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

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. 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. 10-0775
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 11, 2014

Susan Elaine Bostic, Individually and as Personal Representative of the Heirs and Estate of Timothy Shawn Bostic, Helen Donnahoe And Kyle Anthony Bostic v. Georgia-Pacific Corporation

Timothy Bostic died of mesothelioma. His relatives (Plaintiffs) sued Georgia-Pacific (and others) alleging exposure to asbestos from Georgia-Pacific's drywall joint compound caused his disease. The jury found Georgia-Pacific liable, but the court of appeals rendered a take-nothing judgment, finding insufficient evidence of causation. The Supreme Court of Texas affirmed the court of appeals' judgment. The Court held that the "substantial factor causation" standard applies to mesothelioma cases, rejecting the "any exposure" theory. It clarified that "but for causation" is not a separate strict requirement in multiple-exposure cases. It stated that proof of causation requires scientifically reliable evidence that the plaintiff's exposure to the defendant's product more than doubled the risk of contracting the disease. The Court found the evidence of causation legally insufficient as the plaintiffs did not establish an approximate dose or show that Georgia-Pacific's product more than doubled Bostic's risk.

MesotheliomaAsbestosCausationSubstantial FactorBut For CausationToxic TortProducts LiabilityEpidemiologyDose-ResponseScientific Reliability
References
36
Case No. 14-04-01022-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 27, 2007

Abel Arguelles, Terrie A. Augustino, Petra Renee Barfield, William a Barfield, Adolph Brown, Desmond Burnett, Dora A. Burnett, Ricky A. Carter v. Kellogg Brown & Root, Inc., Individually and as Successor in Interest to the M.W. Kellogg Company, and Halliburton Company, Individually and as Successor in Interest to the M.W. Kellogg Company

This case originated from a catastrophic chemical complex explosion and fire that resulted in numerous worker injuries. The injured workers and their families (Appellants) sued Kellogg Brown & Root, Inc. and Halliburton Company (Appellees) for negligence, alleging inadequate pressure relief system evaluations provided years before the incident. The trial court issued a take-nothing summary judgment against the workers. On appeal, the court affirmed the summary judgment, finding it was final. The appellate court concluded that Phillips's actions leading up to the explosion constituted a new and independent cause, legally breaking the chain of causation from Kellogg's alleged earlier negligence, or alternatively, that Kellogg's conduct was too remote to be considered a substantial factor in causing the injuries.

Chemical Plant ExplosionButadiene PolymerizationPressure Relief SystemNegligenceProximate CauseSuperseding CauseSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewIndustrial AccidentSafety Engineering
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Transport Insurance Co. v. Campbell

Jimmie Q. Campbell, a long-haul truck driver, sought workers' compensation benefits after sustaining a head injury on October 12, 1973, which he claimed led to a subsequent stroke and left-side paralysis. A jury initially awarded him total and permanent disability benefits. The Transport Insurance Company appealed, contending that there was no medical evidence linking the head blow to the stroke (hemiplegia). Medical experts—Dr. Lutz (treating physician), Dr. Prahar (neurosurgeon), and Dr. Cover (internal medicine specialist)—all testified that, in reasonable medical probability, the stroke was caused by hypertension, not the minor head trauma, despite acknowledging a remote possibility. The appellate court found no sufficient medical testimony to establish a causal relationship between the blow and the hemiplegia. Consequently, the judgment was reversed, and rendered in favor of the appellant, Transport Insurance Company, citing insufficient evidence to support the jury's finding of causation.

Workers' CompensationDisability BenefitsHead TraumaStrokeHemiplegiaCausationMedical EvidenceHypertensionAppellate ReviewJury Verdict
References
5
Case No. 2015-05-0078
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 14, 2015

Dyer, Jimmy v. Tankersley Concrete

Jimmy E. Dyer, the Employee, filed a Request for Expedited Hearing seeking medical and/or temporary disability benefits for a left shoulder injury sustained on March 13, 2015, while working for Tankersley Concrete. Tankersley Concrete denied the claim, arguing Mr. Dyer failed to prove the injury arose primarily out of and in the course and scope of employment and suggesting another cause (moving to a new residence). The Court found that Mr. Dyer experienced pain in his left shoulder while lifting concrete molds at work and gave verbal notice. While Mr. Dyer established a specific set of circumstances causing the injury, he had not yet proven medical causation, as the authorized providers did not provide a causation opinion. Citing McCord v. Advantage Human Resourcing, the Court ruled that prohibiting medical care without a prior expert causation opinion would be unreasonable. Therefore, the Court ordered Tankersley to provide Mr. Dyer with a panel of orthopedic physicians for an evaluation to obtain a medical causation opinion. Mr. Dyer's claim for temporary disability benefits was denied at this time due to the lack of established medical causation.

Workers' CompensationExpedited HearingMedical CausationLeft Shoulder InjuryTemporary Disability BenefitsRotator Cuff Sprain/StrainOrthopedic EvaluationPanel of PhysiciansBurden of ProofTennessee Law
References
3
Case No. LBO 0340807
En Banc
Jun 17, 2005

LISA SIMMONS vs. STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DEPT. OF MENTAL HEALTH, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Appeals Board holds that a utilization review report is admissible for the limited purpose of showing a dispute over industrial causation has arisen, but not to determine causation itself; the defendant must then follow the AME/QME process to resolve the causation dispute.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationEn Banc DecisionUtilization ReviewMedical NecessityCausationLabor Code section 4610Labor Code section 4062Agreed Medical EvaluatorQualified Medical Evaluator
References
11
Case No. 2025 NY Slip Op 04322 [240 AD3d 1230]
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 25, 2025

Skrzynski v. Akebono Brake Corp.

Joseph A. Skrzynski sued Akebono Brake Corporation and Ford Motor Company for personal injuries, specifically mesothelioma, resulting from asbestos exposure from friction products while working at an automobile dealership. The jury found Ford Motor Company liable for failing to warn about the asbestos hazards. On appeal, Ford challenged the legal sufficiency of the evidence for both general and specific causation. The Appellate Division, Fourth Department, affirmed the judgment, concluding that the trial evidence was legally sufficient to establish both that chrysotile asbestos from automotive brakes can cause peritoneal mesothelioma (general causation) and that plaintiff's exposure levels were sufficient to cause his illness (specific causation). A dissenting justice argued that plaintiff's experts offered insufficient evidence for both general and specific causation, particularly regarding the specific type of asbestos and the quantification of plaintiff's exposure.

Products LiabilityAsbestos ExposureMesotheliomaFailure to WarnCausationGeneral CausationSpecific CausationAppellate ReviewJury VerdictExpert Testimony
References
16
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. 2015-02-0209
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 21, 2015

Peters, James v. Johnathan Mitchell d/b/a A Clean Connection, LLC

James Peters, an alleged employee, sought medical and temporary disability benefits after suffering a fall at work. The central legal issue was whether Mr. Peters was an employee or an independent contractor of Johnathan Mitchell d/b/a/ A Clean Connection, LLC. The court found that A Clean failed to meet its burden of proving Mr. Peters was an independent contractor, thus establishing an employment relationship for the purpose of the expedited hearing. Regarding medical treatment, while Mr. Peters suffered a foot sprain, the authorized treating physician, Dr. Kent Lord, had not provided a causation statement. Consequently, the court ordered A Clean to authorize a return appointment for Mr. Peters with Dr. Lord to obtain a causation opinion, and if causation is established, A Clean must provide all reasonably necessary medical treatment. Decisions on prior emergency room benefits and temporary disability benefits were reserved pending this causation opinion.

Employee Classification DisputeExpedited Medical Benefits HearingWorkers' Compensation Act TennesseeRight Foot SprainCausation DeterminationTreating Physician OpinionTemporary Disability Benefits ReservedLadder Fall InjuryAurora Casket CompanyA Clean Connection LLC
References
10
Showing 1-10 of 1,626 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