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

Brown v. McKinnon Bridge Co., Inc.

Plaintiff Michael R. Brown sued McKinnon Bridge Company, Inc. and Vimco, Inc. for serious injuries sustained while working for McKinnon Bridge during bridge construction on the Tennessee River. Brown brought claims under the Jones Act, LHWCA, and general maritime law against McKinnon Bridge, and under the Tennessee Products Liability Act against Vimco. The court addressed dispositive motions concerning Brown's Jones Act, LHWCA, and general maritime law claims against McKinnon Bridge. The court concluded that Brown was not a seaman under the Jones Act, was not entitled to pursue an original claim under LHWCA § 905(b), and his general maritime law claims lacked a significant relationship to maritime activity. As a result, McKinnon Bridge's motions for partial summary judgment and to dismiss were granted, while Brown's motion for partial summary judgment was denied. Brown's claims under the Jones Act, original LHWCA action, and general maritime law were dismissed, and his administrative LHWCA claims were dismissed without prejudice.

Bridge ConstructionJones ActLHWCAMaritime LawSeaman StatusSummary JudgmentAdmiralty JurisdictionTennessee Products LiabilityPersonal InjuryWorker Injury
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Simmons v. Texas City Terminal Railway Co.

This case examines whether an injured maritime employee, covered by the Longshoremen’s and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act (LHWCA), can opt to sue under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act (FELA). The appellant, Leon A. Simmons, a guard for Texas City Terminal Railway Company, suffered a broken leg on the docks and initially filed a FELA suit. The trial court granted summary judgment, determining LHWCA was the exclusive remedy. The appellate court affirmed this decision, holding that LHWCA's exclusivity provision (33 U.S.C. § 905(a)) precludes negligence actions against employers and that LHWCA and FELA are mutually exclusive statutes designed for distinct worker categories.

Longshoremen’s and Harbor Workers’ Compensation ActFederal Employers’ Liability Actexclusive remedymaritime employmentrailroad employmentnegligenceworkers' compensationstatutory interpretationpersonal injuryappellate review
References
18
Case No. ADJ1521373 (SFO 0475882)
Regular
Feb 03, 2012

JOHN KOCH vs. R.E. STATE ENGINEERING, INC., CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION for FREMONT INSURANCE GROUP, in liquidation

In this workers' compensation case, the applicant's employer sought reimbursement from CIGA for benefits paid to the applicant following an industrial injury. The applicant was entitled to benefits under both California workers' compensation law and the federal Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act (LHWCA). CIGA argued it was not liable because the applicant claimed benefits under the LHWCA, which is excluded from CIGA's covered claims. The Appeals Board, however, affirmed the WCJ's decision, finding that the employer's claim for reimbursement of California statutory benefits was a "covered claim" and CIGA was liable due to the insolvency of the employer's insurer, Fremont. The Board reasoned that the employer's payment of LHWCA benefits did not make them "other insurance" and the claim was for benefits due under California law, not the LHWCA itself.

CIGAFremont Insurance GroupLongshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation ActLHWCAcollateral estoppelcovered claimInsurance Code Section 1063.1insolvencyreimbursementstate workers' compensation
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Colamarino v. City of New York

Joseph Colamarino, a longshoreman, was injured on Pier 39 in Brooklyn while operating a forklift, which collided with a straddler carrier. He was employed by International Terminal Operators Co., Inc. and received compensation under the Longshoremen’s and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act (LHWCA). Colamarino sued Clark Equipment Company, the manufacturer of the machinery. Clark Equipment then filed a third-party action against Colamarino's employer for contribution and/or indemnification, which the employer sought to dismiss based on LHWCA § 905(a). The Supreme Court, Kings County, granted the employer's motion for summary judgment and denied Clark Equipment's renewal motion. The appellate court affirmed both orders, holding that the LHWCA applied as the injury occurred on a pier (navigable waters) and Colamarino was engaged in maritime employment, thereby barring Clark Equipment's contribution claim under LHWCA § 905(a). Additionally, Clark Equipment Company failed to allege sufficient facts to support its claim for contractual indemnification.

Personal InjuryLongshoremen's and Harbor Workers' Compensation ActLHWCAThird-Party ActionSummary JudgmentContributionIndemnificationMaritime EmploymentNavigable WatersExclusive Remedy
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Olsen v. James Miller Marine Service, Inc.

Plaintiff, an employee of Reicon/Reinauer, was injured while working on a barge by falling into an uncovered hole. He received federal workers’ compensation benefits under the LHWCA. In this action, plaintiff alleged both state Labor Law and federal LHWCA violations. The Supreme Court denied appellants' cross-motion for summary judgment and granted plaintiff's cross-motion for summary judgment on the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim. It also granted Reinauer and Reicon's motion to dismiss appellants' contribution cross-claims. The appellate court modified the order to reinstate appellants' contribution cross-claims against Reinauer and Reicon, finding a triable issue of fact regarding their negligence as vessel owners. The court affirmed the denial of summary judgment for appellants on plaintiff's claims and the grant of summary judgment to plaintiff on the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim, and found that material issues of fact exist regarding the Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence claims against Con Edison. The LHWCA does not preempt the Labor Law claims against Con Edison and D'Onofrio, and third-party claims for contribution from an employer/vessel owner are not foreclosed under the LHWCA if based on negligence in the vessel-owner capacity.

Workers' CompensationLongshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation ActLHWCALabor LawMaritime LawFederal PreemptionSummary JudgmentContributionIndemnificationWorkplace Safety
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Gonzalez v. United States

Plaintiff Gerardo Gonzalez sued the United States for negligence and unseaworthiness under the Suits in Admiralty Act after sustaining injuries on the vessel SBX-1. Gonzalez, a pipefitter, was injured during a sea trial when he slipped on hydraulic fluid. The court found that Gonzalez's claims were governed by the Longshoremen and Harbor Workers Compensation Act (LHWCA), not the Jones Act. Ultimately, the court granted summary judgment in favor of the Government, concluding that there was no violation of the vessel's turnover duty, active control duty, or duty to intervene under the LHWCA. The court also held that seaworthiness claims are explicitly barred by the LHWCA.

Maritime LawLHWCAJones ActSeaworthiness ClaimNegligence ClaimSummary JudgmentVessel Owner DutyTurnover DutyActive Control DutyDuty to Intervene
References
67
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Rodriguez v. Reicon Group, LLC

Claimant, a dock builder, was injured and sought state workers' compensation benefits. The employer contested the Workers’ Compensation Board's jurisdiction, asserting that the Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act (LHWCA) was applicable and a waiver of federal rights under Workers’ Compensation Law § 113 was required. Both the Workers’ Compensation Law Judge and the Board found concurrent jurisdiction between state law and the LHWCA for land-based injuries, rendering a § 113 waiver unnecessary. The appellate court affirmed, clarifying that § 113 applies only where a federal scheme preempts state remedies, which is not the case with LHWCA. The court also highlighted that concurrent jurisdiction prevents double recovery.

Concurrent JurisdictionLongshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation ActWorkers’ Compensation BoardAdmiralty LawFederal PreemptionWaiver of Federal RightsLand-Based InjuriesDock BuilderDouble RecoveryJones Act
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Sala v. Gates Construction Corp.

Plaintiff Richard Sala, a dockbuilder, was injured while working for Defendant Gates Construction Corp. on a crane barge in Brooklyn, New York. Sala brought this action under the Jones Act and the Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act (LHWCA), alleging negligence after a timber struck him, causing a fractured skull and jaw and ongoing health issues. Defendant moved for summary judgment. The court granted summary judgment on the Jones Act claim, concluding that the barges were not 'vessels in navigation' and Sala was not a 'seaman.' However, the court denied summary judgment on the LHWCA claim, stating that the barges could be considered vessels under the LHWCA's broader definition, leaving a factual issue for trial.

Jones ActLHWCASeaman StatusVessel in NavigationSummary JudgmentDockbuilder InjuryMaritime LawCrane BargeFederal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 56Negligence
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Texas Employers Ins. Ass'n v. Jackson

Texas Employer Insurance Association (TEIA) filed this action seeking a declaratory judgment and a permanent injunction against Leroy Jackson. Jackson had previously filed a suit in Texas state court alleging bad faith handling of his Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act (LHWCA) claim by TEIA. The federal court granted TEIA's motion for injunctive relief, ruling that the LHWCA pre-empts state law regarding bad faith claims handling in this area. The court also determined that a prior LHWCA award to Jackson was res judicata, preventing relitigation of the wrongful withholding of benefits. Furthermore, the court found that an injunction was permissible under exceptions to the Anti-Injunction Act and that abstention was not proper.

LHWCAPre-emptionRes JudicataAnti-Injunction ActDeclaratory JudgmentPermanent InjunctionWorkers' CompensationBad Faith ClaimsFederal JurisdictionState Law Conflict
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 25, 2001

Songui v. City of New York

The plaintiff, a welder hired by Reynolds Shipyard Corporation, was injured after falling from a scaffold inside a barge during repairs. The plaintiff sued Reynolds and the City of New York, alleging negligence under the Jones Act and various Labor Law sections. Reynolds moved for summary judgment, arguing the plaintiff was not a "seaman" under the Jones Act and was limited to benefits under the Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act (LHWCA), which the court agreed with, dismissing the claims against Reynolds. The City of New York appealed the denial of its motion for summary judgment to dismiss the Labor Law § 241 (6) claim, asserting LHWCA preemption. However, the court affirmed the denial, holding that the LHWCA does not preempt Labor Law § 241 (6) under these circumstances, as the City, as a vessel owner, would still be subject to liability predicated on fault, which is consistent with maritime law.

Personal InjuryScaffold AccidentMaritime LawJones ActLHWCALabor LawFederal PreemptionSummary JudgmentSeaman StatusVessel
References
11
Showing 1-10 of 90 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