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. 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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Cano v. Everest Minerals Corp.

This is a toxic tort case brought by fifty-three individuals and related claimants against defendants engaged in uranium mining and milling activities in Karnes County, Texas. Plaintiffs allege that exposure to ionizing radiation from uranium ore and its decay products caused their various cancers. The Court considered Defendants’ motion to exclude the expert testimony of Dr. Malin Dollinger, the Plaintiffs’ sole expert on specific causation. Dr. Dollinger's methodology, based on differential diagnosis and the linear no-threshold hypothesis, was found unreliable for determining specific causation. Consequently, the Court granted Defendants' motion to exclude Dr. Dollinger's testimony and subsequently granted summary judgment in favor of the Defendants, dismissing the case with prejudice due to Plaintiffs' lack of admissible proof on specific causation.

Toxic TortUranium MiningRadiation ExposureCancer CausationExpert TestimonyDaubert StandardSummary JudgmentSpecific CausationGeneral CausationEpidemiology
References
46
Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 04437 [186 AD3d 401]
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 06, 2020

Matter of New York City Asbestos Litig. v. Air & Liquid Sys. Corp.

This case, part of the New York City Asbestos Litigation, involved claims from William E. Robaey and Marlena Robaey against Federal-Mogul Asbestos Personal Injury Trust, among others, for peritoneal mesothelioma caused by asbestos exposure from gaskets. A jury awarded significant damages for pain and suffering and loss of consortium. On appeal, Federal-Mogul challenged the sufficiency of evidence for specific causation and the weight of the evidence. The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed the finding of specific causation, distinguishing the facts from prior rulings, particularly Juni. However, the court found the damages for past pain and suffering and past loss of consortium materially deviated from reasonable compensation and ordered a new trial on those damages unless the plaintiff agreed to a stipulated reduction.

Asbestos LitigationMesotheliomaToxic TortSpecific CausationExpert TestimonyDamages RemittiturPain and SufferingLoss of ConsortiumAppellate ReviewJury Verdict
References
16
Case No. 2015-06-0814
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 19, 2016

Erickson, Douglas v. Wilson and Associated, P.C.

The employee, Douglas Erickson, filed a Request for Expedited Hearing seeking medical benefits for a tick-borne illness he allegedly contracted on July 10, 2015, while working as a surveyor for Wilson and Associates, P.C. The employer denied the claim. The court reviewed the file without an evidentiary hearing. Judge Robert Durham found that Mr. Erickson failed to provide sufficient evidence to establish that he was likely to prevail on the merits regarding the compensability of his alleged injury, specifically concerning causation and the reasonableness and necessity of past medical expenses. The court noted a lack of a specific incident for the tick bite, conflicting medical opinions on causation, and a failure to consult with the employer before incurring unauthorized medical expenses. Consequently, the employee's request for medical benefits was denied.

Workers' CompensationMedical Benefits DenialTick Bite InjuryCausation DisputeExpedited HearingBurden of ProofMedical Expense ReimbursementUnauthorized Medical CareSurveyor EmployeeTennessee Workers' Compensation Law
References
7
Case No. 2025 NY Slip Op 06136 [243 AD3d 414]
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 06, 2025

Lotrean v. 3M Co.

In a product liability case concerning exposure to toxic substances, the Appellate Division, First Department, reversed the Supreme Court's order and granted summary judgment to defendants E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Company, Rust-Oleum Corporation, and Zep, Inc., thereby dismissing the complaint. Plaintiffs, including Marinel Lotrean, failed to establish a prima facie case for causation. Their experts did not adequately demonstrate a causal link between exposure to component solvents in the defendants' products and the plaintiff's medical condition, nor did they provide sufficient evidence that the specific products were contaminated with benzene at levels capable of causing illness. The court found that plaintiffs' assumptions regarding solvent contamination and exposure levels lacked credible evidentiary support, failing to create a question of fact on both general and specific causation.

Products LiabilityToxic ExposureCausation FailureSummary Judgment GrantCarcinogenic SolventsBenzene ContaminationExpert OpinionAppellate ReversalSpecific CausationGeneral Causation
References
4
Case No. 15-CV-681-LY
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 25, 2017

Markman v. Whole Foods Market, Inc.

This is a securities-fraud class action brought by the Lead Plaintiff, Employees’ Retirement System of the State of Hawaii, against Whole Foods Market, Inc. and its executives. The plaintiff alleged violations of federal securities laws, specifically Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5, claiming Whole Foods made false and misleading statements about its pricing and financial performance due to systematic overcharging. Defendants moved to dismiss the Second Amended Class Action Complaint, arguing the plaintiff failed to adequately plead material misrepresentation, scienter (wrongful state of mind), and loss causation. The court found that the new allegations did not remedy the deficiencies of the previous complaint, specifically lacking particularity for false statements, a strong inference of scienter for the defendants, and a plausible link for loss causation. Consequently, the court granted the motion to dismiss the second amended complaint with prejudice, concluding that further amendments would be futile.

Securities FraudClass ActionMotion to DismissWhole Foods MarketFinancial MisrepresentationOverchargingPleading StandardsScienterLoss CausationFederal Rules of Civil Procedure
References
18
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. 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. ADJ6571874, ADJ7967746
Regular
Oct 21, 2013

DARYL BRISTOL vs. CITY OF SANTA MONICA, CITY OF SANTA MONICA RISK MANAGEMENT

The Board denied the applicant's reconsideration regarding his claimed cumulative trauma injury of multiple myeloma, agreeing with the WCJ that employment exposure to benzene was insufficient to establish causation. The Board granted the defendant's reconsideration regarding a specific arm/shoulder injury, affirming it was not due to horseplay. However, the Board amended the award for this specific injury to limit temporary disability benefits to August 26, 2008, finding subsequent disability was due to the applicant's non-industrial cancer. All other issues related to the specific injury remain deferred.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardCumulative TraumaInternal SystemCancerMultiple MyelomaLabor Code Section 3212.1Presumption of Compensable InjurySpecific InjuryRight Arm and ShoulderHorseplay
References
0
Showing 1-10 of 7,084 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