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

F.D. Import & Export Corp. v. M/V REEFER SUN

A New York corporation, F.D. Import & Export Corp., brought an admiralty and maritime action seeking damages for a shipment of bananas from Ecuador to Ukraine. F.D. Import alleged breach of a Purchase Agreement by suppliers and breach of Charter Party and Bills of Lading by carriers, resulting in damaged cargo. Defendants moved to dismiss the action or stay proceedings pending arbitration, citing clauses in the Charter Party and Bills of Lading. The court found that F.D. Import was bound by a broad arbitration clause in the Charter Party and Bills of Lading through constructive notice, leading to the dismissal of claims against carrier defendants for arbitration. However, claims against supplier defendants, related to the condition of the fruit before shipment and governed by the Purchase Agreement, were not subject to arbitration, and the court denied the motion to stay proceedings for these claims, allowing them to continue in litigation.

Admiralty lawMaritime lawArbitration agreementBills of LadingCharter PartyBreach of contractCargo damageInternational tradeForum selection clauseFederal Arbitration Act
References
23
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Gibson v. American Export Isbrandtsen Lines, Inc.

John Gibson, a seaman, suffered a heart attack in 1970 while working aboard the vessel Seawitch. His wife, Anna Gibson, subsequently initiated an action in February 1977 against his employer, American Export Isbrandtsen Lines, claiming damages for loss of consortium. American Export sought to dismiss her complaint, contending that spouses of injured seamen lacked a claim for loss of consortium under general maritime law at the time, and that the landmark Supreme Court decision in American Export Lines v Alvez (1980), which established this right, should not be retroactively applied. The court thoroughly reviewed the evolution of maritime law concerning loss of consortium, referencing key decisions such as Moragne (1970), Sea-Land Servs. v Gaudet (1974), and Alvez (1980). Ultimately, the court denied American Export's motion, ruling that the Alvez decision should be applied retroactively to cases like Mrs. Gibson's, where the plaintiff was actively challenging existing legal precedents prior to the Alvez ruling.

RetroactivityLoss of ConsortiumMaritime LawSeaman's RightsPersonal InjuryGeneral Maritime LawSpousal ClaimsFederal Maritime LawAppellate ReviewTort Law
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 25, 2008

Salis v. American Export Lines

Plaintiff Olabisi Salis sued defendants American Export Lines (AEL) and Hoegh Autoliners Inc. (Hoegh) for damages due to the alleged non-delivery of a motorhome to Lagos, Nigeria. Defendants moved for summary judgment. Hoegh argued that a forum selection clause in its bill of lading required disputes to be heard in Oslo City Court, Norway, while AEL asserted its liability was limited to $50 under its invoice terms. The court granted both defendants' motions for summary judgment, finding the forum selection clause enforceable against Hoegh and the liability limitation enforceable against AEL. Subsequently, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Salis's remaining state-law claim against AEL, dismissing it without prejudice.

Summary JudgmentForum Selection ClauseCarriage of Goods by Sea Act (COGSA)Limitation of LiabilityFreight ForwarderOcean CarrierBill of LadingSupplemental JurisdictionContract LawInternational Shipping
References
51
Case No. ADJ1952983
Regular
Mar 15, 2018

JUAN RIVERA vs. IMPORT EXPORT CACTUS, STATE COMPENSAITON INSURANCE FUND

In this workers' compensation case, the defendant sought reconsideration of a prior ruling that deemed them to have waived objections to a specific invoice from lien claimant Scandoc Imaging. The WCAB denied reconsideration, finding that the defendant's objection, if any, was untimely, having been filed approximately four years after the invoice was submitted. California regulations require objections to medical-legal billings within 60 days to avoid waiver. Therefore, the defendant waived their objections to the reasonableness of the services and charges for invoice #234447-3.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and Orderslien claimantinvoice objectionwaiver of objectionreasonableness of servicesLabor Code section 4622Scandoc ImagingImport Export Cactus
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Dooley v. Peerless Importers, Inc.

The plaintiff, injured while working on a floating stage, sued Peerless Importers, Inc., Spearin Preston & Burrows, and Modern Continental Companies, Inc., alleging violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240 (1), 241 (6) and common-law negligence. The court found that the plaintiff was subjected to an elevation-related risk under Labor Law § 240 (1), granting his motion for summary judgment on liability for that claim and denying the defendants' cross-motion for dismissal. Issues of fact regarding supervision and control led to the denial of summary judgment for Spearin and MCC on the Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence claims, while Peerless was granted dismissal for lack of control or notice. The Labor Law § 241 (6) claim was dismissed because the plaintiff failed to cite an applicable Industrial Code provision. The Supreme Court's order was modified to reflect these decisions, affirming the modified order with costs to the plaintiff.

Labor Law § 240 (1)Elevation-related hazardFloating stageSummary judgmentCommon-law negligenceLabor Law § 200Safe place to workAppellate reviewSubcontractor liabilityIndustrial Code
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 25, 1991

Claim of Altman v. Kazan Import Corp.

This case concerns an appeal from a Workers’ Compensation Board decision, which determined that the claimant's death was work-related. The claimant, a handbag designer, died in a motorbike accident in Thailand during a business trip for Kazan Import Corporation. Her estate contested the decision, aiming to pursue civil liability against the company president, and questioned the credibility of the president's testimony regarding the business nature of the trip. The Board, however, credited the president's account, finding sufficient evidence to support its ruling. The appellate court upheld the Board’s decision, underscoring the Board's authority as the ultimate arbiter of credibility and its non-interference with factual disputes.

Workers' CompensationScope of EmploymentBusiness TripAccidental DeathCredibility AssessmentAppellate ReviewSubstantial EvidenceThailand AccidentEmployer LiabilityTravel Accident
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hroncich v. Sun Export Holding Corp.

Defendant shipowner Sun Export and codefendant Weeks Crane moved to dismiss an action brought by a longshoreman. They contended the action was not commenced within six months after the plaintiff settled a compensation claim under the Longshoremen’s and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act (LHWCA), which, they argued, assigned the right to sue to the employer or its insurer. The plaintiff asserted that his employer had ratified his commencement of the action, waived its right to sue, and agreed to be bound by the result. The court, referencing Rodriguez v Compass Shipping Co., acknowledged the statutory assignment but ultimately found that an employer is free to reassign or ratify an action brought by its employee. This reassignment or ratification does not violate the rule against assigning personal injury claims, leading the court to deny the defendants' motion.

Longshoremen’s and Harbor Workers’ Compensation ActLHWCAStatutory AssignmentThird-Party ActionEmployer RatificationMotion to DismissPersonal Injury ClaimsSubrogationSix-Month RuleFederal Jurisdiction
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Vargas v. American Export Lines, Inc.

Plaintiff, an employee of A & G Maintenance Corp., sustained injuries while working as a lasher aboard a vessel and received compensation benefits under the LHWCA. The plaintiff then initiated an action against the vessel owner, American Export Lines, Inc., alleging negligence. The vessel owner impleaded Universal Maritime Service Corporation, a stevedore, which subsequently filed a fourth-party complaint seeking indemnity from the plaintiff's employer, A & G Maintenance Corp. A & G Maintenance Corp. moved to dismiss the fourth-party action, arguing it was barred by the exclusiveness of liability provisions of the Longshoremen’s and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act (LHWCA), 33 USC § 905 (a), (b). The Special Term denied the motion, but the appellate court reversed, holding that allowing such a fourth-party claim would indirectly make the employer liable to the vessel, which is explicitly prohibited by LHWCA section 905 (b).

Longshoremen's and Harbor Workers' Compensation ActLHWCAExclusiveness of LiabilityIndemnity ClaimThird-Party ActionFourth-Party ActionVessel NegligenceStevedoreEmployer LiabilityRyan Indemnity
References
12
Case No. ADJ738549 (VNO 0522332)
Regular
Dec 17, 2012

JOSE RAMIREZ vs. PEDRO ALARCON, dba ALARCON IMPORTS \u0026 EXPORTS, UNINSURED EMPLOYERS BENEFIT TRUST FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed Jose Ramirez's petition for reconsideration because it was not verified as required by Labor Code section 5902. Had the petition been verified, the WCAB would have denied it on the merits based on the administrative law judge's report, which found the applicant's credibility to be highly persuasive. Furthermore, the WCAB ordered the uninsured employer, Pedro Alarcon, to provide a verified statement of employee numbers as per Labor Code sections 3722(d) and (e) to determine applicable penalties. The WCAB also noted the employer had not secured workers' compensation insurance.

Petition for ReconsiderationVerified StatementLabor Code section 5902Uninsured EmployerWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardReport and RecommendationWCJCredibilityLabor Code section 3722(d)Labor Code section 3722(e)
References
3
Case No. ADJ7146118
Regular
Sep 13, 2011

ANTONIO RUESGA vs. IMPORT DIRECT, INC./ACE PROPERTY & CASUALTY, As Administered By ESIS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied Import Direct, Inc.'s petition for reconsideration or removal. The defendant argued a due process violation due to the denial of their dismissal petition without a hearing. However, the Board adopted the WCJ's reasoning for denying dismissal and cancelling the hearing. Furthermore, the petition was subject to dismissal for failing to meet the verification requirements of Labor Code section 5902.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalPetition to Dismiss ApplicationDue ProcessDeclaration of ReadinessWCJ Report and RecommendationLabor Code section 5902VerificationVerified Pleadings
References
1
Showing 1-10 of 155 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