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

Poppenberg v. Reliable Maintainance Corp.

In this negligence action, the plaintiff sued Reliable Maintenance Corporation for injuries sustained due to a defective elevator. Reliable moved for summary judgment, asserting an affirmative defense that the action was barred by Workers’ Compensation Law § 11, arguing that the plaintiff was either an employee of a joint venture involving Reliable and Suburban Maintenance Corporation or a special employee of Reliable. Special Term denied the motion, citing unresolved questions of fact regarding the plaintiff's employment status. The appellate court affirmed the denial of summary judgment, finding no evidence of a joint venture due to the lack of shared profits and losses among the corporations, despite common ownership. The court also concluded that there were insufficient facts to determine control over the plaintiff for either joint or special employment, necessitating a trial for full factual development.

Workers' CompensationJoint VentureSpecial EmploymentSummary JudgmentNegligenceEmployer LiabilityCorporate StructureControl TestAppellate ReviewFactual Dispute
References
11
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. 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. 15-24-00118-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 21, 2024

Aspire Power Ventures, LP v. Public Utility Commission of Texas, Electric Reliability Council of Texas, Thomas Gleeson, Lori Cobos, Jimmy Glotfelty, Kathleen Jackson, and Courtney Hjaltman

This case involves Aspire Power Ventures, LP appealing the dismissal of its lawsuit against the Public Utility Commission of Texas (PUCT), Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT), and various commissioners. Aspire challenged the legality of the ERCOT Contingency Reserve Service (ECRS) protocols, arguing they illegally restrain electricity supply, violate the Public Utility Regulatory Act (PURA) by compelling generators to withhold power, and were implemented without adhering to the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) rulemaking requirements. The district court granted the defendants' pleas to the jurisdiction, dismissing Aspire's claims for lack of jurisdiction. Aspire seeks declaratory and injunctive relief, contending that the ECRS rules are invalid and cause substantial, irreparable harm to market participants and Texas consumers due to inflated electricity prices and increased price volatility.

Electricity MarketEnergy RegulationAdministrative Procedure ActPublic Utility Regulatory ActERCOTPUCTRulemaking ChallengeJudicial ReviewSovereign ImmunityEnergy Prices
References
7
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. 01-01-00749-CV
Regular Panel Decision

Danny R. Danny Collinsworth v. Eller Media Company

Daniel R. Collinsworth, the appellant, sued multiple appellees including Eller Media Company, Clear Channel Communications, Inc., and others, following a personal injury sustained from a 20-foot fall while working on an elevated billboard sign due to a broken ratchet strap. The trial court granted summary judgments in favor of the Media defendants, Reliable Electric Products, and Weisner Steel Products, Inc., based on arguments such as the exclusive remedy provision of the Texas Workers Compensation Act, statute of limitations, and lack of evidence linking them to the defective product. Collinsworth appealed, contending that there was insufficient time for discovery and that he was prejudiced by a lost record. The appellate court found Collinsworth waived the discovery argument by not filing appropriate motions and that the allegedly lost record was, in fact, included in the supplemental clerk's record. Consequently, the appellate court affirmed the trial court's summary judgments.

Personal InjurySummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewWorkers' Compensation ExemptionStatute of LimitationsProduct LiabilityBillboard AccidentDiscoveryEvidence SufficiencyTexas Civil Procedure
References
9
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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Fisher Scientific Co. v. City of New York

Plaintiff Fisher Scientific Company sought to enjoin the City of New York and its council from proceeding with Resolution 910. This resolution expressed negative views on Fisher's labor negotiations with the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Local 810, due to its use of replacement workers, and recommended that city agencies find alternative suppliers. Fisher argued that these actions constituted unlawful interference with its federal right to collective bargaining under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The court consolidated the preliminary injunction hearing with the trial on the merits for a permanent injunction. Ultimately, the court denied Fisher's application for injunctive relief and dismissed the complaint, finding that Fisher failed to demonstrate irreparable harm. The Union's motion to intervene as a party was granted.

Collective BargainingLabor DisputeInjunctive ReliefIrreparable HarmLegislative ImmunityFirst Amendment RightsRipeness DoctrineFederal Preemption42 U.S.C. § 1983City Council Resolution
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Texas Lottery Commission v. Scientific Games International, Inc.

Scientific Games International, Inc. (SGI) and Pollard Banknote Limited, out-of-state lottery ticket manufacturers, sued the Texas Lottery Commission after its Executive Director announced a new policy in February 2002. This policy intended to consider a vendor’s anticipated economic impact on the state for contracts exceeding $100,000, potentially disadvantaging non-Texas companies. The plaintiffs sought a declaratory judgment, arguing the Commission lacked statutory authority for this new policy, which they contended would unfairly favor in-state bidders. The trial court sided with SGI and Pollard, granting summary judgment in their favor. On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the summary judgment, ruling that the Texas Lottery Commission must adhere to competitive-bidding statutes and base procurement decisions primarily on quality and price, as it lacks explicit statutory authority to consider a vendor's economic impact on the state. The court concluded that such a policy would contradict the mandate to promote competition and would create an impermissible in-state preference.

Procurement PolicyEconomic ImpactGovernment ContractsDeclaratory JudgmentSummary JudgmentStatutory InterpretationAdministrative Agency AuthorityCompetitive BiddingIn-state PreferenceLottery Commission
References
15
Case No. ADJ165327 (LAO 0874327) ADJ3892641 (LAO 0874626)
Regular
May 28, 2019

AGUSTIN RUIZ vs. THERMO FISHER SCIENTIFIC, AIG, TRAVELERS INSURANCE

This Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) decision grants reconsideration and amends a prior ruling regarding Agustin Ruiz's claims against Thermo Fisher Scientific, insured by AIG and Travelers Insurance. The Board affirmed the original decision's finding of injury AOE/COE to the applicant's low back, psyche, and gastroesophageal reflux disease/gastroduodenitis. It established a single combined award of 29% permanent disability, jointly and severally liable for AIG and Travelers, and ordered ongoing medical treatment administered by Travelers.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationDecision After ReconsiderationAOE/COEPermanent DisabilityApportionmentJoint and Several LiabilityContributionReimbursementTemporary Disability Indemnity
References
0
Showing 1-10 of 189 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