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

Whitney v. Quaker Chemical Corp.

The Supreme Court erred by not granting Quaker Chemical Corporation's motion for summary judgment to dismiss the complaint as time-barred. Plaintiff Gaylord Whitney sought damages for personal injuries due to toxic substance exposure from the defendant's products. The plaintiff experienced difficulty breathing and was diagnosed with bronchitis and chemical exposure between August and November 1989, directly linked to workplace fumes. An emergency room doctor confirmed the chemical exposure, leading Whitney to file an Occupational Injury and Illness Report and a workers’ compensation claim. The Workers’ Compensation Board later determined that an injury occurred on August 17, 1989, due to workplace exposure. According to CPLR 214-c (2), a three-year statute of limitations applies from the date of injury discovery. Since Whitney was aware of his injury by late 1989, and the action was not commenced until October 29, 1993, the court found the action to be untimely. Justices Fallon and Callahan dissented from the majority decision.

Time-barredStatute of LimitationsToxic ExposurePersonal InjuryWorkers' CompensationDiscovery RuleOccupational InjuryChemical ExposureBronchitisSummary Judgment
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Glod v. Ashland Chemical Co.

James Glod, and derivatively Lisa Glod, sued Eastman Chemical Products, Inc. and other defendants for injuries, specifically asthma, allegedly caused by exposure to toxic chemicals at Glod's workplace between 1982 and 1985. Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint based on failure to state a cause of action and Statute of Limitations. The court granted dismissal of the seventh cause of action (unspecified statutory violations) and the first and second causes of action (strict liability and negligence) under CPLR 214-c, finding them time-barred. All other causes of action survived dismissal, and the plaintiffs' cross-motions to amend the complaint and declare CPLR 214-c unconstitutional were denied.

Toxic tortStatute of limitationsCPLR 214-cChemical exposureAsthmaPersonal injuryStrict liabilityNegligenceBreach of contractBreach of warranty
References
22
Case No. 09-06-298 CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 12, 2006

in Re Exxon Corporation, ExxonMobil Oil Corporation, Individually F/K/A Mobil Oil Corporation and A/K/A Mobil Chemical Company, a Division of ExxonMobile Oil Corporation, Mobil Chemical Company, Inc., Individually and F/K/A Mobil Chemical Corporation

This mandamus proceeding before the Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont addresses whether a trial court can compel a party to present a deponent to detail efforts taken to search for documents. Exxon, defendants in underlying benzene exposure suits by Wilkinson, Hebert, and Stubbs, challenged a trial court's order requiring a deposition regarding their discovery compliance. The Court of Appeals found the order constituted an improper 'fishing expedition' that would invade attorney-client and work product privileges, as it sought to inquire into the mental processes of counsel. The court concluded the trial court abused its discretion and conditionally granted mandamus relief, ordering the trial court to vacate its prior discovery order.

MandamusDiscovery DisputeWork Product PrivilegeAttorney-Client PrivilegeFishing ExpeditionTexas Civil ProcedureOverbroad DiscoveryDepositionCorporate RepresentativeBenzene Exposure
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Curran v. International Union, Oil, Chemical & Atomic Workers

Plaintiff, an employee of Carborundum Company, suffered a partial hand amputation in a "rubber roll" machine accident on March 8, 1979. He sued his unions, International Union, Oil, Chemical & Atomic Workers, AFL-CIO, and Abrasive Workers, Local 8-12058, Oil, Chemical & Atomic Workers International Union, alleging state law negligence for failing to safeguard him from dangers and a federal claim for breaching their duty of fair representation. The unions moved for summary judgment, arguing federal law preempts the negligence claim and they did not breach their duty of fair representation. The court granted the unions' motion regarding the negligence claim, ruling that a union's duty to its members, arising from a collective bargaining agreement, is governed exclusively by federal law and does not include a duty of care. However, the court denied the motion regarding the breach of fair representation claim, finding sufficient facts and allegations to infer that the unions may have discharged their duty in an arbitrary, perfunctory manner or in bad faith, thus leaving triable issues of fact.

Union LiabilityDuty of Fair RepresentationNegligence ClaimFederal PreemptionCollective Bargaining AgreementSummary Judgment MotionLabor LawWorkplace AccidentSafety and Health CommitteeArbitrary Union Action
References
8
Case No. ADJ1168599 (WCK 0050522)
Regular
Mar 05, 2009

STANLEY ANGEL (Deceased) WANDA ANGEL (Widow) vs. DOW CHEMICAL COMPANY, CRAWFORD & COMPANY, TRAVELERS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board reversed a prior finding that Stanley Angel's death from multiple myeloma was industrially caused by chemical exposure at Dow Chemical Company. The Board found insufficient evidence of sufficient exposure levels and duration to establish industrial causation. Medical opinions were split, but the Board found the applicant failed to meet the burden of proof for a causal connection. Consequently, the applicant received no further benefits.

Multiple MyelomaToxic Chemical ExposureIndustrial CausationQualified Medical EvaluatorLatency PeriodOrganic SolventsCumulative TraumaIndustrial InjuryWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsideration
References
0
Case No. 01-16-00633-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 30, 2018

Donato Polignone and Neal D. Roy v. Bulldog Chemicals, LLC

Appellants Donato Polignone and Neal D. Roy challenged a no-answer default judgment rendered in favor of Appellee Bulldog Chemicals, LLC, stemming from a breach of contract and quantum meruit claim for unpaid goods totaling $21,750. The appellants argued the trial court erred by not granting their motion for new trial and by entering judgment against them individually, asserting a lack of standing as their business dealings were with NuGenTec Oilfield Chemicals, LLC, and their failure to answer was an oversight. The First District of Texas Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding that Bulldog Chemicals had standing and the appellants failed to meet the Craddock requirements for setting aside a default judgment. The Court also denied Bulldog Chemicals' request for sanctions for frivolous appeal.

Default judgmentbreach of contractquantum meruitstandingmotion for new trialCraddock testappellate reviewTexas lawcivil procedurecommercial dispute
References
51
Case No. ADJ1168599
Regular
May 29, 2009

STANLEY ANGEL (Deceased) WANDA ANGEL (Widow) vs. DOW CHEMICAL COMPANY, CRAWFORD & COMPANY, TRAVELERS

This case concerns a widow's petition for reconsideration of a denial of death benefits for her husband, Stanley Angel, who died of multiple myeloma. The Appeals Board previously ruled that there was insufficient substantial medical evidence to establish that Mr. Angel's exposure to toxic chemicals during his employment with Dow Chemical Company caused his illness. The widow argued the Board erred in disregarding the opinion of her Qualified Medical Evaluator, Dr. Harrison, and misapplied the burden of proof. However, the Board affirmed its prior decision, finding Dr. Harrison's revised opinion lacked a solid basis and was inconsistent with other evidence regarding the extent and duration of exposure.

Multiple MyelomaIndustrial InjuryToxic Chemical ExposureQualified Medical Evaluator (QME)Medical CausationLatency PeriodSubstantial Medical EvidenceBurden of ProofReconsiderationOccupational Medicine
References
7
Case No. 01-08-00641-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 01, 2009

Union Carbide & Hexion Specialty Chemicals, Inc.'s v. Oliver D. Smith and Peggy Ann Bowen Smith

Oliver D. Smith and Peggy Ann Bowen Smith sued Union Carbide Corporation and Hexion Specialty Chemicals, Inc. for Oliver's mesothelioma caused by asbestos exposure. A jury found Union Carbide and Hexion negligent. On appeal, the Court of Appeals for the First District of Texas reversed the trial court's judgment. The court found insufficient evidence that Union Carbide controlled the details of Oliver's work, which is required to establish premises owner liability under Chapter 95 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code. Additionally, the court held that the Smiths' claims against Hexion, as successor-in-interest to Smith-Douglas, were barred by the exclusive remedy provision of the Texas Workers' Compensation Act, declining to apply the 'dual-persona' doctrine.

Asbestos LitigationMesotheliomaPremises LiabilityIndependent ContractorWorkers' Compensation ActExclusive RemedyCorporate MergerSuccessor LiabilityDual-Persona DoctrineLegal Sufficiency
References
19
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
May 03, 1988

Billsborrow v. Dow Chemical, U.S.A.

This opinion addresses motions for summary judgment by Dow Chemical, U.S.A., and Pride Solvent Chemical Company, Inc., in a negligence and strict products liability action. Plaintiff Nancy Ann Billsborrow, as administratrix, sued after her husband, Christopher Billsborrow, died from exposure to Neu-Tri solvent. Defendants argued they fulfilled their duty to warn through the "responsible intermediary" and "knowledgeable user" doctrines. The court declined to extend the responsible intermediary doctrine to bulk chemical sales in this context, citing significant distinctions from pharmaceutical cases. Furthermore, it found questions of fact regarding the adequacy of warnings and Pride's knowledge. The court also rejected the knowledgeable user doctrine's application, stating it does not apply to unskilled workers and an employer's knowledge cannot be imputed to an employee. Consequently, the motions for summary judgment were denied.

products liabilitynegligencesummary judgmentduty to warnresponsible intermediary doctrineknowledgeable user doctrinebulk chemical salestrichloroethylene exposurefatal injurychemical hazards
References
22
Showing 1-10 of 1,103 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