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

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

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. 01-02-00677-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 31, 2003

Brookshire Brothers, Inc. v. Wesley Smith

Wesley Smith sued Brookshire Brothers, Inc. for personal injuries, claiming reactive airways dysfunction syndrome (RADS) from chemical exposure while employed by Brookshire. A jury awarded Smith damages, which were partially reduced by the trial court. On appeal, Brookshire challenged the legal sufficiency of Smith's causation evidence. The Court of Appeals found Dr. Friedman's expert testimony scientifically unreliable due to a lack of scientific foundation for general causation. Consequently, the court reversed the trial court's judgment and rendered judgment that Smith take nothing.

chemical exposurereactive airways dysfunction syndromeRADSexpert testimonyscientific reliabilitygeneral causationspecific causationmaterial safety data sheetsMSDStoxic tort
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 31, 2003

Brookshire Brothers, Inc. v. Smith

Wesley Smith sued Brookshire Brothers, Inc. for personal injuries, specifically Reactive Airways Dysfunction Syndrome (RADS), allegedly caused by chemical exposure during employment. A jury awarded Smith damages, but the appellate court reversed the trial court's judgment. The core issue was the legal sufficiency of the causation evidence presented by Smith's expert, Dr. Friedman. The court found Dr. Friedman's testimony scientifically unreliable, noting a lack of scientific foundation and epidemiological studies connecting commercial cleaning products to RADS. Consequently, the appellate court rendered a take-nothing judgment for Smith, concluding that the expert's opinion was mere conjecture.

Chemical exposureRADSCausationExpert testimonyScientific reliabilityMSDSWarning labelsToxic tortPersonal injurySufficiency of evidence
References
15
Case No. 05-20-00525-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 29, 2022

the University of Texas System v. Diane M. Bartek

Diane M. Bartek, an employee of The University of Texas System, filed a worker's compensation claim for an occupational disease caused by mold exposure. The Division of Worker's Compensation and its appeals panel denied her claim. Bartek then filed a petition for review in the trial court, where a jury found in her favor, awarding her attorney's fees. The University of Texas System appealed, arguing the expert medical opinion on causation provided by Dr. William J. Rea was unreliable and legally insufficient evidence. The appellate court agreed, finding Dr. Rea's opinion was based on unfounded assumptions about continuous mold exposure and unreliable testing methods rejected by the scientific community. Consequently, the trial court's judgment was reversed, and a take-nothing judgment was rendered in favor of The University of Texas System.

Occupational DiseaseMold ExposureExpert Witness TestimonyCausationLegal Sufficiency of EvidenceReliability of Expert OpinionToxic TortAppellate LawTexas Labor CodeMedical Testing Standards
References
27
Case No. 08-25-00003-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 30, 2025

Helena Chemical Company v. Philip Bales, Derek Dieringer, Wilber Dieringer, Michael Hoch, CMH Farms, Inc., MH Farms Services, Inc., Whit Braden, Donald Braden and Streicher Farms, Inc.

Helena Chemical Company sought a permissive appeal of a trial court's interlocutory order denying its no-evidence motion for summary judgment in a toxic tort and negligence lawsuit. The Appellees, who are farmers and landowners, filed suit against Helena Chemical, alleging that its aerial application of herbicide negligently spread onto their cotton fields, causing damage to their crops and yields. Helena Chemical contended that the Texas Supreme Court's holding in Helena Chemical Company v. Cox, 664 S.W.3d 66 (Tex. 2023), dictated that the Appellees' expert scientific testimony was unreliable and amounted to no evidence of causation. However, the appellate court denied the petition for permissive appeal, concluding that the applicability of Cox as controlling precedent does not present a 'controlling question of law as to which there is a substantial ground for difference of opinion,' as the standards for admissibility of expert testimony in toxic tort cases are well-established by Texas jurisprudence.

Permissive AppealInterlocutory OrderSummary JudgmentToxic TortNegligenceExpert TestimonyCausationHerbicide DriftCrop DamageTexas Law
References
21
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
Showing 1-10 of 15,152 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