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. E2007-00816-SC-WCM-WC
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 30, 2008

Clarence Trosper v. Armstrong Wood Products, Inc. - Dissenting

Clarence Trosper sought workers\' compensation benefits from Armstrong Wood Products, Inc., alleging his pre-existing osteoarthritis was permanently worsened by work activities in 1997-1998, leading to bilateral thumb surgeries in 2004 and 2005. The trial court initially awarded him 40% vocational disability based on Dr. William E. Kennedy\'s expert testimony. However, the Special Workers’ Compensation Appeals Panel reversed this, finding Dr. Kennedy\'s opinion speculative due to a six-year gap in symptoms and lack of medical documentation. This document presents a dissenting opinion by Justice William C. Koch, Jr., who concurs with the Appeals Panel, arguing that Trosper failed to prove his work, rather than natural disease progression, caused the disability. Despite this dissent, the Supreme Court\'s majority decision reversed the Appeals Panel, entitling Mr. Trosper to benefits.

Workers' CompensationOsteoarthritisPre-existing ConditionCausationMedical Expert TestimonyDissenting OpinionBurden of ProofJoint InjuryDisability BenefitsAppellate Review
References
57
Case No. 2019-05-0530
Regular Panel Decision
May 29, 2020

Garcia, Maria v. Ideal Clamp Products, Inc.

Ms. Garcia, an employee, sought medical and temporary disability benefits for bilateral hand and wrist pain reported in 2018 while working for Ideal Clamp Products, Inc. She was diagnosed with carpal tunnel syndrome by Dr. Kyle Joyner. However, Dr. Joyner opined that her job duties were less than 49% causative of her condition. Due to the lack of medical proof establishing work-related causation exceeding fifty percent, the Court denied her claim for medical and temporary disability benefits in this expedited hearing, finding her unlikely to prevail at a hearing on the merits.

Carpal Tunnel SyndromeCausation DisputeMedical BenefitsTemporary DisabilityExpedited HearingBenefits DeniedOccupational InjuryMedical OpinionCumulative TraumaTennessee Workers' Compensation Law
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Pollack v. Safeway Steel Products, Inc.

Plaintiff Emil Pollack, a mason tender, fell from scaffolding while working on a Lowe's store construction site in Orangeburg, New York, on September 25, 2002, sustaining injuries. He sued Safway Steel Products, Inc., March Associates (general contractor), Orangeburg Holding, LLC (land owner), and Lowe's Home Centers, Inc. (developer), alleging violations of New York Labor Law §§ 240(1), 241(6), and 200, along with common law negligence and strict products liability. Both plaintiff and defendants filed motions for summary judgment. The court denied the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment under Labor Law §§ 240(1) and 241(6) against March, Lowe's, and Orangeburg due to factual disputes. The court also denied March, Lowe's, and Orangeburg's cross-motion for summary judgment. Safway's motion for summary judgment was granted for the Labor Law § 200 claim but denied for §§ 240(1) and 241(6) claims. March's request for contractual and common law indemnification from CMC Concrete Masonry (a subcontractor and third-party defendant) was denied for summary judgment purposes due to unresolved issues of fault.

Summary judgmentLabor LawScaffolding accidentConstruction site injuryProximate causeContributory negligenceNon-delegable dutyGeneral contractor liabilityOwner liabilityThird-party action
References
32
Case No. MDL No. 1038
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 26, 2002

In Re Norplant Contraceptive Products Liability Litigation

This multidistrict products liability action involved thousands of plaintiffs alleging injuries from the Norplant contraceptive device against American Home Products Corporation and its subsidiaries. The court considered two motions for partial summary judgment. The first, concerning the 'learned intermediary doctrine' and 26 primary side effects, was granted in part and denied for 10 plaintiffs whose cases were governed by New Jersey law due to an advertising exception. The second motion, addressing over 950 'exotic conditions' for which no causation evidence was presented, was granted against all plaintiffs. Ultimately, the court granted summary judgment against 2,960 plaintiffs, effectively concluding the MDL proceedings for the majority of the non-settling cases.

Products LiabilityNorplantContraceptive DeviceLearned Intermediary DoctrineCausationSummary JudgmentMultidistrict LitigationFailure to WarnPharmaceuticalsTexas Law
References
61
Case No. 01-01-00749-CV
Regular Panel Decision

Danny R. Danny Collinsworth v. Eller Media Company

Daniel R. Collinsworth, the appellant, sued multiple appellees including Eller Media Company, Clear Channel Communications, Inc., and others, following a personal injury sustained from a 20-foot fall while working on an elevated billboard sign due to a broken ratchet strap. The trial court granted summary judgments in favor of the Media defendants, Reliable Electric Products, and Weisner Steel Products, Inc., based on arguments such as the exclusive remedy provision of the Texas Workers Compensation Act, statute of limitations, and lack of evidence linking them to the defective product. Collinsworth appealed, contending that there was insufficient time for discovery and that he was prejudiced by a lost record. The appellate court found Collinsworth waived the discovery argument by not filing appropriate motions and that the allegedly lost record was, in fact, included in the supplemental clerk's record. Consequently, the appellate court affirmed the trial court's summary judgments.

Personal InjurySummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewWorkers' Compensation ExemptionStatute of LimitationsProduct LiabilityBillboard AccidentDiscoveryEvidence SufficiencyTexas Civil Procedure
References
9
Case No. 2020-05-0763
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 08, 2021

Philalom, Lynnese v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co.

This interlocutory appeal addresses a discovery dispute concerning communications between an employer's attorney and a nurse case manager assigned to an employee's claim by a third-party administrator. The trial court ordered the employer, State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., to provide copies of the nurse case manager's records to the employee, Lynnese Philalom, finding no protection under attorney-client privilege or work product doctrine. The employer appealed this order. The Appeals Board affirmed the trial court's decision, concluding that the "common interest doctrine" was inapplicable as neither the third-party administrator nor the nurse case manager was a party to the action. Furthermore, the Board found that the nurse case manager was not the functional equivalent of an employee for attorney-client privilege purposes and any work product privilege was waived by communicating with a neutral third party.

Discovery DisputeNurse Case ManagerAttorney-Client PrivilegeWork Product DoctrineCommon Interest DoctrineWorkers' CompensationThird-Party AdministratorMedical Case ManagementAppellate ReviewEmployer-Employee Relations
References
10
Case No. 2014-07-0029
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 24, 2015

Smith, Michael v. Sun Products Corporation

Mr. Smith, a process operator for Sun Products Corporation, filed a request for an expedited hearing seeking medical and temporary disability benefits for carpal tunnel syndrome. He alleged a work-related injury from repetitive motion and reported the diagnosis in July 2014 to his employer. Sun Products Corporation contended that Mr. Smith failed to provide timely notice and lacked sufficient proof of causation for his condition. The Court found that Mr. Smith provided proper and timely notice and had sufficient evidence to likely prevail on the merits regarding the provision of a panel of physicians for his carpal tunnel. Consequently, the Court ordered Sun Products Corporation to provide medical treatment but denied temporary disability benefits due to a lack of expert medical proof establishing a causal connection between the injury and his inability to work.

Carpal Tunnel SyndromeMedical BenefitsTemporary Disability BenefitsNotice of InjuryCausationExpedited HearingTennessee LawEmployment InjuryDiagnostic TestingEmployer Responsibility
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Serpe v. Eyris Productions, Inc.

Plaintiff Anthony Serpe, a painter, sustained injuries after falling through an unprotected hole for a spiral staircase at a renovation site. The Supreme Court initially directed a verdict against the general contractor, Eyris Productions, Inc., finding a violation of Labor Law § 240 (1), and awarded plaintiff $356,588.20. Eyris's third-party complaint against the painting subcontractor, Roth Painting Co., Inc., was dismissed due to insufficient evidence of control. On appeal, the judgment was affirmed, with the court ruling that Labor Law § 240 (1) was applicable due to the elevation-related risk, and that sections 240 (1) and 241-a are not mutually exclusive. The dissent argued for the inapplicability of Labor Law § 240 (1), asserting that the plaintiff's work did not involve an elevated worksite or require the enumerated safety devices.

Labor Law § 240 (1)Construction Site SafetyFall AccidentAbsolute LiabilityGeneral Contractor ResponsibilitySubcontractor LiabilityAppellate DecisionElevation HazardUnprotected OpeningSpiral Staircase
References
32
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Guidry v. Neches Butane Products Co.

Guidry, an employee of Foster-Wheeler Corporation, sued Neches Butane Products Company for personal injuries sustained while working at Neches' plant. Foster was impleaded as a third-party defendant, and Foster impleaded Tri-Co, Inc. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company intervened. Guidry was injured when a crane's outrigger sank into unstable soil, causing a heat exchanger to strike him. Defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing lack of duty and proximate cause. The court affirmed the summary judgment against Guidry, concluding that Neches had no duty to warn of a hidden defect it neither knew nor reasonably should have known existed, and that the injury was not foreseeable.

Summary JudgmentPremises LiabilityIndependent ContractorPersonal InjuryNegligenceDuty to WarnHidden DefectsForeseeabilityProximate CauseWorkers' Compensation
References
38
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Enos v. Baker

This mandamus proceeding stems from a divorce suit between Gregory B. Enos and Susan Enos. Gregory, along with his law firm Burwell & Enos, Inc., sought a writ against a trial court order mandating the production of an inventory of client evaluations and all active client files of the firm to Susan's attorney. The purpose was to assist in valuing the community property. Relators argued the documents were protected by attorney-client and work product privileges, and the discovery order was overbroad. The appellate court found the trial judge abused his discretion, affirming the protection of client files under attorney-client privilege (TEX.R.Ciy.EVID. 503) and evaluations/demands under the work product doctrine (TEX.R.CIY.P. 166b(3)(a)). Consequently, the writ of mandamus was conditionally granted, requiring the trial court to vacate the offending discovery orders.

MandamusDivorceCommunity PropertyDiscovery DisputeAttorney-Client PrivilegeWork Product PrivilegeLaw Firm ValuationPrivileged DocumentsAbuse of DiscretionConfidential Communications
References
6
Showing 1-10 of 11,877 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