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

Lockett v. HB Zachry Co.

This case concerns two separate wrongful death claims stemming from alleged occupational benzene exposure. The Lockett heirs sued Pharmacia Corporation (Monsanto), H.B. Zachry Company, and Union Carbide, asserting that benzene exposure at their work sites caused Clifford Lockett's death from acute myelogenous leukemia. Concurrently, the Jackson heirs brought claims against Rohm and Haas, linking Evelyn Jackson's death to occupational benzene exposure. The trial court granted summary judgments for all defendants. The appellate court affirmed these judgments, concluding that the Lockett heirs provided no evidence of Lockett's benzene exposure at the defendants' facilities. Furthermore, the court found the Texas Labor Code barred the Jackson heirs' negligence claim against Rohm and Haas, classifying Evelyn Jackson as a "borrowed servant," and upheld the summary judgment on their gross negligence claim due to lack of evidence of conscious indifference to risk.

Wrongful DeathOccupational ExposureBenzeneAcute Myelogenous LeukemiaSummary JudgmentCausationToxic TortBorrowed ServantWorkers' Compensation ActGross Negligence
References
30
Case No. 01-07-01052-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 12, 2009

Evelyn Lockett v. Amoco Corporation

This case encompasses two distinct wrongful death claims arising from alleged occupational exposures to benzene. The Lockett heirs sued Monsanto, H.B. Zachry, and Union Carbide, alleging Lockett's leukemia and death were caused by benzene exposure at their work sites. The Jackson heirs sued Rohm and Haas for similar claims. The trial court granted summary judgments for the defendants, which the Locketts and Jacksons appealed. The appellate court affirmed the judgments, concluding that the Locketts provided no evidence of Mr. Lockett's exposure to benzene at the defendants' work sites. It also affirmed that the Texas Labor Code barred the Jacksons' negligence claim against Rohm and Haas, determining Jackson was a 'borrowed servant,' and the trial court properly granted summary judgment on their gross negligence claim.

Wrongful DeathOccupational ExposureBenzene ExposureLeukemiaSummary JudgmentTexas Workers' Compensation ActBorrowed Servant DoctrineCausationGross NegligenceAppellate Review
References
28
Case No. ADJ4034979 (EUR 0039592)
Regular
Mar 10, 2011

BARRY JOHNSON vs. CITY OF ARCATA, REDWOOD EMPIRE MUNICIPAL SONOMA

This case involves a police sergeant claiming industrial prostate cancer due to benzene exposure. Both applicant and defendant sought reconsideration of the initial Findings and Award. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, rescinded the prior decision, and returned the case for further proceedings due to outstanding issues regarding the date of injury and the compensability of temporary disability. The Board also noted that evidence of benzene exposure appeared to support the presumption of compensability for cancer injuries, shifting the burden to the defendant.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardLabor Code section 3212.1prostate cancerpresumption of compensabilitydate of injuryLabor Code section 5412temporary disabilitypermanent disabilitybenzene exposurecarcinogen
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Parker v. Mobil Oil Corp.

This case involves an unnamed plaintiff diagnosed with acute myelogenous leukemia (AML) who sued several defendants, including Mobil Oil Corporation, Island Transportation Corporation, and Getty Petroleum Marketing, Inc., alleging occupational exposure to benzene caused his illness. The defendants moved in limine to preclude the plaintiff's expert testimony on medical causation and for summary judgment, arguing the causation theory was unreliable. The Supreme Court, Nassau County, denied these motions. On appeal, the higher court reversed the lower court's decision, finding that the plaintiff's experts failed to quantify benzene exposure and establish a scientifically reliable causal connection. Consequently, the appellate court granted the defendants' motions, dismissing the plaintiff's complaint in its entirety.

Medical CausationToxic ExposureBenzeneAcute Myelogenous Leukemia (AML)Expert Testimony AdmissibilityFrye StandardSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewOccupational HazardScientific Reliability
References
25
Case No. 14-00-00763-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 24, 2003

Exxon Corporation v. James Makofski, Sr., as Next Friend of James Makofski, Jr. Barton Russell, as Next Friend of John Russell Andrea Russell San Juanita Devora Felipe Devora And Codi Stennett

This case involves an appeal regarding alleged benzene contamination from an oil well, which plaintiffs claimed caused various health problems including acute lymphocytic leukemia (ALL) and anemia. The trial court initially found Exxon negligent and grossly negligent, awarding damages, but later reduced or eliminated most awards. On appeal, the court reviewed the scientific evidence presented by the plaintiffs' medical experts and epidemiological studies, finding it legally insufficient to establish a causal link between benzene exposure and the alleged diseases under the Havner standards. The court also rejected claims for mental anguish damages based on fears of future diseases without present manifestation or reasonable medical probability. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the trial court's judgment, rendering judgment that the plaintiffs take nothing.

Benzene ContaminationEnvironmental LitigationToxic TortEpidemiological EvidenceScientific Reliability of Expert TestimonyCausation in Toxic TortsAcute Lymphocytic Leukemia (ALL)AnemiaMental Anguish DamagesFuture Damages
References
31
Case No. ADJ10685699
Regular
Jan 22, 2019

DAVID CISAR vs. ORANGE COUNTY FIRE AUTHORITY

This case involved a fire captain who claimed industrial injury for melanoma and lymphoma, with the latter being the focus of the appeal. While the applicant was presumed compensable for leukemia/lymphoma under Labor Code section 3212.1 due to benzene exposure, the defendant successfully rebutted this presumption. The rebuttal was based on an independent medical evaluator's opinion that the short period between negative diagnostic tests and the cancer's manifestation made an industrial link unreasonable. The Board adopted this reasoning, denying the petition for reconsideration.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardOrange County Fire AuthorityPermissibly Self-InsuredCorvel CorporationFire CaptainCumulative InjuryMelanomaLymphomaChronic Lymphocytic LeukemiaSmall Lymphocytic Lymphoma
References
2
Case No. ADJ7318651
Regular
Jan 12, 2012

JERRY CHAVEZ, Jr. vs. CITY OF VERNON

This case concerns a police officer diagnosed with renal cell carcinoma who sought workers' compensation benefits under Labor Code section 3212.1's cancer presumption. The applicant presented evidence of industrial exposure to known carcinogens such as diesel exhaust and benzene. The defense failed to rebut the presumption by failing to present evidence that the primary cancer site was identified and that the identified carcinogen was not reasonably linked to the cancer. The Appeals Board affirmed the judge's findings, denying the defendant's petition for reconsideration.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardCity of VernonJerry Chavez Jr.Petition for ReconsiderationFindings and Ruling and Awardcancer presumptionLabor Code section 3212.1industrial exposurecarcinogenic substancesWCJ
References
7
Case No. ADJ8157891
Regular
Apr 15, 2016

JESSE CASTELLON vs. ORANGE COUNTY VECTOR CONTROL, ACCLAMATION INSURANCE MANAGEMENT SERVICES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the defendant's petition for reconsideration of a finding that pesticide exposure contributed to the applicant's lymphoma, diabetes, and hypertension. The defendant argued the relied-upon medical expert erred by discussing Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma instead of the applicant's diagnosed Hodgkin's Lymphoma. However, the Board found the expert's report sufficiently addressed Hodgkin's Lymphoma and its link to benzene exposure, incorporating the WCJ's reasoning. Therefore, the Board affirmed the original findings and denied the petition.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationFindings of Factindustrial causationpesticide exposurelymphomadiabeteshypertensionsubstantial medical evidenceDr. Nachman Brautbar
References
1
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
Case No. 04-1118
Regular Panel Decision
May 01, 2009

City of San Antonio v. Charles Pollock and Tracy Pollock, Individually and as Next Friends of Sarah Jane Pollock, a Minor Child

Justice Medina dissents from the majority opinion concerning a personal injury claim against the City of San Antonio. The Pollocks alleged their daughter Sarah's leukemia was caused by benzene exposure from the City's landfill. The core of the dissent is the disagreement over whether the City needed to object to the analytical gaps in the expert testimonies to preserve error, with Justice Medina arguing such complaints pertain to reliability and require timely objections. He agrees with the Court that there is no evidence for a takings claim, but disagrees with the Court's stance on the negligence claim and the applicability of the Tort Claims Act.

Expert Testimony AdmissibilityReliability of EvidenceConclusory Expert OpinionsCausation in Toxic Tort CasesBenzene ContaminationChildhood LeukemiaLandfill LiabilityGovernmental Immunity WaiverTexas Tort Claims ActAppellate Procedure
References
44
Showing 1-10 of 23 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