotheliomaAsbestos ExposureWorkers' Compensation BenefitsEmployer LiabilityInsurance Carrier LiabilityLast Employer RuleCausal RelationshipAppellate ReviewDrywall Finisher
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Smith v. Aerospace

The employer and its insurance carrier appealed a decision by the Workers’ Compensation Board that discharged the Special Funds Conservation Committee from liability on a death claim. The decedent, who died from mesothelioma, had previously developed asbestosis, a recognized dust disease, which medical evidence showed precipitated the cancer. The Board had erroneously concluded that Special Fund was not liable solely because mesothelioma is not a dust disease. The court clarified that Special Fund's liability extends to cases where a dust disease is a contributory or precipitating factor, not just the direct cause of death. Finding the Board's decision irrational and unsupported by substantial evidence, the court reversed it. The matter was remitted to the Workers’ Compensation Board for further proceedings consistent with the court's opinion.

AsbestosisMesotheliomaDust DiseaseOccupational DiseaseSpecial Funds Conservation CommitteeCausationContributory FactorPrecipitating FactorMedical EvidenceAppellate Review
References
13
Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 02261 [183 AD3d 211]
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 09, 2020

Nemeth v. Brenntag N. Am.

This case concerns the appeal of a jury verdict in favor of Francis Nemeth, representing the estate of Florence Nemeth, who died from peritoneal mesothelioma. The jury found that Nemeth's mesothelioma was caused by asbestos-contaminated talc in Desert Flower Talcum Powder, supplied by Whittaker, Clark & Daniels, Inc. (WCD) to Shulton, Inc. WCD challenged the findings on general and specific causation, claiming insufficient evidence. The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed the jury's verdict on causation, finding sufficient evidence to support it. The court also addressed and rejected WCD's arguments regarding summation remarks and jury instructions, and modified the judgment to increase the principal award, while otherwise affirming it.

Asbestos exposurePeritoneal mesotheliomaToxic tortCausationExpert testimonyTalcum powderProduct liabilityAppellate reviewJury verdictDamages
References
42
Case No. W2013-01605-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 16, 2014

Delores Blackmon v. Illinois Central Railroad Company

Plaintiff Delores Blackmon sued Illinois Central Railroad Company under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act (FELA), alleging her husband's death from mesothelioma was caused by toxic exposure during his employment. The railroad moved for summary judgment, arguing a prior release signed by Mr. Blackmon barred the current suit, which the trial court granted. The appellate court reversed and remanded, finding that the boilerplate nature of the release and the lack of conclusive evidence that Mr. Blackmon understood the risk of mesothelioma at the time of signing made summary judgment inappropriate under the Wicker approach for FELA releases. The court emphasized the need to determine the parties' intent regarding known risks, not just known injuries.

FELAMesotheliomaAsbestosisRelease ValiditySummary JudgmentKnown Risk DoctrineKnown Injury DoctrineBoilerplate LanguageOccupational ExposureToxic Substances
References
47
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Potts v. Celotex Corp.

This products liability case, on certification from the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, addresses whether the discovery of one asbestos-related disease, asbestosis, triggers the statute of limitations for a separate, later-manifested disease, mesothelioma. Harold Lamar Potts, the petitioner's deceased husband, was diagnosed with asbestosis in 1975 and mesothelioma in 1987, dying from the latter. The federal district court had granted summary judgment for Celotex, applying a "single injury rule" and holding the claim barred. The Tennessee Supreme Court reversed, ruling that a cause of action for a separate and distinct asbestos-related disease does not accrue until that specific disease becomes manifest, thereby allowing the petitioner's claim to proceed.

Products LiabilityStatute of LimitationsDiscovery RuleAsbestos-Related DiseaseAsbestosisMesotheliomaSingle Injury RuleLatent DiseaseAccrual of Cause of ActionTort Law
References
44
Case No. 11-04-00179-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 08, 2006

John Dori v. Bondex International, Inc.

John Dori sued Bondex International, Inc. for mesothelioma allegedly caused by exposure to Bondex's asbestos-containing joint compound. The jury found a design defect in Bondex's products but awarded no damages. The trial court entered a take-nothing judgment, which Dori appealed, arguing the zero-damage finding was against the great weight and preponderance of the evidence. The Eleventh Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment, holding that Dori waived the argument regarding conflicting jury answers by not raising it before the jury's discharge. The court further determined that the no-damage findings were factually sufficient, given the considerable expert disagreement on whether Dori's specific type of mesothelioma could be caused by incidental chrysotile asbestos exposure from Bondex products.

MesotheliomaToxic TortPersonal InjuryAsbestos ExposureChrysotile AsbestosDesign DefectProducing CauseZero Damages RuleFactual SufficiencyJury Verdict
References
15
Case No. 05-17-00979-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 23, 2019

Bell Helicopter Textron, Inc. v. Shirley Dickson, Individually and as Representative of the Estate of Billy Dickson, Randall C. Dickson, Daryl W. Dickson, Deana K. Boaz Kizer

Bell Helicopter Textron, Inc. appealed a trial court's judgment awarding damages and post-judgment interest to Shirley Dickson and other appellees on claims arising from Billy Dickson's death from mesothelioma. The appellees alleged gross negligence by Bell Helicopter due to Billy's asbestos exposure while supervising construction of testing enclosures. The appellate court found the evidence legally insufficient to support the jury's findings on the causation elements of gross negligence. Specifically, there was no evidence Bell was aware of the extreme risk posed by the asbestos-containing boards or that Billy could develop mesothelioma during the relevant 1962-1968 period. Therefore, the appellate court reversed the trial court's judgment and rendered judgment that the appellees take nothing on their claims.

MesotheliomaAsbestos ExposureGross NegligenceCausation StandardBystander ExposureOccupational HealthExemplary Damages CapWorkers' Compensation ExclusivityLegal Sufficiency ReviewProspective Risk Assessment
References
6
Showing 1-10 of 71 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