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. 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. 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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Craig ex rel. craig v. R.R. Street & Co.

Mary A. Craig, widow of Charles L. Craig, filed a products liability suit against various chemical suppliers and manufacturers, including Ideal Chemical & Supply Company, alleging her husband's death was caused by exposure to toxic chemicals at his workplace, King Cleaners. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, the workers' compensation carrier for King Cleaners, intervened to protect its subrogation interest. The defendants moved for summary judgment, asserting the action was barred by the statute of limitations. The trial court granted summary judgment, finding that the plaintiffs had not exercised due diligence in discovering the causal connection between the illness and the defendants' products. On appeal, the judgment of the trial court was affirmed, and the case was dismissed, upholding the statute of limitations bar against both Mrs. Craig and Liberty Mutual.

Products liabilityStatute of limitationsWrongful deathWorkers' compensation subrogationDiscovery ruleSummary judgment appealChemical exposure injuryOccupational diseasePancytopeniaDue diligence requirement
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 04, 2001

Claim of Keeley v. Jamestown City School District

The claimant, a teacher for Jamestown City School District, experienced various symptoms after renovations at the middle school in 1992, attributing them to chemical exposure. After stopping work and seeking medical attention, the School District filed a C-2 form. However, a Workers’ Compensation Law Judge and subsequently the Workers’ Compensation Board disallowed the claim, finding that the claimant failed to prove a causal relationship between the disability and employment. The record showed exposure to carpet adhesives and ventilation issues, but also noted the claimant's intermittent symptoms since 1988 and recurrence with household cleaners. While some medical experts diagnosed toxic peripheral neuropathy, toxic encephalopathy, and multiple chemical sensitivity, and linked them to work exposure, other experts disagreed. The Board weighed these conflicting medical opinions. The court affirmed the Board’s decision, concluding that substantial evidence supported the finding that no causal relationship was established.

Workers' CompensationCausally Related DisabilityChemical ExposureSchool RenovationsToxic Peripheral NeuropathyToxic EncephalopathyMultiple Chemical SensitivityConflicting Medical OpinionsBurden of ProofMedical Evidence
References
5
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

Claim of Lopez v. Superflex, Ltd.

The claimant, suffering from acute bilateral kidney failure, filed a workers' compensation claim alleging causation by exposure to toxic chemicals at his workplace while painting and packing industrial hoses. The Workers’ Compensation Board initially denied the claim, asserting insufficient evidence of chemical exposure and lack of causal link. However, the appellate court found that the Board's decision was based on incorrect facts and lacked substantial evidence, highlighting that material safety data sheets confirmed kidney damage as a potential hazard of the chemicals used. Furthermore, the court noted that medical expert testimony supported causation, and an OSHA report, mischaracterized by the Board, did not disprove harmful exposure. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the Board’s decisions and remitted the matter for further proceedings, concluding that sufficient evidence supported the link between workplace conditions and the claimant's kidney failure.

Occupational diseaseKidney failureToxic chemical exposureWorkers' Compensation BoardAppellate reviewCausationMedical expert testimonyOSHA reportRemittedSubstantial evidence
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Kilcer v. Niagara Mohawk Power Corp.

Joseph Kilcer, a volunteer firefighter and former employee at a hazardous waste site, suffered a toxic brain injury. He filed two workers' compensation claims: one against Columbia County Cause and Origin Team (CCCOT) for carbon monoxide exposure at a fire scene, and another against his employer (third-party defendant) for chemical exposure at the remediation site. The Workers’ Compensation Board found a compensable injury against CCCOT, ruling the injury was solely caused by the fire scene exposure. Kilcer and his wife subsequently filed a tort action against Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation, Environmental Resources Management, Inc., and Blasland, Bouck & Lee, Inc., alleging his brain injury was due to chemical exposure at the remediation site. Defendants and the third-party defendant moved for summary judgment, arguing judicial estoppel. The Supreme Court denied these motions, but on appeal, the court reversed this decision. The appellate court applied the doctrine of judicial estoppel, finding Kilcer was barred from asserting an inconsistent position in the tort action regarding the cause of his injury, having previously maintained in the workers' compensation proceeding that the fire scene was the sole cause. Consequently, the complaint and third-party complaint were dismissed.

Judicial EstoppelInconsistent PositionsWorkers' Compensation ClaimToxic Brain InjuryCarbon Monoxide PoisoningHazardous Waste Remediation SiteSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewVolunteer Firefighter BenefitsCausation
References
7
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
Showing 1-10 of 1,134 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