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

Differential Development-1994, Ltd. v. Harkrider Distributing Co.

Differential Development and Pro Cleaners, a former shopping center owner and a current dry-cleaning business operator, sued the City of Houston, Harkrider Distributing Co., KSB, Inc., and Safety-Kleen Systems, Inc. under CERCLA sections 107(a) and 113(f) for cost recovery and contribution related to PERC contamination. They also brought state-law claims. The plaintiffs argued they were not 'potentially responsible parties' (PRPs) or, alternatively, qualified for an 'innocent landowner' defense. They also contended their voluntary cleanup agreement with the TCEQ constituted a settlement under CERCLA section 113(f)(3)(B). The court determined that Differential Development and Pro Cleaners are indeed PRPs and do not qualify for the innocent landowner defense. The court further ruled that their voluntary cleanup agreement with the TCEQ does not qualify as a settlement under CERCLA section 113(f)(3)(B) and that section 107(a) does not provide a separate cause of action for PRPs to sue other PRPs for cost recovery or contribution. Consequently, the court granted the motions to dismiss all federal CERCLA claims and, declining supplemental jurisdiction, dismissed the remaining state-law claims without prejudice.

Environmental LawCERCLAHazardous WasteDry CleaningPERC ContaminationCost RecoveryContribution ClaimsPRPVoluntary Cleanup ProgramTCEQ
References
116
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. 09-0005
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 27, 2010

Transcontinental Insurance Company v. Joyce Crump

In this workers' compensation case, the Supreme Court of Texas addressed three issues. First, it held that expert medical causation testimony from a treating physician, Dr. John Daller, relying on a differential diagnosis, was reliable and legally sufficient to support the jury's verdict regarding causation of death. Second, the Court found that the trial court erred by omitting a "but-for" component in the jury charge's definition of "producing cause," deeming this reversible error. Third, it concluded that an insurance carrier is entitled to a jury trial on the disputed amount of a claimant’s reasonable and necessary attorney’s fees under Texas Labor Code § 408.221(c). Consequently, the Court reversed the court of appeals' judgment and remanded the case for a new trial.

Expert Testimony ReliabilityDifferential DiagnosisProducing Cause DefinitionJury Charge ErrorAttorney's FeesJudicial ReviewMedical CausationAppellate ProcedureCause in FactBut-For Causation
References
51
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Transcontinental Insurance Co. v. Crump

In this workers' compensation death benefits judicial review, Transcontinental Insurance Company appealed a judgment favoring Joyce Crump. Charles Crump, Joyce's husband, died eight months after a workplace knee injury in May 2000. He had a history of kidney transplant and immunosuppression, which complicated his recovery from subsequent infections, including cellulitis, yeast infection, and histoplasmosis, leading to organ failure. The key dispute was whether the knee injury was a 'producing cause' of his death. The jury found the injury was a producing cause, and the trial court awarded attorney’s fees to Crump. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, upholding the reliability of Dr. Daller's expert testimony on causation via differential diagnosis and the award of attorney's fees.

Workers' Compensation Death BenefitsJudicial ReviewCausation DisputeMedical Expert TestimonyDifferential DiagnosisImmunosuppressed PatientInfection ComplicationsRenal FailureLiver CirrhosisAttorney's Fees
References
46
Case No. PD-0292-15
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 18, 2015

Wolfe, Jennifer Banner

This legal brief concerns an appeal by Jennifer Banner Wolfe against her conviction for injury-to-a-child in Texas. The central issue is the reliability of expert testimony regarding Abusive Head Trauma (AHT) which was used to secure her conviction. Medical experts testified that the seven-month-old victim's severe brain and eye injuries, sustained while in Wolfe's care, were consistent with high-energy, non-accidental trauma, contradicting her explanation of a short fall. The State argues that the expert testimony, supported by extensive medical literature and the differential diagnosis methodology, was reliable and properly applied by the lower courts. Consequently, the State urges the Court of Criminal Appeals to affirm the decision of the Court of Appeals for the Second District of Texas, which had previously upheld the trial court's ruling.

Abusive Head TraumaShaken Baby SyndromeExpert TestimonyForensic ScienceChild AbuseCriminal AppealsReliability of EvidenceMedical EvidenceDifferential DiagnosisPediatric Neurology
References
21
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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Cornell v. 360 West 51st Street Realty, LLC

Brenda Cornell sued 360 West 51st Street Corp. for personal injuries allegedly caused by indoor exposure to dampness and mold in her Manhattan apartment. The Supreme Court initially granted summary judgment to the defendant, finding Cornell failed to prove general or specific causation under the Frye standard. The Appellate Division subsequently reversed this, suggesting Cornell's expert opinion had "some support" in scientific literature. However, the Court of Appeals, in this opinion, reversed the Appellate Division's decision, concluding that Cornell failed to raise a triable issue of fact. The court reiterated that scientific "association" does not equate to "causation" and found her expert's differential diagnosis insufficient due to lack of exposure quantification and inadequate ruling out of other causes. Consequently, the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint was ultimately granted.

Mold ExposurePersonal InjuryCausationFrye StandardScientific EvidenceExpert Witness TestimonySummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewEnvironmental HealthDifferential Diagnosis
References
10
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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Depczynski v. Adsco/Farrar & Trefts

This case addresses a workers' compensation claim for occupational hearing loss, focusing on the interpretation of Workers’ Compensation Law § 49-bb concerning the 90-day limitations period. The central question is whether 'knowledge' to trigger this period requires a formal medical diagnosis or the claimant's admitted awareness of the injury and its work-related cause is sufficient. The claimant, employed by Farrar & Trefts (later Adsco Manufacturing Corp.), experienced significant noise exposure and recognized his hearing loss and its occupational link in 1980. However, he did not receive a medical diagnosis until January 1991, having filed his claim in December 1989. The Workers’ Compensation Board dismissed the claim as untimely, finding the claimant had knowledge in 1980, but the Appellate Division reversed, requiring a medical diagnosis for 'knowledge.' The Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division, ruling that the claimant's admitted awareness of his injury and its cause in 1980 initiated the limitations period, irrespective of a formal medical diagnosis. Consequently, the court deemed the claim, filed over two years from the disablement date, as untimely and dismissed it.

Occupational hearing lossWorkers' Compensation LawStatute of LimitationsDelayed discovery ruleMedical diagnosis requirementCausation awarenessEmployer liabilityInsurance carrierJudicial interpretationWorkers' Compensation Board
References
12
Case No. ADJ10243412
Regular
Jun 10, 2019

DEBRA LUX vs. COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA

This case involves an injured firefighter seeking workers' compensation for a right knee injury. The defendant sought reconsideration of a finding of 17% permanent disability, arguing the administrative law judge erred by combining range of motion and diagnosis-based impairments, and by not apportioning the diagnosis-based impairment. The Appeals Board denied reconsideration, finding the medical evaluator adequately explained the departure from standard AMA Guides methodology for rating the combined impairments. The Board also affirmed no apportionment of the diagnosis-based impairment as no substantial evidence showed non-industrial factors contributed to the need for surgery.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardApplicantDefendantPermissibly Self-InsuredAdministered by CORVELFirefighterIndustrial InjuryRight KneePermanent DisabilityWhole Person Impairment
References
5
Showing 1-10 of 413 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