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

Hall v. Environmental Chemical Corp.

Plaintiff Hall originally sued Defendant Environmental Chemical Corp. for personal injuries under the Jones Act and general maritime law, which were dismissed via summary judgment. Plaintiff then moved to alter judgment, amend the complaint to include LHWCA Section 905(b) and negligence claims, and for a new trial. The Court denied relief under LHWCA Section 905(b), ruling the craft was not a vessel for such purposes, and also denied the motion for a new trial. However, the Court granted leave for Plaintiff to amend the complaint to pursue a general negligence claim, converting the final judgment into a partial summary judgment. Defendant's motion for sanctions was denied.

Jones ActGeneral Maritime LawLHWCA Section 905(b)Vessel DefinitionSummary JudgmentMotion to Alter JudgmentMotion for Leave to AmendMotion for New TrialMotion for SanctionsNegligence Claim
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Castorina v. Lykes Bros. Steamship Co.

Plaintiff, Guiseppe Castorina, a longshoreman, sued Lykes Bros. Steamship Co., Inc. under 33 U.S.C. § 905(b) and general maritime law for asbestosis sustained from asbestos exposure on Lykes vessels between 1965 and 1972. The court addressed issues of laches and the applicability of pre- or post-1972 LHWCA amendments, determining the 'date of injury' for asbestosis cases is the date of manifestation (diagnosis in 1979), making post-1972 law applicable. Under this law, the vessel owner owed a duty of ordinary care and to warn of latent dangers, but Lykes was found not negligent as the dangers of asbestos were not known or reasonably foreseeable to them during the exposure period. The court also rejected the unseaworthiness claim, concluding that the injury stemmed from the inherent nature of the cargo itself, not a defect in the vessel or its appurtenances. Therefore, the court found for the defendant.

AsbestosisLongshoremanMaritime LawNegligenceUnseaworthinessLatency PeriodOccupational DiseaseLHWCA AmendmentsDate of InjuryCargo Liability
References
37
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Bottalico v. Todd Shipyards Corp.

An employee of International Terminal Operating Co., Inc. (ITOC) sued South African Marine Corp., Ltd. and Todd Shipyards Corp. for personal injuries sustained during stevedoring operations. Todd Shipyards Corp., one of the defendants, filed a third-party complaint against ITOC, seeking contribution or indemnification for alleged negligence. ITOC moved to dismiss this third-party complaint, asserting immunity under the Longshoremen’s and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act (LHWCA), arguing that as a compensation-paying employer, it is shielded from such claims. The court reviewed the LHWCA's provisions, particularly the 1972 amendments to section 905(b) which limits vessel owners' rights to indemnity from employers, and precedent regarding non-vessel third parties. Ultimately, the court determined that the LHWCA immunizes compensation-paying employers from third-party claims by non-vessels, and therefore granted ITOC's motion to dismiss the third-party complaint.

LHWCAThird-Party ActionEmployer ImmunityIndemnificationContributionFederal Maritime LawNon-Vessel LiabilityStevedoringWorkers' CompensationCPLR 3211
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 27, 2001

Emanuel v. Sheridan Transportation Corp.

James Emanuel, an employee of G. Marine Diesel Corp., suffered fatal injuries after falling from a gangway while working on the barge ST 114, owned by Amerada Hess and operated by Spentonbush/Red Star Companies, Inc., which was in dry dock for repairs. His estate sued, alleging negligence and unseaworthiness. The trial court found the defendants negligent and the barge unseaworthy, awarding substantial damages. The appellate court reversed the judgment, finding errors in the jury instructions regarding seaworthiness and negligence under the LHWCA and Jones Act, and remanded for a new trial. The court clarified the limited duties of vessel owners to longshoremen and other harbor workers post-1972 LHWCA amendments.

Maritime LawWorkers' CompensationLongshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act (LHWCA)Jones ActNegligenceSeaworthinessVessel Owner LiabilityShipyard OperationsDry Dock AccidentGangway Safety
References
42
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Tillman v. Lykes Bros. Steamship

This case concerns unseaworthiness and negligence claims brought by the survivors and estate of deceased longshoreman Alex Tillman against Lykes Bros. Steamship Co., Inc. for asbestos exposure. The plaintiffs, Ethylene Tillman (widow and estate representative) and Alex Tillman's three children, sought damages for unseaworthiness, a survival action, and wrongful death. The court granted summary judgment to Lykes on all claims. It found the unseaworthiness claim barred by 1972 LHWCA amendments because Tillman's asbestosis manifested after 1972. The survival action was precluded by res judicata due to a prior judgment against Alex Tillman. Additionally, claims for mental anguish, grief, and bereavement were deemed non-compensable under maritime law. Finally, the remaining wrongful death claims for loss of society and consortium were barred by collateral estoppel, applying the Restatement (Second) of Judgments § 46(1).

AsbestosisLongshoreman and Harbor Worker's Compensation Act (LHWCA)UnseaworthinessNegligenceRes JudicataCollateral EstoppelWrongful DeathSurvival ActionMaritime LawOccupational Disease
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Perino v. Cohen (In Re Cohen)

The plaintiff sought to amend their complaint, originally filed on June 17, 1987, which objected to the dischargeability of a debt under Section 523(a)(6) of the Bankruptcy Code. The proposed amendment aimed to increase compensatory damages from $5,000 to $10,000 and introduce a new claim for $20,000 in punitive damages, alleging violations of the New York Human Rights Law. The defendant opposed the motion, arguing bad faith, undue prejudice due to the expanded monetary claims, and the legal insufficiency of the punitive damages under New York law or its being time-barred. Citing the liberal amendment policy of Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a), the court determined that the increase in damages or addition of a punitive claim did not automatically constitute bad faith or prejudice. Consequently, the plaintiff's motion to amend the complaint was granted, with the court allowing the plaintiff to pursue the colorable punitive damages claim, leaving the statute of limitations defense to be addressed later.

Motion to Amend ComplaintBankruptcy DischargeabilityPunitive Damages ClaimCompensatory DamagesFederal Rules of Civil Procedure 15(a)New York Human Rights LawCollateral EstoppelLegal Sufficiency of PleadingStatute of Limitations DefenseBad Faith and Prejudice
References
32
Case No. 03-14-00738-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 12, 2015

Elness Swenson Graham Architects, Inc.// RLJ II-C Austin Air, LP RLJ II-C Austin Air Lessee, LP And RLJ Lodging Fund II Acquisitions, LLC v. RLJ II-C Austin Air, LP RLJ II-C Austin Air Lessee, LP And RLJ Lodging Fund II Acquisitions, LLC// Elness Swenson Graham Architects, Inc.

The Appellees and Cross-Appellants, RLJII-C Austin Air, LP; RLJ II-C Austin Air Lessee, LP; and RJL Lodging Fund II Acquisitions, LLC, filed an unopposed motion to amend their Appellees' Brief. The amendment seeks to correct a sentence fragment on page 5 of their brief by adding ten omitted words. The omission occurred due to an error during the final preparation of the brief, where a phrase was accidentally deleted during a copy-and-paste operation and was not detected until after the brief was filed. Counsel for the Appellant and Cross-Appellee is not opposed to the requested amendment. The motion requests that the court grant leave to amend and accept the Amended Appellees' Brief for filing.

Motion to Amend BriefSentence Fragment CorrectionAppellate ProcedureUnopposed MotionBrief AmendmentCivil ProcedureContract LawAttorney's FeesStanding to SueAssignment of Contract
References
168
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Lithuanian Workers' Literature Society

The Lithuanian Workers’ Literature Society appealed a Kings Special Term order denying its motion to amend its certificate of incorporation. The proposed amendment sought to broaden membership qualifications from adhering to the Socialist Party to not opposing "Marxian principles". The court scrutinized whether "Marxian principles" endorse the overthrow of government by force, which is criminal under state Penal Law. Citing Karl Marx's historical support for forceful revolutions (e.g., Paris Commune), the court concluded that these principles were broad enough to justify illegal propaganda. Furthermore, the court noted that the proposed amendment would allow retention of members advocating "direct action" by force, contrary to the Socialist Party's recently amended platform promoting constitutional methods. Consequently, the appellate court affirmed the denial of the amendment, refusing to sanction an organization whose principles could potentially endorse unlawful means.

Corporate AmendmentSocialismMarxian PrinciplesFreedom of AssociationPolitical PropagandaConstitutional LawPenal LawAppellate ReviewMembership Corporations LawDirect Action
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Bright-Asante v. Saks & Co.

Plaintiff Michael Bright-Asante brought an action against Saks & Company, Inc., Theo Christ, and Local 1102, alleging employment discrimination, breach of a collective bargaining agreement (CBA), retaliation, and constructive discharge. The court addressed three motions: Plaintiff's motion to amend the complaint, Saks' motion for sanctions, and Saks' motion to compel arbitration and/or dismiss the complaint. The court denied Plaintiff's motion to amend his complaint and Saks' motion for sanctions, citing that the motion to amend was not "utterly lacking in support." Saks' motion to compel arbitration for the breach of CBA claim was granted, while arbitration for statutory discrimination claims was denied, as the CBA did not clearly mandate it. Finally, the court granted Saks' motion to dismiss the race discrimination (NYCHRL) and retaliation (NYLL) claims but denied the motion to dismiss the constructive discharge claim, finding sufficient facts for the latter.

Employment DiscriminationRetaliationConstructive DischargeArbitrationCollective Bargaining AgreementRule 15 MotionRule 11 SanctionsRule 12(b)(6) Motion to DismissSection 1981NYCHRL
References
56
Case No. 2020-04-0228
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 29, 2021

Ray, Jr. Kenneth v. Rollins, Inc.

This case concerns Kenneth Ray, Jr.'s motion to alter or amend a final judgment regarding the amortization of his workers' compensation award and its offset against Social Security disability benefits, pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-207. The employer, Rollins, Inc., and the Subsequent Injury Fund had no objections to the proposed amendment. The Court granted the motion, amending the prior order to include details on the calculation of Mr. Ray's lump-sum award of $440,368.02 and its amortized monthly benefit of $863.46. This calculation was based on Mr. Ray's life expectancy of 42.5 years at the time of maximum medical improvement. The amended order clarifies the maximum monthly set-off for Social Security or other disability benefits under the specified Tennessee statute.

Workers' CompensationCompensation HearingBenefitsSocial Security OffsetAmortizationLump-Sum AwardFinal JudgmentMotion to AlterLife ExpectancyMortality Tables
References
0
Showing 1-10 of 4,655 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