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. 11-04-00172-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 18, 2006

Tomasa Rivera, Individually and as Representative of the Estate of Raul Rivera, Isaiah Rivera Jolene Rivera Rangel Raul Rivera, Jr. And Erica J. Rivera v. Meister Industries, Inc. and Longhorn Custom Coating, Inc.

Appellants, the Riveras, sued appellees Meister Industries, Inc. and Longhorn Custom Coating, Inc. for gross negligence, alleging that Raul Rivera contracted silicosis and died due to exposure to dangerous levels of silica dust while working as a sandblaster. The jury found in favor of the Riveras, awarding $300,000 in exemplary damages. However, the trial court granted a judgment notwithstanding the verdict, finding no evidence of gross negligence. On appeal, the Eleventh Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision. The court concluded there was no legally sufficient evidence that Meister had an actual, subjective awareness of the extreme risk posed by silica dust exposure, a necessary element for gross negligence under Texas law, despite evidence of OSHA regulations and expert testimony on the hazards of silica.

SilicosisGross NegligenceEmployer LiabilitySilica Dust ExposureJudgment Notwithstanding VerdictOccupational DiseaseSandblastingWorkplace SafetyTexas Appeals CourtCausation
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Murphy v. Olean Tile Co.

The case involves an appeal by an employer and its carrier from a Workmen’s Compensation Board decision regarding a claimant's silicosis. The claimant, exposed to silica dust from 1927-1947, stopped work in April 1956 due to the condition. The appellants argued disablement wasn't within two years of last exposure under section 44-a. Initially, a Referee awarded compensation, setting the disablement date as April 6, 1956, which the Board later affirmed after further evidence of exposure in the last four weeks of employment. The court affirmed the decision, finding substantial evidence of exposure and applying a retroactive amendment to section 44-a that deems claims compensable if disablement occurs during continued employment or two years thereafter when an employee is transferred from injurious to non-injurious exposure.

SilicosisOccupational DiseaseWorkmen's Compensation LawSection 44-aInjurious ExposureDisablementRetroactive ApplicationAppellate ReviewMedical TestimonyEmployer Liability
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re GlobalSanteFe Corp.

John Lopez sued GlobalSantaFe Corp. (GSF) under the Jones Act for injuries from asbestos and silica exposure. Chapter 90 of the Civil Practice and Remedies Code, which governs silica and asbestos litigation, mandates expert reports and consolidation in an MDL pretrial court. Lopez's case was transferred to the silica MDL pretrial court, which subsequently remanded it to the original trial court, asserting Chapter 90 was preempted by the federal Jones Act. GSF petitioned the Texas Supreme Court for mandamus relief. The Court ruled that Chapter 90's procedural elements, including expert report requirements and MDL consolidation, are not preempted by the Jones Act. However, Chapter 90's provision for a minimal physical impairment threshold for silica claims is preempted. The Court conditionally granted mandamus relief, instructing the MDL pretrial court to vacate its remand order and conduct further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

PreemptionJones ActFederal Maritime LawState LawSilica LitigationAsbestos LitigationMDL ProceduresExpert TestimonyProcedural vs. Substantive LawMandamus Relief
References
28
Case No. SRO 0115364
Regular
Jul 09, 2007

PAULETTE BELL vs. SANTA ROSA CITY SCHOOLS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration, rescinded the previous award, and found that the applicant did not sustain an industrial injury. While the applicant experienced exposure to asbestos, silica, and lead, there was insufficient medical evidence to establish a present injury or need for treatment. The Board clarified that the applicant may pursue a claim in the future if a disability arises from the exposure.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationIndustrial ExposureAsbestosQuartz SilicaLeadDate of InjurySelf-Procured Medical ExpensesCumulative TraumaSpecific Injury
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Filipowicz v. De Laval Separator Co.

This case concerns an appeal by an employer and carrier challenging an award for total disability due to silicosis. It was conceded that the claimant suffered from silicosis and was permanently and totally disabled. Appellants argued that there was no proof of injurious exposure during the claimant's last employment with the employer. However, evidence showed the claimant worked as a trucker in the employer's rubber plant, where he was exposed to talc containing silica. The board found sufficient evidence of a causal relationship between this exposure and the claimant's disability, thus affirming the award.

SilicosisOccupational DiseaseTotal DisabilityInjurious ExposureTalc ExposureFoundry WorkerRubber PlantWorkers' Compensation BoardCausal Relation
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Texas Employers' Ins. Ass'n v. Etheredge

In this workmen's compensation appeal, E. A. Ether-edge was awarded damages for silicosis. The insurance carrier appealed the judgment, challenging the validity of the statement of facts approved by a successor judge and the sufficiency of evidence regarding Ether-edge's injurious exposure to silica dust at Trojan Foundries, Inc. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, overruling the motion to dismiss the appeal and upholding the jury's findings on injurious exposure and silicosis. The court confirmed that Rule 18, V.R.C.P., allowed the successor judge to approve the statement of facts and found sufficient evidence to support the jury's verdict.

SilicosisOccupational DiseaseWorkmen's CompensationAppellate ProcedureStatement of FactsSuccessor JudgeInjurious ExposureTuberculosisExpert TestimonySufficiency of Evidence
References
4
Case No. 2018 NY Slip Op 01829 [159 AD3d 1457]
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 16, 2018

Rickicki v. Borden Chem.

The Appellate Division, Fourth Department, heard an appeal concerning two actions, Rickicki v Borden Chemical and Crowley v C-E Minerals, Inc., both involving claims for damages due to silicosis from silica dust exposure at Dexter Corporation. The core legal dispute centered on the applicability of the 'sophisticated intermediary doctrine,' which asserts that product manufacturers have no duty to warn ultimate users if an informed intermediary, like an employer, is aware of the product's dangers. Reversing the Supreme Court's grant of summary judgment for the defendants, the Appellate Division declined to recognize this doctrine under the specific facts of this case. Consequently, the court reinstated negligence and products liability causes of action based on failure to warn, along with loss of consortium claims, against the defendant silica manufacturers. The decision emphasized that whether adequate warnings were provided to the injured workers and if failure to warn was a proximate cause remained triable issues of fact.

Sophisticated Intermediary DoctrineFailure to WarnProducts LiabilityNegligenceSilica Dust ExposureSilicosisProximate CauseSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewEmployer Liability
References
36
Case No. 01-16-00847-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 22, 2019

Adan G. Adame v. Glendale Optical

The case involves 106 sandblasters appealing the dismissal of their silica exposure claims. In 2005, the Texas Legislature enacted Chapter 90 of the Civil Practice and Remedies Code, creating a Silica multidistrict litigation (MDL) pretrial docket, establishing procedures for claims to advance to trial upon submission of compliant medical reports. The statute was amended in 2013 to allow dismissal without prejudice of pre-2005 claims if claimants failed to file qualifying medical reports by a specified deadline. The sandblasters filed their medical reports in 2013, but many were prepared before the 2005 statute specifying report content. The MDL Court sustained objections to almost all medical reports, dismissing all 106 claims without prejudice to refiling. The sandblasters appealed, arguing Chapter 90 is unconstitutional due to vagueness and retroactive application. The Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal, overruling the sandblasters' constitutional challenges. It found that the statute's reference to the Code of Federal Regulations for impairment determination was not unconstitutionally vague, nor were the requirements for detailed medical and occupational histories. The court also rejected the argument that not specifying the AMA Guides edition caused vagueness, noting the MDL Court had clarified the applicable edition. The court further dismissed the challenge regarding specific x-ray findings for lung abnormalities, pointing to a 'safety valve' provision for atypical cases. Finally, the court held that granting the MDL Court authority to evaluate medical report sufficiency does not render the statute vague, aligning with established judicial roles in assessing expert evidence. The court concluded that the 2013 amendment adding dismissal procedures was not an unconstitutional retroactive law, as claimants had no vested right to indefinite litigation without providing reliable medical evidence.

Silica ExposureMultidistrict LitigationConstitutional LawDue ProcessVagueness ChallengeRetroactive LawMedical ReportsImpairment RatingOccupational DiseasePulmonary Impairment
References
32
Case No. 01-15-00251-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 03, 2015

in Re: Texas State Silica Products Liability Litigation

This document is a reply brief filed by Appellees in support of their motion to dismiss an appeal or, alternatively, to strike the Appellants' brief. Appellees argue that the MDL Court's order denied permanent injunctive relief, which is not an appealable interlocutory order. They also contend that Appellants failed to present an appealable issue because the MDL Court did not rule on the merits of the constitutional challenge, having dismissed it due to a lack of standing and ripeness. Furthermore, Appellees highlight the Appellants' delay in raising their constitutional challenge to Chapter 90 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code and their failure to submit required medical reports as evidence of their lack of standing and ripeness.

Appellate JurisdictionMotion to DismissConstitutional ChallengeStandingRipenessInjunctive ReliefTexas Civil Practice and Remedies Code Chapter 90Silica LitigationInterlocutory AppealAppellate Procedure
References
16
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
Showing 1-10 of 881 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