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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 14, 2013

Claim of DePascale v. Magazine Distributors, Inc.

The claimant applied for workers’ compensation benefits, alleging that extraskeletal myxoid chondrosarcoma developed due to exposure to toxic substances at the employer's former nuclear fuel rod facility. The Workers’ Compensation Board initially reversed a WCLJ decision, finding insufficient evidence of a causal link. Later, the Board granted the claimant's request to consider new medical evidence, rescinded the WCLJ’s decision, and remitted the matter for a new determination. The employer and its workers’ compensation carrier appealed these Board decisions and the subsequent denial of their request for reconsideration. The Appellate Division dismissed the appeals, deeming the Board’s decisions interlocutory and not final, thus not subject to piecemeal review.

Workers' CompensationCancerToxic ExposureCausal RelationshipMedical EvidenceInterlocutory AppealAppeal DismissalRemittalBoard ReviewNew York Appellate Division
References
4
Showing 1-10 of 877 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