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. 2025 NY Slip Op 02959
Regular Panel Decision
May 14, 2025

Weekes v. Tishman Tech. Corp.

Samuel Weekes, an employee, was injured while dismantling a scaffold at a construction site managed by Tishman Technologies Corporation. He sued, alleging violations of Labor Law § 240(1) and § 241(6). The Supreme Court initially denied Weekes's summary judgment motion and granted the defendants' cross-motion to dismiss, also denying Weekes's motion for leave to renew. The Appellate Division modified the Supreme Court's order, ruling that Tishman could be considered a statutory agent of the owner due to its control over safety. The court also found that Weekes's activity was covered under Labor Law § 240(1) and that triable issues of fact existed regarding the elevation-related hazard and proximate cause, thereby denying the defendants' cross-motion for summary judgment. The denial of Weekes's motion for leave to renew was affirmed, and part of the appeal from the November 4, 2020 order was dismissed as academic.

Construction AccidentLabor Law Section 240(1)Labor Law Section 241(6)Industrial Code ViolationScaffold SafetyElevation HazardSummary JudgmentStatutory AgentConstruction Manager LiabilityTriable Issues of Fact
References
36
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Kennedy v. Weeks Marine, Inc.

Martin R. Kennedy was injured while working on a barge chartered by his employer, American Bridge Company, from Week’s Marine, Inc. Kennedy fell from a wooden plank serving as the barge's gangway, which was supplied by American Bridge. He brought suit pursuant to 33 U.S.C. § 905(b), but Magistrate Judge David F. Jordan granted summary judgment for Week’s Marine, concluding they had no duty to provide a safe gangway under a bare boat charter. Kennedy appealed this judgment, arguing Week's Marine had knowledge of workers on the barge. The District Court affirmed the lower court's decision, ruling that Week's Marine, having relinquished control of the vessel in a bare boat charter, was not responsible for conditions arising after the charter or for providing a gangway, as the charterer, American Bridge, became the owner pro hac vice and bore that duty.

Bare Boat CharterMaritime LawSummary JudgmentLongshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation ActVessel Owner LiabilityCharterer LiabilityGangway SafetyDuty of CareOwner Pro Hac ViceAppellate Review
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Alund v. Malt River Brewing Co.

Claimant was injured on October 28, 1999, and her workers' compensation claim was established with a tentative average weekly wage of $170.49. This wage was later permanently established by a Workers’ Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) on July 26, 2001, but the WCLJ then reversed the decision, making it "without prejudice." The Workers’ Compensation Board subsequently ruled that the WCLJ improperly rescinded the permanent wage determination and referred the matter back. Claimant appealed this Board decision. While the appeal was pending, the Board issued another decision on November 3, 2003, closing the claimant's case due to a voluntary withdrawal from the labor market prior to the initial case establishment. Given this subsequent decision, which effectively rescinded the September 2003 decision under appeal, and the claimant's failure to appeal the November 2003 decision, the issue of her average weekly wage was deemed moot. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.

Workers' CompensationAverage Weekly WageMootnessAppealBoard DecisionVoluntary WithdrawalLabor MarketRescissionJudicial ReviewProcedural Issue
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Clem v. Dallas Independent School District

Clem, an employee of the self-insured Dallas Independent School District, filed a suit for workmen’s compensation benefits after suffering a job-related hernia. The core legal question was whether he was entitled to compensation for the 57-week period of total disability *before* his successful hernia operation, in addition to the 26 weeks of post-operation compensation stipulated in Article 8306, section 12b. The trial court and court of civil appeals had ruled against Clem, denying pre-operation compensation. The Supreme Court reversed these judgments, holding that since section 12b does not explicitly provide for or limit compensation during the pre-operation disability period, such disability should be compensated as a general injury under the Workmen’s Compensation Act. Consequently, Clem was awarded 57 weeks of compensation for the period between injury and operation, in addition to the 26 weeks already paid.

Workers' CompensationHerniaDisability BenefitsPre-operation CompensationPost-operation CompensationGeneral InjurySpecific InjuryStatutory InterpretationTexas LawSelf-Insured Employer
References
3
Case No. WCB No. G0699039
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 23, 2011

HARRIS, JEFFREY T. v. SCHMIDT, ASHLEY E.

Leo P. DiLuzio sustained work-related injuries to his neck, back, and left knee on July 19, 2005. He was classified with a permanent partial disability and received an additional 25 weeks of Schedule Loss of Use (SLU) for his left knee, making it a 50% SLU. The self-insured employer argued that the 525-week cap on indemnity benefits for concurrent SLU and PPD awards under Workers' Compensation Law § 15(3)(w) should apply, despite the pre-July 26, 2010 accident date. The Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) ruled that the claimant was entitled to both SLU and PPD awards without the 525-week cap. The Board Panel affirmed the WCLJ's decision, referencing Matter of Sanchez and clarifying that the 525-week cap in § 15(3)(w) is applicable only to accidents occurring on or after July 26, 2010.

Workers' CompensationPermanent Partial DisabilitySchedule Loss of UseIndemnity BenefitsConcurrent AwardsStatutory InterpretationAccident DateLegislative AmendmentSection 15(3)(w)Section 15(3)(v)
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Nielsen v. Weeks Marine, Inc.

Francis Nielsen, a dock-builder, and his wife, Jacqueline Nielsen, sued Weeks Marine Inc. for personal injuries and loss of consortium under the Jones Act and general maritime law. The case, initially filed in state court, was removed to federal court. The court denied the plaintiffs' motion to remand, citing a procedural defect in removal, but maintained subject matter jurisdiction under the Jones Act. Ultimately, the court granted summary judgment for the defendants, ruling that Barge 525 was not a 'vessel in navigation' and therefore Nielsen was not a 'seaman' under the Jones Act, dismissing all claims.

Jones ActSeaman StatusVessel in NavigationSummary JudgmentMaritime LawPersonal InjuryLoss of ConsortiumRemoval JurisdictionFederal Rules of Civil ProcedureBarge
References
17
Case No. 13-07-00451-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 11, 2009

Old Republic Insurance Company v. Edward Weeks

This case concerns an appeal by Old Republic Insurance Company against a district court's judgment favoring Edward Weeks, who suffered a compensable workplace injury. Weeks, a truck driver, experienced a severe back injury and alleged repetitive trauma from his job, despite initial denials from the Texas Workers' Compensation Commission (TWCC) and its appeals panel. The district court overturned the TWCC panel's decision and found in favor of Weeks, prompting Old Republic's appeal challenging jurisdiction, evidence admissibility, and sufficiency of proof. The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's judgment, confirming that Weeks properly exhausted administrative remedies and that the evidence supported his claims of both acute and repetitive trauma injuries. The court also upheld the district court's conclusion regarding Old Republic's liability for Weeks's medical expenses.

Workers' CompensationCompensable InjuryRepetitive TraumaSubject-Matter JurisdictionAdministrative RemediesJudicial ReviewExpert TestimonyLay Witness TestimonySufficiency of EvidenceMedical Expenses
References
27
Case No. 04-20-00499-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 30, 2021

Weeks Marine Company, LLC v. David Landa

This case concerns an appeal regarding personal jurisdiction in a lawsuit for personal injuries. Appellee David Landa sued Appellant Weeks Marine Company, LLC under the Jones Act and general maritime law for injuries sustained during his employment on a crane barge in New York. Weeks, a New Jersey corporation, filed a special appearance, which the trial court denied. The appellate court reviewed de novo, finding Landa failed to establish specific or general personal jurisdiction over Weeks in Texas. Consequently, the court reversed the trial court's order and dismissed Landa's claims.

Personal InjuryJones ActMaritime LawSpecial AppearancePersonal JurisdictionSpecific JurisdictionGeneral JurisdictionTexas Court of AppealsAppellate ReviewEmployment Injury
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Salvet v. Union Carbide Linde Division

Claimant sustained two compensable injuries, leading to a permanent partial disability classification in 1983 with a nonschedule award of $95 per week. Subsequently, in 1984, the claimant was diagnosed with a 24.2% occupational binaural hearing loss, resulting in a schedule award of $105 per week for 36.3 weeks. The Workers' Compensation Board, following an application by the carrier, reduced this schedule award to $10 per week. This reduction was based on Workers' Compensation Law § 15 (6) (a), which sets a maximum of $105 per week for compensation for permanent or temporary partial disability, indicating that the aggregate of both awards should not exceed this statutory limit. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, ruling that the statutory maximum applies to the total of all permanent partial disability awards, irrespective of whether they are schedule or nonschedule awards.

Workers' Compensation LawPermanent Partial DisabilityOccupational Hearing LossSchedule AwardNonschedule AwardStatutory MaximumAggregate AwardsWorkers' Compensation Board AppealStatutory InterpretationConcurrent Awards
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Fireman's Fund Insurance Co. v. Weeks

This case involves an appeal by Fireman’s Fund Insurance Company against a district court’s judgment in favor of workers’ compensation claimant, Weldon Weeks. Weeks sustained a lower back injury on the job, leading to spinal fusion surgery. The core dispute centers on Weeks’s Maximum Medical Improvement (MMI) date and impairment rating, with the district court adopting Dr. Chapman’s findings of a 25 percent impairment and an MMI date of April 17, 2002. Fireman's Fund argued that Dr. Chapman’s reliance on spinal fusion surgery to determine impairment was legally insufficient under the AMA Guides, fourth edition. The appellate court agreed, reversing the district court's judgment and rendering judgment for Fireman’s Fund, thereby affirming the Division's earlier decision which had adopted Dr. Singleton's 10 percent impairment rating and January 28, 2002 MMI date.

workers' compensationimpairment ratingmaximum medical improvementspinal fusionAMA Guideslegal sufficiencyDRE categorylumbar radiculopathyappellate reviewTexas Labor Code
References
13
Showing 1-10 of 11,812 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