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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Kurz v. St. Francis Hospital

The defendants moved to preclude plaintiffs' expert testimony on causation or, alternatively, for a pretrial hearing regarding the plaintiff's vision loss. The plaintiff developed visual disturbances shortly after receiving Amiodarone intravenously following cardiac bypass surgery in 2008. Defendants argued a lack of scientific evidence linking short-term Amiodarone use to optic neuropathy, while the plaintiff's expert contended that rapid drug absorption could cause optic disc edema, a known side effect. Furthermore, the plaintiff highlighted medical records where defendant physicians themselves initially attributed the vision loss to the medication. The court, applying the Frye standard, determined that general causation—Amiodarone causing vision loss—is an established medical theory. It further ruled that the specific causation tests from Parker and Cornell, typically applied to toxic tort cases, were not strictly applicable here due to the distinct nature of medical malpractice. Consequently, the court denied the defendants' motion, finding an adequate foundation for the admissibility of the plaintiff's expert testimony, with any disputes regarding specific timing affecting only the weight of the evidence, not its admissibility.

Medical MalpracticeExpert TestimonyCausationAmiodaroneOptic NeuropathyVision LossMotion in LimineFrye StandardParker StandardCornell Standard
References
9
Case No. 01-99-01345-CV; Trial Court Cause No. 95CV0220
Regular Panel Decision
May 31, 2002

Coastal Tankship, U.S.A., Inc. v. Florence Anderson, Administratrix of the Estate of Morris Anderson

This en banc opinion addresses a personal injury suit under the Jones Act and general maritime law, where Florence Anderson sued Coastal Tankships, U.S.A., Inc. for her deceased husband Morris Anderson's bronchiolitis obliterans organizing pneumonia (BOOP), allegedly caused by naphtha exposure. The primary issue on appeal was whether the trial court abused its discretion in allowing Anderson's medical expert, Dr. David Miller, to testify on medical causation. The court found that Dr. Miller's differential diagnosis could only reliably establish specific causation, not general causation (i.e., whether naphtha can generally cause BOOP). As the record lacked reliable general-causation evidence, the appellate court concluded there was insufficient evidence to support the jury's verdict. Consequently, the judgment of the trial court was reversed, and judgment was rendered in favor of Coastal Tankships, U.S.A., Inc.

Jones ActMaritime LawNegligenceUnseaworthinessMedical CausationExpert TestimonyDifferential DiagnosisDaubert StandardToxic TortBronchiolitis Obliterans Organizing Pneumonia (BOOP)
References
51
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 30, 1977

Hanney v. Commissioners of Elections of Westchester County

John F. Hanney, the petitioner, challenged the results of the Conservative Party primary election for Council Member in the 11th Ward of Yonkers, where Raphael Wik was certified as the winner. Hanney alleged several irregularities, including uncounted write-in votes for himself and an invalid vote for Wik. The Supreme Court, Westchester County, initially set aside the election and ordered a new primary. The appellate court affirmed this judgment, independently reviewing the record. They found that Hanney should have received five additional votes and that one of Wik's votes was improperly counted, resulting in a tie. Consequently, a new primary election was deemed necessary.

Primary ElectionVote CountingElection IrregularitiesWrite-in VotesVoter IntentTie VoteNew Election OrderedAppellate ReviewWestchester CountyYonkers
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 17, 1999

Wayburn v. Madison Land Ltd.

Plaintiffs Robert Wayburn and E.S. were victims of a violent crime (robbery, assault, and rape) in an office building. They, along with Doris McGarty, sued multiple defendants, including the building's managing agent, Rose Associates, and the security provider, Primary Security Services, alleging negligence. The Supreme Court initially granted summary judgment to all defendants. On appeal, the decision was modified: summary judgment was denied for Rose Associates, and the complaint against them was reinstated. Rose's cross-claims against Primary Security Services were converted to third-party claims. The dismissal of direct claims against Primary Security Services and Rosenthal & Herman, P. C. was affirmed.

NegligenceSummary Judgment AppealForeseeability of CrimeLandlord LiabilityManaging Agent NegligenceSecurity BreachPremises SecurityDuty of CareReinstatement of ClaimsThird-Party Claims
References
9
Case No. ADJ6924000
Regular
Mar 07, 2011

DULCE GONZALEZ vs. RAFAEL RODRIGUEZ dba LA LLAMARADA, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration, rescinded the prior findings, and returned the case for further development of the record. The Board found that while the applicant's medical evidence was admissible due to the defendant's failure to comply with MPN notification requirements, there was no substantial medical evidence to support industrial causation. The primary treating physician's opinion was deemed conclusory, lacking a sufficient link between the described work activities and the claimed injuries. Therefore, further proceedings are required to develop the record on industrial causation.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationMedical Provider Network (MPN)Industrial InjurySubstantial Medical EvidenceIndustrial CausationAdmissibilityLabor CodePetition for ReconsiderationReport and Recommendation
References
17
Case No. ADJ9843900
Regular
Feb 02, 2016

BAHMAN NADERSHAHI vs. FRY'S ELECTRONICS, INC., ZURICH NORTH AMERICA INSURANCE, SEDGWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT SERVICE

This case involves an applicant claiming cumulative trauma injury to his back and extremities due to his employment as a sales associate. The Appeals Board found the primary treating physician's reports insufficient to constitute substantial evidence of industrial causation, as they failed to address the applicant's testified slip-and-fall incident and lacked detailed medical histories. Consequently, the Board rescinded the WCJ's findings and remanded the case for further development of the record. This development is crucial for determining industrial causation and the applicability of the statute of limitations.

WCABReconsiderationFindings & OrderIndustrial InjuryCumulative TraumaStatute of LimitationsSubstantial EvidenceMedical OpinionReasonable Medical ProbabilityInadequate Medical Histories
References
10
Case No. 2021-04-0282
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 07, 2022

Emerson, Jeffrey v. City of Cookeville

Mr. Emerson, a firefighter for 24 years, sought workers' compensation benefits for colorectal cancer, which he attributed to his employment with the City of Cookeville. The City denied the claim, citing Dr. Kotla's opinion that the causation was 30%. Dr. Sidrys, however, believed the employment had a significant causative role (greater than 51%). The court denied Mr. Emerson's request, finding that neither expert sufficiently explained the direct relation of studies (NIOSH, Lemaster) to his case or stated that his work was the primary cause of his cancer, making it unlikely he would prevail on the merits.

Firefighter CancerOccupational DiseaseMedical CausationExpert Witness TestimonyEpidemiological EvidenceCancer RiskBenefit DenialExpedited HearingEmployer LiabilityGastrointestinal Cancer
References
0
Case No. 2021-02-0572
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 29, 2022

Hutchins, David v. Cardinal Glass Industries, Inc..

The employee, Mr. Hutchins, filed a Petition for Benefit Determination claiming a left knee injury on September 15, 2021. The employer, Cardinal Glass Industries, Inc., filed a Motion for Summary Judgment, arguing that Mr. Hutchins failed to disclose any medical experts by the court-ordered deadline or provide a medical opinion establishing primary causation for his alleged injury. The Court found that Mr. Hutchins did not present evidence to establish the essential element of medical causation. Consequently, the Court granted the employer's motion for summary judgment and dismissed Mr. Hutchins's claim with prejudice.

Summary JudgmentWorkers' CompensationMedical CausationExpert Witness DisclosureKnee InjuryDiscovery DeadlineClaim DismissalProcedural RulesEmployer DefenseJudicial Decision
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Faye R. Taylor v. Andrew R. Dyer

The plaintiff was injured in a rear-end collision in Nashville on April 10, 1999, and subsequently awarded $10,920 by the Circuit Court of Davidson County. The defendants appealed, arguing that the court erred by allowing the plaintiff to supplement proof with a doctor's statement on the necessity of charges, and disputed the causation of most medical expenses, particularly a rotator cuff tear requiring surgery. The court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding the allowance of supplementary proof within the judge's discretion. It also found that causation could be established by a combination of medical and lay testimony. The appellate court concluded that the April accident was the primary cause of the injury that ultimately required surgery.

rear-end collisionpersonal injurymedical expensescausationrotator cuff tearorthopaedic surgeryappellate proceduresupplementary proofjudicial discretioncivil litigation
References
7
Showing 1-10 of 2,496 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