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

In Re Foster Mold, Inc.

Foster Mold, Inc. sought a writ of mandamus against the trial court's order denying its motion to stay proceedings and refer a wrongful termination case to arbitration. Former employees Patricia and Ricardo Arellano had sued Foster Mold, Inc. after being discharged, despite signing an 'Employment and Arbitration Contract' that stipulated arbitration for employment-related disputes. The appellate court determined that under the Federal Arbitration Act, claims of unconscionability related to the contents of an arbitration contract, rather than its inducement, must be decided by an arbitrator. Consequently, the appellate court conditionally granted the writ of mandamus, ordering the trial court to withdraw its denial, stay the proceedings, and refer the case to arbitration.

ArbitrationMandamusEmployment ContractUnconscionabilityFederal Arbitration ActWorkers' CompensationTexas LawMotion to StayAppellate ReviewAbuse of Discretion
References
13
Case No. 08-06-00153-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 27, 2008

David J. Quick v. Plastics Solutions of Texas, Inc., a Texas Corporation Plastics Solutions Molding, Inc., a Texas Corporation Kurt H. Ruppman, Sr., Individually and Fairfield Enterprises, Inc.

Appellant David J. Quick appealed a take-nothing judgment concerning contract claims against Plastic Solutions of Texas, Inc., Plastic Solutions Molding, Inc., Kurt H. Ruppman, Sr., and Fairfield Enterprises, Inc. Quick, a certified public accountant, sought royalties based on an agreement related to Ruppman's patented cryogenic technology. The trial court interpreted the "Royalty Revenue Agreement" to limit Quick's interest to licensing income derived from a specific heat-set/barrier blow molding technology process after January 23, 1997, and found no such income. The court also concluded that Quick's breach of contract claim was barred by failure of consideration and prior material breach due to his cessation of services. The Eighth District of Texas Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment on all issues, including the contract interpretation and the award of attorney's fees to Fairfield.

Contract lawRoyalty agreementBreach of contractDeclaratory judgmentFailure of considerationPrior material breachAttorney's feesAppellate reviewContract interpretationPatent licensing
References
47
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Niu v. Revcor Molded Products Co.

This case concerns an employment discrimination lawsuit filed by Xuxian Niu against his former employer, Revcor Molded Products Company, and its Vice President, Rob Knight. Niu, a Chinese American, alleged racial discrimination, retaliation, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and racial harassment after his termination in November 2002. The defendants argued Niu's position was eliminated due to the completion of a manufacturing process and a bleak business forecast. The trial court granted summary judgment for Revcor and Knight on all claims. On appeal, the court affirmed the summary judgment, concluding that Revcor provided legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for Niu's termination, which Niu failed to sufficiently rebut as pretextual for either discrimination or retaliation.

Employment DiscriminationRacial DiscriminationRetaliationSummary JudgmentPretextNondiscriminatory ReasonTexas Labor CodeHostile Work EnvironmentAppellate ReviewTermination
References
26
Case No. 2-05-104-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 12, 2006

Xuxian Niu v. Revcor Molded Products Company and Rob Knight

Xuxian Niu appealed the trial court's summary judgment in favor of Revcor Molded Products Company and Rob Knight in an employment discrimination lawsuit. Niu, a Chinese American, was terminated in November 2002 from his manufacturing engineering manager position, having been hired in March 2001. He alleged racial discrimination, intentional infliction of emotional distress, racial harassment, and retaliation, citing ridicule of his accent and unfair treatment by his supervisors. Revcor and Knight contended Niu's termination was due to the completion of the lean manufacturing process and a negative business forecast for new products. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding that Revcor established a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for Niu's termination and Niu failed to raise a fact issue concerning pretext or retaliation.

Employment DiscriminationRacial DiscriminationRetaliationSummary JudgmentTexas Labor Code Chapter 21McDonnell Douglas Burden-ShiftingPretext for DiscriminationWorkplace HarassmentAdverse Employment ActionAppellate Review
References
26
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Litwack v. Plaza Realty Investors, Inc.

This case concerns an appeal regarding an action for personal injuries allegedly caused by toxic mold in a plaintiff's apartment. The Supreme Court initially granted summary judgment to the defendants, dismissing the complaint, and these orders were subsequently affirmed on appeal. The central legal question revolved around whether the defendants' knowledge of a discolored, wet wall and a steam pipe leak constituted sufficient notice of a potential mold hazard. The majority concluded that such knowledge, as a matter of law, did not establish notice of potential mold growth. A dissenting opinion argued that the focus should be on whether defendants had notice of persistent water leaks, from which a hazardous mold condition was foreseeable, citing the plaintiff's repeated complaints and an expert's opinion.

Toxic MoldPersonal InjuryLandlord LiabilitySummary JudgmentConstructive NoticeWater DamageAppellate ReviewExpert WitnessPremises LiabilityEnvironmental Health
References
3
Case No. ADJ3321482 (SAC 0347549)
Regular
May 29, 2012

MARYLOU SMITH vs. COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

This case involves an applicant seeking workers' compensation for sinus injuries allegedly caused by workplace mold exposure. The defendant, County of Sacramento, sought reconsideration after an administrative law judge found the injury AOE/COE, relying on the applicant's treating physician's opinion. The defendant argued that the agreed medical examiner's opinion should have prevailed and that there was insufficient evidence of a materially greater workplace mold exposure. The majority of the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration, finding the treating physician's opinion persuasive and sufficiently supported by medical evidence.

Agreed Medical ExaminerCausationMold ExposureFungal SinusitisIndustrial InjuryOccupational NexusMedical ProbabilitySubstantial EvidenceWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsideration
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 13, 2013

Claim of Cappelletti v. Marcellus Central School District

A school teacher filed a workers' compensation claim, asserting she developed an autoimmune disorder due to workplace mold exposure. A Workers’ Compensation Law Judge found a compensable work-related injury, a decision subsequently affirmed by the Workers’ Compensation Board. The employer and its carrier appealed, contending the claimant failed to demonstrate the condition resulted from unusual environmental conditions. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, noting the claimant's testimony of mold exposure and three medical opinions supporting a causal link. Despite conflicting evidence, the court found the Board’s decision supported by substantial evidence.

Autoimmune DisorderMold ExposureWorkplace InjuryWorkers' CompensationAppellate ReviewSubstantial EvidenceMedical OpinionsCausationEnvironmental ConditionsClaimant Testimony
References
5
Case No. 05-20-00525-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 29, 2022

the University of Texas System v. Diane M. Bartek

Diane M. Bartek, an employee of The University of Texas System, filed a worker's compensation claim for an occupational disease caused by mold exposure. The Division of Worker's Compensation and its appeals panel denied her claim. Bartek then filed a petition for review in the trial court, where a jury found in her favor, awarding her attorney's fees. The University of Texas System appealed, arguing the expert medical opinion on causation provided by Dr. William J. Rea was unreliable and legally insufficient evidence. The appellate court agreed, finding Dr. Rea's opinion was based on unfounded assumptions about continuous mold exposure and unreliable testing methods rejected by the scientific community. Consequently, the trial court's judgment was reversed, and a take-nothing judgment was rendered in favor of The University of Texas System.

Occupational DiseaseMold ExposureExpert Witness TestimonyCausationLegal Sufficiency of EvidenceReliability of Expert OpinionToxic TortAppellate LawTexas Labor CodeMedical Testing Standards
References
27
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Brothers v. Tyco International, Ltd.

The plaintiffs contracted with ADT for a home security system. During installation, a worker employed by Tyco negligently damaged a waste disposal pipe, leading to a slow leakage and a mold condition in the plaintiffs' house. After recovering over $40,000 from their homeowner’s insurance for remediation expenses, the plaintiffs initiated this action against ADT and Tyco to recover consequential and incidental damages not covered by their insurance, such as those from mold exposure and life disruption. The Supreme Court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment, dismissing the complaint, and denied the plaintiffs' cross-motion. The court found that the contract between the plaintiffs and ADT contained an unequivocal exculpatory provision, stating the defendants would not be liable for losses due to water intrusion or mold resulting from the security system installation, which the plaintiffs failed to rebut.

home security systemnegligent installationwaste pipe damagemold damageconsequential damagesincidental damagesexculpatory clausecontract disputesummary judgmentproperty damage
References
3
Case No. FRE 0217800; FRE 0218000; FRE 0222219; FRE 0222220; FRE 0222221
Regular
Jun 23, 2008

JULIO ALVAREZ vs. CLOVIS UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT; Permissibly Self-Insured, Adjusted By TRISTAR RISK MANAGEMENT

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted applicant's petition for reconsideration to correct a clerical error, increasing the permanent disability rating from 10% to 11% after apportionment, as stipulated by the parties. The Board affirmed the WCJ's findings that the applicant did not sustain industrial injury due to mold exposure or psychological injury, as the applicant failed to meet the burden of proof for these claims. The Board found the WCJ's reliance on the toxicology expert's opinion was supported by substantial evidence, thus affirming the denial of mold-related injury.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPermanent DisabilityApportionmentMold ExposureIndustrial InjuryAOE/COEClaim FormPresumption of CompensabilitySubstantial EvidenceClerical Error
References
15
Showing 1-10 of 922 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