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

General Motors Corp. v. Saenz

General Motors Corporation appealed a jury verdict finding it liable for strict liability and negligence due to a failure to adequately warn. The case originated from an accident involving a GM truck chassis, which was significantly modified by Sascon with a large water tank, leading to a high center of gravity and overloading. Two drivers, Josué Ramirez and Ricardo Saenz, died when a tire blowout caused the overloaded truck to roll. The jury apportioned 70% liability to GM for inadequate warnings and 30% to Sascon for improper modification. The appellate court affirmed the verdict, establishing GM's duty to warn against foreseeable modifications and known risks, and upheld findings of inadequate warnings and gross negligence, along with the punitive damages award.

Strict LiabilityNegligenceProduct LiabilityFailure to WarnTruck OverloadingVehicle ModificationForeseeability of RiskComparative CausationPunitive DamagesDue Process
References
42
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 15, 2010

In Re Keller

This case involves an appeal by Judge Sharon Keller against a Public Warning issued by the State Commission on Judicial Conduct. The Commission's warning stemmed from her decision not to keep the clerk's office open past business hours, which impeded a death penalty appeal. While a Special Master recommended no formal action, the Commission issued the warning after formal proceedings. This Special Court of Review concluded that, under Texas law, a public warning cannot be issued following formal proceedings; sanctions are only permissible after informal investigations. Consequently, the court vacated the Commission's order and dismissed the charges against Judge Keller, without commenting on the accusations' merits.

Judicial misconductPublic warningFormal proceedingsInformal proceedingsTexas ConstitutionGovernment CodeDue processJudicial reviewSanctionsCensure
References
33
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Power v. Crown Controls Corp.

Plaintiff James Power was severely injured when a forklift manufactured by defendant Crown Controls Corporation tipped over during his employment. Power admitted he had not read the operator's warning sign or manual, which contained warnings against carrying passengers and elevating without a safety platform. Crown moved for partial summary judgment, arguing that Power's failure to read the warnings negated proximate causation for his claim of inadequate warning. The court acknowledged that generally, a plaintiff's failure to read a warning can rebut the presumption of causation, especially in non-workplace contexts. However, the court denied summary judgment, reasoning that in a workplace setting, a proper warning might have reached the plaintiff through his employer's officials or fellow workers, thus establishing a potential for proximate causation.

Products LiabilityForklift AccidentWarning LabelProximate CauseSummary JudgmentWorkplace SafetyEmployer LiabilityIndustrial AccidentNegligenceDuty to Warn
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Brumley v. Pfizer, Inc.

This case involved a product liability and negligence claim filed by the estate of Earnest Brumley and his family against Pfizer, Inc., manufacturer of Viagra. Mr. Brumley died of cardiac complications after taking Viagra, leading to allegations of marketing defects and inadequate warnings. Pfizer moved for summary judgment, arguing adequate warnings were provided and there was no causal link between Viagra and Mr. Brumley's death. The Court granted Pfizer's motion, applying the learned intermediary doctrine and finding that the prescribing physician was adequately warned of the cardiac risks associated with Viagra and strenuous activity. Additionally, the Court determined that Viagra merely furnished the condition for the injury and was not the legal cause of death, thus dismissing all claims with prejudice.

Product liabilitySummary judgmentPharmaceuticalsViagraMarketing defectNegligenceLearned intermediary doctrineCausationCardiac riskWarning adequacy
References
38
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Barnett v. Jamesway Corp. (In Re Jamesway Corp.)

This memorandum decision addresses a dispute concerning the administrative priority of attorneys' fees awarded under the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act (WARN Act) to former employees of Jamesway Corp., as well as the scope of a prior summary judgment decision. The court determined that post-petition attorneys' fees, stemming from the debtor's continued litigation and loss, are entitled to administrative expense priority under the Bankruptcy Code. This decision applies to Union employees who accepted offers of judgment, deemed "Accepting Plaintiffs," as their offers were executory accords breached by Jamesway. However, the decision explicitly excludes "Grievance Claimants," as their terminations occurred before the WARN Act triggering event. The ruling emphasizes the public policy behind fee-shifting statutes to encourage legal representation for workers and ensure compliance.

WARN ActAdministrative PriorityAttorneys' FeesBankruptcy CodeExecutory AccordOffer of JudgmentWage ClaimsEmployee RightsStatutory InterpretationPost-petition Claims
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Prevost v. New York State Department of Social Services

The petitioners, maternal grandparents, initiated a CPLR article 78 proceeding to challenge a determination by the State Commissioner of Social Services and the Warren County Department of Social Services. They sought to expunge a report from the State Central Register indicating inadequate guardianship concerning their grandson, Justin. Justin had been placed in foster care, and concerns arose about his behavior after monthly visits with the petitioners, prompting a psychiatrist to recommend discontinuing overnight visits. The psychiatric report detailed Justin's anger towards his grandmother and later allegations of diapering. Despite the petitioners' denials and claims of bias, the agency's decision to indicate inadequate guardianship was upheld after administrative review and a fair hearing. The court ultimately confirmed the determination, citing substantial evidence based on Justin's consistent accounts.

Child protective servicesInadequate guardianshipFoster careAdoption eligibilityCPLR article 78 proceedingAdministrative reviewExpungement of reportHearsay evidenceCredibility determinationSocial Services Law
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Chandler v. Janssen Pharm., Inc.

Plaintiff Tyrieke Chandler sued Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Johnson & Johnson, and Janssen Research & Development, LLC, alleging failure to warn about Risperdal's side effects, specifically gynecomastia. Plaintiff, who began taking Risperdal in 2003, developed enlarged breast tissue and underwent bilateral mastectomies in 2014. Defendants moved for summary judgment. The Court granted the motion, finding that Plaintiff could not establish that the drug's warning labels (from 2002, 2006, and 2007) were inadequate, as gynecomastia was identified as a side effect. Furthermore, Plaintiff failed to prove specific causation because his prescribing physicians were independently aware of the risk and did not rely on the labels or inform the plaintiff of the risk.

Product LiabilityPharmaceuticalsFailure to WarnRisperdalGynecomastiaSummary JudgmentLearned Intermediary DoctrineCausationPrescription DrugsSide Effects
References
41
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 15, 2004

Rodriguez v. Sears, Roebuck & Co.

The plaintiff appealed from an order granting summary judgment to defendants Sears, Roebuck and Co. and Black & Decker (US), Inc., in a personal injury action. The plaintiff was injured while using an angle grinder manufactured by Black & Decker and sold by Sears, after modifying it by replacing the original wheel and removing the safety guard. The Supreme Court, Kings County, found that the defendants had established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, concluding the plaintiff was aware of the dangers and warnings were adequate. The Appellate Division affirmed the judgment, dismissing the appeal from the intermediate order, concurring that the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact regarding inadequate warnings or defective design.

Product liabilitySummary judgment affirmedWarning adequacyDesign defectAngle grinder accidentPersonal injury appealManufacturer liabilitySeller liabilityHazard awarenessModified product
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 18, 2004

Humble Sand & Gravel, Inc. v. Gomez

Justice O’Neill dissents from the Court's application of the sophisticated-user doctrine, arguing it wrongly absolves Humble, a silica flint supplier, of its duty to warn. The dissent highlights that silica flint is dangerous, employees were unaware of hazards, employers neglected safety, and warnings were easy to provide and would have prevented injury to workers like Raymond Gomez. O'Neill asserts that the Court misinterpreted precedent and Restatement factors, establishing a dangerous precedent that undermines worker safety. The dissent critiques the Court for overlooking Humble's misleading information and the industry's inadequate appreciation of silica dangers, suggesting the ruling is an attempt to address mass-tort claims legislatively rather than judicially.

product liabilitysophisticated user doctrineduty to warnsilica dust exposuresilicosisworker safetymass tortsdissenting opinionTexas lawcausation
References
25
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

McInnes v. Yamaha Motor Corp., U.S.A.

The Plaintiff-Appellant, who became a quadraplegic after a motorcycle accident, sued Yamaha Motor Corporation, U.S.A., alleging defective design, inadequate warnings, and other claims. A jury found design defects and warning failures but not as producing causes, and also found appellant negligent for failing to keep a proper lookout. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, addressing several points of error. These included challenges to the sufficiency of evidence, the admissibility of intoxication evidence, the scope of similar accident evidence, the exclusion of deposition testimony, and the admission of prior inconsistent statements. The court also considered claims of improper arguments by counsel, discovery abuses, and newly discovered evidence, finding no reversible error in the trial court's rulings.

Motorcycle AccidentProducts LiabilityDefective DesignFailure to WarnIntoxication EvidenceAdmissibility of EvidenceAppellate ReviewSufficiency of EvidenceJury FindingsCross-examination Rights
References
26
Showing 1-10 of 1,501 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