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

Evolution Online Systems, Inc. v. Koninklijke Nederland N.V.

This case, on remand from the Second Circuit, involves claims of breach of contract, copyright infringement, and quantum meruit. The Court had previously dismissed the complaint, citing a forum-selection clause mandating litigation in the Netherlands. The Second Circuit remanded to clarify whether a contract with such a clause existed and if it should be enforced, or if dismissal was appropriate on forum non conveniens grounds. The District Court affirmed that a binding contract with a mandatory Netherlands forum-selection clause existed and should be enforced due to significant partial performance and mutual intent to be bound, despite the lack of a signed document. The court also determined that even without the clause, the case would be dismissed on grounds of forum non conveniens, as the Netherlands offers an adequate alternative forum and is more convenient based on public and private interest factors, including the location of proof and the applicability of Dutch law.

Contract disputeCopyright infringementQuantum meruitForum-selection clauseForum non conveniensInternational litigationDutch lawNew York lawSecond Circuit remandBreach of contract
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re TCW Global Project Fund II, Ltd.

Relators, TCW Global Project Fund II, Ltd., TCW Asset Management Company, and Trust Company of the West, filed a petition for writ of mandamus seeking to compel Judge William R. Burke, Jr., to vacate an order denying their motion to dismiss based on a forum-selection clause. The real party in interest, British American Offshore Limited (BAOL), had sued the relators for promissory estoppel, tortious interference, negligent misrepresentation, and fraud. Relators argued they were entitled to enforce the forum-selection clause found in rig contracts, even as nonsignatories. The appellate court denied the petition, concluding that the relators had waived their argument regarding the scope of the forum-selection clause by failing to present it adequately in their initial petition, raising it only in a reply brief. Consequently, the relators failed to demonstrate that the trial court abused its discretion.

MandamusForum-selection clauseWaiverAppellate procedureMotion to dismissNonsignatoriesTort claimsContract disputeInvestment fundOil drilling
References
13
Case No. 07-08-0305-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 02, 2009

Carrie Welch v. Nightingale Nurses, LLC

Carrie Welch, an EEG technician, sued Nightingale Nurses, LLC, her employer, for retaliatory discharge after she filed a worker's compensation claim for an on-the-job injury. Welch's employment contract with Nightingale Nurses, a Florida company, included a forum selection clause requiring litigation in Palm Beach County, Florida. The trial court granted Nightingale's motion to dismiss based on this clause, prompting Welch's appeal. Welch argued the clause was unenforceable due to public interest favoring a Texas forum and because it would be unreasonable and unjust. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's dismissal, finding Welch failed to demonstrate any exceptions to the enforceability of the forum selection clause.

Forum Selection ClauseRetaliatory DischargeWorker's Compensation ClaimEmployment ContractTexas Labor CodeMotion to DismissAppellate ReviewAbuse of DiscretionContract EnforcementFlorida Venue
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Lischinskaya v. Carnival Corp.

A plaintiff, injured on a Carnival Cruise Lines ship in January 2005, commenced an action for damages. Carnival moved to dismiss based on a forum selection clause in the passenger contract, which stipulated litigation in federal court in Miami or a Miami-Dade County court. The Supreme Court granted the dismissal, citing lack of subject matter jurisdiction. On appeal, the court affirmed the enforceability of the forum selection clause, rejecting arguments of waiver and non-reasonable communication. It clarified that such clauses do not divest a court of subject matter jurisdiction, correcting the Supreme Court's reasoning. However, the appellate court affirmed the dismissal, denying the plaintiff's request for equitable relief under CPLR 327 (forum non conveniens), reasoning that such discretionary relief is inapplicable when dismissal is a contractual mandate rather than a discretionary decision.

Forum Selection ClauseCruise Ship ContractMaritime LawSubject Matter JurisdictionSaving to Suitors ClauseCPLR 327Forum Non ConveniensContractual EnforcementWaiver of DefenseAppellate Review
References
59
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re AIU Insurance Co.

The case involves Louis Dreyfus Natural Gas Corp. (Dreyfus) suing AIU Insurance Company in Hidalgo County, Texas, despite a contractual forum-selection clause designating New York for dispute resolution. Dreyfus, an insured subsidiary of Louis Dreyfus Corporation, initiated the suit seeking a declaratory judgment and alleging various violations after facing environmental contamination claims. AIU moved to dismiss based on the forum-selection clause, which the trial court denied. The Texas Supreme Court addressed whether the clause was enforceable and if mandamus relief was appropriate. The Court found the clause enforceable, rejecting arguments regarding inconvenience, public policy, and the Texas Insurance Code. Concluding that an appeal would offer an inadequate remedy, the Court conditionally granted a writ of mandamus, ordering the trial court to dismiss the case.

Forum-selection clauseMandamusContractual disputeInsurance policyTexas Supreme CourtJudicial reviewAbuse of discretionAppellate procedureWaiverChoice of law
References
54
Case No. ADJ6648503
Regular
Aug 19, 2013

KENYATTA WALKER vs. TAMPA BAY BUCCANEERS, ACE PACIFIC EMPLOYERS

The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, rescinded the WCJ's prior award, and returned the case for further proceedings. The Board found that the WCJ should have considered the enforceability of a forum selection clause in the employment contract, which dictates jurisdiction in Florida. This decision was based on a new en banc ruling establishing precedent for declining jurisdiction when such clauses exist and have a limited connection to California. The case will be re-heard to fully address the forum selection clause and its impact on jurisdiction and the applicant's claims.

WCABKenyatta WalkerTampa Bay BuccaneersACE Pacific EmployersADJ6648503Petition for ReconsiderationFindings and AwardIndustrial InjuryProfessional Football PlayerCumulative Period
References
11
Case No. ADJ7045808
Regular
Jan 22, 2014

Ernest Conwell vs. New Orleans Saints, Louisiana Workers' Compensation Corp.

This case involves a professional athlete claiming industrial injury sustained between 1996 and 2007. The defendant contested California Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) jurisdiction due to a forum selection clause in the employment contract designating Louisiana as the exclusive forum. The WCAB rescinded the initial award and remanded the case for further development of the record. This is to allow reconsideration of the *McKinley* decision regarding mandatory forum selection clauses and the connection to California, particularly concerning contract formation.

WCABjurisdictionforum selection clauseemployment contractprofessional athleteindustrial injurypermanent disabilityapportionmentcontract of hireagent
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Speed v. Omega Protein, Inc.

Plaintiff Charles Speed sued Omega Protein, Inc. for personal injuries sustained while working on a vessel. Defendant filed a motion to dismiss for improper venue or to transfer venue, citing a forum-selection clause in Speed's employment contract. The Court denied the motion to dismiss but granted the motion to transfer the case from the Southern District of Texas to the Western District of Louisiana. The decision weighed factors such as the enforceability of the forum-selection clause, convenience of witnesses, location of the alleged wrong, and the plaintiff's choice of forum, concluding that the balance favored transfer.

Forum selection clauseTransfer of venueSeamen's rightsAdmiralty lawPersonal injuryEmployment contractFederal rules of civil procedureU.S. Code Title 28Judicial discretionWitness convenience
References
21
Case No. ADJ7593509
Regular
Apr 08, 2013

ELLIS WYMS vs. TAMPA BAY BUCCANEERS, ACE/PACIFIC EMPLOYERS

The Appeals Board granted reconsideration of a workers' compensation award, rescinding the prior decision and returning the case for further proceedings. This action was based on the defendant's contention that a mandatory forum selection clause in the applicant's employment contracts required claims to be filed in Florida. The Appeals Board cited its en banc decision in *McKinley v. Arizona Cardinals*, which established that the central issue is whether California should enforce such a clause, not merely whether it has jurisdiction. Upon remand, both parties will have the opportunity to present evidence and arguments regarding the enforceability of the forum selection clause.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationFinding and AwardFootball PlayerForum Selection ClauseMcKinley v. Arizona CardinalsEn Banc DecisionCumulative Industrial InjuryEmployment ContractsMandatory Forum Selection
References
8
Case No. ADJ7672393
Regular
Mar 07, 2013

MAURICE WILLIAMS vs. JACKSONVILLE JAGUARS, USF&G, ACE INSURANCE

This case concerns Maurice Williams, a former professional football player for the Jacksonville Jaguars, who sought workers' compensation benefits in California for a cumulative injury sustained between 2001 and 2009. While a portion of his employment exposed him to California, his contracts from 2007-2011 contained a mandatory forum selection clause requiring all injury claims to be resolved in Florida under Florida law. The Board affirmed the trial judge's decision to decline jurisdiction, finding the forum selection clause to be reasonable and binding for the latter portion of the cumulative injury period. Enforcement of the clause was not deemed unreasonable or unjust, and the applicant failed to demonstrate why California jurisdiction should be exercised despite the contractual agreement.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardJacksonville JaguarsUSF&GACE INSURANCEOpinion and Decision After Reconsiderationindustrial injuryorthopedic body partscumulative injurysubject matter jurisdictionforum selection clause
References
6
Showing 1-10 of 1,648 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