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

Mayfield v. Employers Reinsurance Corp.

Calvin A. Mayfield claimed a July 24, 1973, injury while working for Texas Tubular Products, which was appealed by their insurer, Employers Reinsurance Corporation. The case centered on the admissibility of evidence regarding Mayfield's prior injuries and the sufficiency of evidence to support the jury's finding that he was not injured on the date in question. Mayfield's treating physician linked his condition to the 1973 injury, while the defense introduced evidence of other injuries and testimony suggesting no injury occurred on July 24, 1973. The jury found Mayfield was not injured, leading to a take-nothing judgment, which the appellate court affirmed, finding no error in the admission of evidence or the jury's finding.

Workmen's CompensationAdmissibility of EvidenceOther InjuriesSole Producing CauseJury FindingSufficiency of EvidencePrior ClaimsSettlementsLump Sum RecoveryHardship
References
9
Case No. M2024-00666-CCA-R3-PC
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 31, 2025

Russell Lee Maze and Kaye M. Maze v. State of Tennessee

Petitioners Russell Lee Maze and Kaye M. Maze seek post-conviction relief related to their infant son’s death in 2000 from abusive head trauma. They presented "new scientific evidence" and expert testimony asserting actual innocence, arguing the original diagnosis of shaken-baby syndrome (SBS) was flawed and that medical conditions, possibly a stroke, caused the injuries. The District Attorney's office agreed with the petitioners, concluding there was clear and convincing evidence of actual innocence. However, the post-conviction court denied relief, finding the petitioners failed to meet their burden, stating the evidence amounted to "different opinions on extant proof" rather than truly new scientific evidence. On appeal, the Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee affirmed the post-conviction court’s decision, holding that the expert opinions were largely speculative, not truly "new" scientific evidence, and were cumulative of prior litigation. The court also addressed procedural issues regarding the Attorney General's ability to take a position contrary to the District Attorney in the lower court, reaffirming its independent review role.

Post-conviction reliefActual innocenceShaken-baby syndrome (SBS)Abusive Head Trauma (AHT)Medical evidenceExpert testimonyAppellate reviewProsecutorial discretionStatute of limitationsChild abuse
References
78
Case No. ADJ10917168 (MF)
Regular
Oct 21, 2019

JACOB PIKE vs. CITY OF LONG BEACH

This case concerns an applicant seeking reconsideration of a Workers' Compensation Appeals Board decision denying a right knee meniscal transplantation. The judge found the requested treatment did not fall within presumptively correct Medical Treatment Utilization Standards (MTUS) or present sufficient scientific evidence to rebut the presumption. Applicant argued the physician's report constituted scientific evidence and supported medical necessity, but the Board affirmed the denial. The Board found the applicant failed to meet the burden of proof by a preponderance of scientific medical evidence for treatment outside MTUS guidelines.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationJoint Findings of Factindustrial injuryright knee meniscal transplantationUtilization Review (UR)Medical Treatment Utilization Standards (MTUS)Labor Code sections 4604.55307.27medically necessary
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Matt Dietz Co. v. Torres

This appeal arises from a judgment where a jury found that Matt Dietz Co. and Matt Dietz (Dietz collectively) negligently caused Modesto Torres' laryngeal cancer due to pesticide exposure, awarding Torres $6,000,000 in damages. Dietz appealed, arguing a lack of evidence for causation and negligence. The appellate court reviewed the scientific reliability of Torres' expert testimony, which relied on scientific studies and differential diagnosis. The court found no scientifically reliable evidence that pesticide exposure generally causes laryngeal cancer or that Torres' specific exposure levels were comparable to those in the studies. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the trial court's judgment and rendered a decision in favor of Dietz, concluding there was no evidence of proximate cause.

Pesticide exposureLaryngeal cancerNegligenceCausationExpert testimonyScientific reliabilityEpidemiological studiesDifferential diagnosisToxic tortAppellate review
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Havner

This case addresses the legal sufficiency of evidence that the prescription drug Bendectin caused Kelly Havner to be born with a limb reduction birth defect. The Havners' suit alleged negligence, defective design, and defective marketing against Merrell Dow, focusing on the scientific reliability of causation expert testimony. While the trial court found for the Havners and the court of appeals initially reversed then affirmed for actual damages on rehearing, the Supreme Court of Texas reviewed the scientific evidence, including epidemiological and animal studies. The Court held that the evidence presented was legally insufficient to establish causation and therefore reversed the judgment of the court of appeals.

Toxic TortProduct LiabilityCausationScientific EvidenceEpidemiologyExpert TestimonyDrug LitigationBirth DefectsBendectinLimb Reduction
References
67
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. 03-02-00439-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 21, 2003

Texas Lottery Commission and Linda Cloud, Executive Director v. Scientific Games International, Inc. and Pollard Banknote Limited

The Texas Lottery Commission introduced a new policy in February 2002 to consider a vendor's anticipated economic impact on the state when awarding contracts over $100,000. Scientific Games International, Inc. and Pollard Banknote Limited, out-of-state companies manufacturing instant-ticket games, challenged this policy, arguing the Commission lacked the statutory authority to implement it. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of SGI and Pollard. The appellate court affirmed the decision, holding that the Texas Lottery Commission is not authorized to consider a vendor's economic impact on the state in its procurement decisions, emphasizing that procurement should be based on quality and price to promote competition.

Procurement LawState ContractsEconomic Impact PolicyTexas Lottery CommissionGovernmental AuthorityStatutory InterpretationCompetitive BiddingSummary JudgmentStanding DoctrineAppellate Review
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Green

On January 11, 1990, Sun Ok Kim was assaulted, robbed, and subjected to an attempted burglary. Two weeks later, she identified Kenneth Green in a police lineup. Green subsequently filed a motion to suppress the identification testimony, citing both suggestive lineup procedures and the scientific unreliability of eyewitness identification. The court considered expert testimony regarding the factors affecting eyewitness accuracy, including witness confidence and stress levels, but found no evidence of suggestiveness in the police's conduct. Ultimately, the court denied Green's motion in its entirety, ruling that the scientific arguments related to the weight of the identification evidence, not its admissibility, which remains a question for the jury.

Eyewitness IdentificationSuppression MotionDue ProcessSuggestive LineupScientific ReliabilityYerkes-Dodson LawCriminal ProcedureAdmissibility of EvidenceWeight of EvidenceHuman Perception
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Apresa v. Montfort Insurance Co.

Justice Larsen dissents, arguing that the trial court abused its discretion by denying the plaintiff the opportunity to reopen evidence for a "simple, technical point essential to his case." The dissent highlights the second prong of the standard for reopening evidence under Tex.R.Civ.P. 270, emphasizing that discretion should be liberally exercised to fully develop a case in the interest of justice. Justice Larsen applies the four factors from Hill v. Melton: decisiveness, no undue delay, prevention of injustice, and diligence. The dissent concludes that the proffered testimony was decisive, its reception would not cause undue delay, and refusing it resulted in injustice, particularly in a workers' compensation case where laws should be liberally construed. The dissent also argues that the majority misapplies the diligence requirement, which should apply after a party rests and closes its case, not during the case-in-chief, especially when evidence had not yet been closed.

Appellate ProcedureReopening EvidenceTrial Court DiscretionAbuse of DiscretionInterest of JusticeDiligence RequirementWorkers' Compensation LawTexas Rules of Civil ProcedureDissenting OpinionManifest Injustice
References
9
Case No. F87-95754-MK
Regular Panel Decision

Ex parte Chaney

Steven Mark Chaney, convicted of murder, was granted post-conviction habeas corpus relief. The Court found that new scientific advancements discredited the bitemark comparison evidence, which was central to his original conviction. Additionally, the State utilized false evidence, including misrepresented bitemark probability and an altered opinion on wound aging. Significant Brady violations were identified, such as the suppression of a negative blood test on Chaney's shoes, the lack of blood evidence found during a property search, and a key witness's inconsistent statements. Consequently, the Court determined that no reasonable juror would have convicted Chaney in light of this newly discovered and suppressed evidence, setting aside his conviction.

MurderPost-conviction reliefHabeas corpusBitemark analysis discreditedForensic odontologyFalse evidenceBrady violationActual innocence claimExpert testimonyCircumstantial evidence
References
35
Showing 1-10 of 15,108 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