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

Employers Mutual Liability Insurance Co. of Wisconsin v. Parker

This is a Workmen's Compensation appeal where Employers Mutual Liability Insurance Company of Wisconsin (defendant) appealed a judgment favoring Alton A. Parker (plaintiff). Parker claimed total and permanent disability due to cancer resulting from radiation exposure during his employment. The defendant contended there was no evidence establishing a causal link between the work-incurred radiation and Parker's cancer. The court reviewed the medical expert testimonies, finding them insufficient to prove a causal connection based on reasonable medical probability. The trial court's judgment was reversed, and judgment was rendered that the plaintiff take nothing, concluding that medical opinions were speculative without accurate information on radiation exposure.

CancerRadiation ExposureCausal ConnectionMedical TestimonyExpert WitnessesTotal DisabilityPermanent DisabilityOccupational HazardLymphomaSeminoma
References
4
Case No. SRO 134400, SRO 139130
Regular
Sep 11, 2007

COBY RICHARDS vs. COUNTY OF SONOMA AND G.B. BRAGG AND ASSOCIATES, CITY OF CLOVERDALE AND REMIF

The applicant, a police officer, claimed a cumulative trauma injury resulting in a brain tumor, asserting exposure to x-rays as a known carcinogen under Labor Code section 3212.1. The Appeals Board denied reconsideration, affirming the finding that the applicant did not establish an industrial injury. While acknowledging the applicant's exposure to x-rays, the Board found this exposure did not present a reasonable link to the brain tumor, as per the Agreed Medical Examiner's opinion that only direct radiation to the brain is a known risk factor.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardIndustrial injuryAstrocytomaBrain tumorCarcinogenLabor Code section 3212.1Presumption of injuryPeace officerCumulative traumaX-rays
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 01, 2011

Tptcc Ny, Inc. v. Radiation Therapy Services, Inc.

Plaintiffs TPTCC NY, Inc., The Proton Institute of New York, LLC, and N.Y. Medscan LLC sued defendants Norton Travis, Radiation Therapy Services Inc. (RTSI), Oppenheimer & Co., Inc., Cicero Consulting Associates VCC, Inc., New York Proton Management LLC (NYPC), Radiation Therapy Services Holdings, Inc., and 21st Century Oncology, LLC. Plaintiffs alleged federal antitrust, federal copyright, and various New York state law claims, contending a conspiracy to exclude them from the New York City market for Proton Beam Therapy (PBT) services and misappropriation of their business plan. The court dismissed the antitrust claims, applying the Noerr-Pennington doctrine and finding a lack of antitrust injury. Copyright claims were dismissed because the business plan lacked creativity for copyright protection and was jointly authored. State law claims, including breach of joint venture, unjust enrichment, misappropriation of trade secrets, unfair competition, tortious interference, breach of fiduciary duty, and breach of contract, were also dismissed due to various legal deficiencies, such as the absence of a joint venture, the public disclosure of alleged trade secrets, and the lack of a fiduciary relationship. The court reaffirmed its order granting defendants' motions and dismissed the Amended Complaint in its entirety with prejudice, directing entry of final judgment for the defendants.

Antitrust LawCopyright LawTrade SecretsUnfair CompetitionFiduciary DutyBreach of ContractJoint VentureNoerr-Pennington DoctrineSherman ActNew York Common Law
References
57
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Austin v. Kerr-McGee Refining Corp.

Tara Austin and other aligned parties appealed the trial court's exclusion of their experts' scientific evidence concerning medical causation in a wrongful death action. The case involved the claim that Richard Alan Austin's chronic myelogenous leukemia (CML) and subsequent death were caused by exposure to benzene-containing mineral spirits manufactured and distributed by the defendants (Kerr-McGee et al.). The trial court had granted Kerr-McGee's motion to exclude expert testimony, relying on precedent from E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. v. Robinson and Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc. v. Havner, leading to a summary judgment for Kerr-McGee. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in excluding the causation evidence. The court found that the plaintiffs' scientific evidence lacked reliability for both general and specific causation and failed to adequately exclude other plausible causes, such as radiation exposure.

Expert TestimonyMedical CausationToxic TortBenzene ExposureChronic Myelogenous Leukemia (CML)Admissibility of EvidenceLegal Sufficiency of EvidenceEpidemiological StudiesStatistical SignificanceDaubert Standard
References
22
Case No. E2014-01408-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 09, 2015

Mary Ridenour v. Covenant Health

This appeal concerns a construction negligence case where Mary Ridenour and Jacob Ross Ridenour (Plaintiffs) sued Covenant Health, Rentenbach Engineering Company, and TEG Architects, LLC (Defendants) for damages from excessive radiation exposure. Plaintiffs alleged that the absence of lead shielding in radiology facilities at Methodist Hospital caused the exposure. The Circuit Court for Anderson County granted summary judgment to the Defendants, citing the construction statute of repose, Tenn. Code Ann. § 28-3-202, as a complete defense. The Trial Court found that the project was substantially complete by March 23, 2006, and the lawsuit, filed in January 2014, was outside the four-year statute of repose. The Court of Appeals affirmed the Trial Court's decision, holding that substantial completion is met when a project can be used for its intended purpose, regardless of defects, and that no exceptions to the statute of repose (such as fraud or wrongful concealment) were adequately pleaded. The Court also affirmed the denial of Plaintiffs' motion to amend to add Methodist Medical Center of Oak Ridge (MMC) as a party and the limitation of discovery.

Construction NegligenceStatute of ReposeSummary JudgmentSubstantial CompletionAppellate ReviewRadiation ExposureMedical Facility LiabilityFraudulent ConcealmentMotion to AmendDiscovery Abuse
References
30
Case No. 15-25-00167-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 26, 2025

Shannon Medical Center v. Michael Sickels and James Christopher Cole

Radiologists Michael Sickels and James Christopher Cole sued Shannon Medical Center, alleging the hospital failed to properly monitor, report, and restrict their exposure to radiation while they treated patients, leading to injuries including cancer and amputations. Shannon Medical Center, a licensed health care provider, moved to dismiss these claims under Section 74.351 of the Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code, arguing that they constituted health care liability claims requiring a statutory expert report. Sickels and Cole denied their claims were health care liability claims, asserting they arose from violations of the Texas Radiation Control Act and Texas Administrative Code, that they were employees of Shannon Medical Center, and that they had satisfied the expert report requirement by providing voluminous medical records. The trial court denied Shannon Medical Center's motion to dismiss, prompting this appeal. Shannon Medical Center argues that the claims satisfy all elements of a health care liability claim, highlighting the substantial nexus to health care, the involvement of medical equipment, and the need for expert testimony. They also contend that Sickels and Cole are not employees of the hospital, but rather independent contractors employed by Shannon Clinic, and that the medical records provided do not meet Chapter 74's expert report requirements for standard of care, breach, and causation, nor was a curriculum vitae served. Shannon Medical Center seeks reversal of the trial court's denial, dismissal of the case with prejudice, and an award of statutory remedies.

Health Care Liability ClaimMedical MalpracticeExpert ReportRadiation ExposureHospital NegligenceTexas Civil Practice and Remedies Code Chapter 74Motion to DismissEmployment StatusIndependent ContractorRadiology
References
36
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Lew v. Radiation Dynamics, Inc.

Samuel Lew sued his former employer, Radiation Dynamics, Inc. (RDI), alleging national origin discrimination and retaliatory discharge under Title VII. Lew, a naturalized American citizen of French origin, claimed he was discriminated against due to his French accent and subsequently terminated after complaining about a discriminatory remark by his supervisor. RDI moved for summary judgment, asserting Lew failed to exhaust administrative remedies for the discrimination claim and that his termination stemmed from poor performance. The Court granted summary judgment for RDI on the national origin discrimination claim, finding Lew's allegations primarily focused on retaliation rather than direct discrimination. However, the Court denied RDI's motion for summary judgment on the retaliation claim and its motion to limit damages, concluding that genuine issues of material fact existed regarding the pretextual nature of Lew's termination, including disputed examination scores and performance evaluations. The case will proceed to trial on the retaliation claim.

Title VIICivil Rights Act of 1964National Origin DiscriminationRetaliatory DischargeSummary JudgmentEmployment LawPrima Facie CaseMcDonnell Douglas Burden-ShiftingEEOC ExhaustionTemporal Proximity
References
39
Case No. Appeal Nos. 5104, 5105, 5106, 5107, 5108, 5109, 5110, 5111
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 12, 2001

Berkowitz v. A.C. & S., Inc.

This case involves an appeal by defendants-appellants from orders of the Supreme Court, New York County, which denied their motions for summary judgment in a series of lawsuits concerning asbestos exposure from Worthington pumps. The appellate court unanimously affirmed the lower court's decisions, finding sufficient issues of fact to preclude dismissal. Evidence presented included defendant Worthington's own admission of the high prevalence of its pumps on Navy ships, testimony from workers regarding Worthington pumps in the Brooklyn Navy Yard, and Worthington's use of asbestos-containing components like gaskets and packing. The court also noted a Worthington manual referencing asbestos and government specifications requiring asbestos use, questioning whether the pumps could be safely operated without asbestos insulation despite Worthington not manufacturing or installing it.

Asbestos ExposureProduct LiabilitySummary JudgmentDuty to WarnManufacturer LiabilityAppellate ReviewOccupational ExposureNavy ShipsGasketsPumps
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 14, 2013

Claim of DePascale v. Magazine Distributors, Inc.

The claimant applied for workers’ compensation benefits, alleging that extraskeletal myxoid chondrosarcoma developed due to exposure to toxic substances at the employer's former nuclear fuel rod facility. The Workers’ Compensation Board initially reversed a WCLJ decision, finding insufficient evidence of a causal link. Later, the Board granted the claimant's request to consider new medical evidence, rescinded the WCLJ’s decision, and remitted the matter for a new determination. The employer and its workers’ compensation carrier appealed these Board decisions and the subsequent denial of their request for reconsideration. The Appellate Division dismissed the appeals, deeming the Board’s decisions interlocutory and not final, thus not subject to piecemeal review.

Workers' CompensationCancerToxic ExposureCausal RelationshipMedical EvidenceInterlocutory AppealAppeal DismissalRemittalBoard ReviewNew York Appellate Division
References
4
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
Showing 1-10 of 896 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