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

District 2 Marine Engineers Beneficial Ass'n v. Puerto Rico Marine Management, Inc.

District 2, a marine engineers union, sued Puerto Rico Marine Management, Inc. (PRMMI) to compel arbitration after PRMMI terminated their collective bargaining agreement and discharged union members. PRMMI argued the agreement was terminable at will, while District 2 maintained it was still in effect, terminable only by the union. The court found both interpretations unpersuasive, ruling the agreement's extension implied a reasonable period for good faith negotiations and required reasonable notice for termination. Therefore, the court denied both parties' motions for summary judgment and PRMMI's motion to dismiss, ordering a factual hearing to determine the effectiveness of the termination, while making accrued benefit claims immediately arbitrable.

ArbitrationCollective Bargaining AgreementContract TerminationLabor DisputeSummary JudgmentSubject Matter JurisdictionUnionEmployerGood Faith NegotiationsReasonable Notice
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 19, 2001

District No. 1-PCD v. Apex Marine Ship Management Co.

This case concerns an appeal to vacate an arbitration award that dismissed a grievance filed by District No. 1-PCD, Marine Engineers’ Beneficial Association (AFL-CIO) and Harry A. Kirmon. Kirmon, a discharged engineer, had his grievance dismissed by an arbitrator who found the Union failed to provide Kirmon's written statement to the Company, deeming it a procedural prerequisite. The Supreme Court upheld this dismissal. However, the appellate court reversed, ruling that the arbitrator's decision did not derive its essence from the collective bargaining agreement, which only required the statement be given to the Union. The court concluded the arbitrator exceeded his authority by basing the dismissal on procedural grounds not outlined in the CBA's limitations on his jurisdiction.

Labor ArbitrationCollective BargainingGrievance ProcedureArbitrator JurisdictionFederal Labor LawWrongful DischargeJudicial Review of ArbitrationUnion RightsEmployment TerminationContract Interpretation
References
18
Case No. 1:96-CV-337
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 28, 1998

Saint Paul Fire & Marine Insurance v. United States

Seaman Christopher Gray sustained injuries at the Chickamauga Lock and Dam. Serodino, Inc., Gray's employer, and its insurer, Saint Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Company, initiated a lawsuit against the United States of America and the United States Army Corps of Engineers, seeking contribution or indemnity related to Gray's injuries. The plaintiffs asserted admiralty jurisdiction over their claims. The United States filed a Motion for Summary Judgment, contending that the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction. The court determined that the plaintiffs failed to comply with the administrative filing requirement of the Admiralty Extension Act and that Gray's underlying admiralty claim against Serodino did not confer admiralty jurisdiction over the plaintiffs' claims against the United States. Consequently, the court granted the United States's Motion for Summary Judgment, citing a lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Admiralty jurisdictionSovereign immunitySuits in Admiralty ActAdmiralty Extension ActContributionIndemnificationSummary judgmentJones ActMaritime lawNavigable waters
References
18
Case No. 13-19-00374-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 22, 2021

JNM Express, LLC, ANCA Transport, Inc., Omega Freight Logistics, LLC, Jorge Marin, and Silvia Marin v. Lauro Lozano Jr. and Irene Lozano

Lauro Lozano Jr. and Irene Lozano sued JNM Express, LLC, ANCA Transport, Inc., Omega Freight Logistics, LLC, Jorge Marin, and Silvia Marin for negligence and gross negligence. The suit stemmed from a May 2015 eighteen-wheeler accident where Lauro fell asleep at the wheel, allegedly due to appellants' insistence on violating federal driver fatigue regulations. A jury found the businesses negligent and grossly negligent, awarding significant actual and exemplary damages to the Lozanos. The trial court subsequently reduced the exemplary damages. On appeal, the Thirteenth District of Texas affirmed most of the judgment but reversed the portion holding Jorge and Silvia Marin jointly and severally liable for exemplary damages, citing statutory restrictions on joint liability for such awards.

Trucking accidentCommercial motor vehicleDriver fatigueNegligenceGross negligenceCorporate veil piercingJoint and several liabilityExemplary damagesFederal Motor Carrier Safety RegulationsTexas Court of Appeals
References
37
Case No. NUMBER 13-13-00254-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 05, 2016

Orion Marine Construction, Inc. F/K/A King Fisher Marine Service, L. P. v. Hector De Leon

Orion Marine Construction, Inc., appealed a judgment from the 275th District Court of Hidalgo County, Texas, in favor of Hector De Leon. De Leon, an employee of Orion, sued his employer under the Jones Act and general maritime law, alleging negligence and unseaworthiness of the vessel Austin B after sustaining injuries on March 25, 2007. A jury found in favor of De Leon, awarding $866,000 in damages, which was reduced to $779,400 due to De Leon's ten percent contributory negligence. Orion challenged the liability findings, the sufficiency of evidence for injury and various damages, and argued that mental anguish damages were excessive. The Thirteenth District Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding legally and factually sufficient evidence for the jury's findings on liability and damages.

Jones ActUnseaworthinessMaritime LawPersonal InjuryNegligenceDamagesMedical ExpensesLost Earning CapacityMental AnguishAppellate Review
References
26
Case No. 03-14-00552-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 06, 2015

Raghunath Dass, P.E. v. Texas Board of Professional Engineers

Appellant Raghunath Dass, PE, appeals sanctions imposed by the Texas Board of Professional Engineers (TBPE) for alleged violations of the Texas Engineering Practices Act. Dass asserts the TBPE lacked jurisdiction over the case facts and authority to amend its final order while under judicial review. He argues that the TBPE's amended final order is void because the agency modified a decision during judicial review. Additionally, Dass contends the TBPE lacks subject-matter jurisdiction to regulate construction material testing (CMT), which he argues is not "professional engineering." He also challenges the TBPE's authority to restrict competitive bidding for CMT and asserts that the 2005/2009 CME Policy Advisory Opinion, relied upon by the Board, is an invalid and unenforceable standard not promulgated under the Administrative Procedure Act. Finally, Dass argues that even if the testing was Construction Materials Engineering (CME), Naismith Engineering, not Dass, was the supervising engineer for the project.

Engineering RegulationProfessional ConductLicensing SanctionsAdministrative OverreachStatutory InterpretationPublic Works ProjectsRegulatory ComplianceJudicial OversightAgency Rules ValidityProfessional Responsibility
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Liberty Mutual Insurance Co. v. Mariner

Lawrence Mariner sustained neck injuries and was awarded workers' compensation benefits by the Texas Industrial Accident Board. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, the employer's insurance carrier, appealed this award. A district court jury found Mariner totally and permanently disabled, leading to a judgment of $25,909.24, which Liberty Mutual appealed, questioning the factual sufficiency of the evidence. The appellate court reviewed the evidence, including Mariner's continued employment and increased income, but found sufficient support for the jury's finding of total and permanent disability due to permanent pain and future surgery needs. The court affirmed the trial court's judgment and denied Mariner's request for an additional penalty for a frivolous appeal.

Workers' CompensationPermanent DisabilityFactual SufficiencyJury VerdictNeck InjuryEmployment StatusInsurance AppealTrial de NovoAppellate ReviewTexas Civil Procedure
References
9
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

Smith v. Otis Engineering Corp.

Gary L. Smith brought a personal injury action against Stewart Well Service Company, Otis Engineering Corporation, and Houston Fishing Tools Company. The trial court granted a take-nothing summary judgment for Otis Engineering, asserting Smith was its 'borrowed servant' due to his acceptance of workers' compensation benefits and a release. The appellate court disagreed, holding that the summary judgment proof did not establish, as a matter of law, that Otis Engineering had sufficient control over Smith's work to make him its borrowed servant. Furthermore, the court stated that the payment of workers' compensation benefits alone does not automatically grant employer status under the Workers' Compensation Act. Consequently, the trial court's summary judgment was reversed, and the cause was remanded for further proceedings.

Personal InjurySummary JudgmentReversed and RemandedWorkers' CompensationBorrowed Servant DoctrineEmployer-Employee RelationshipNegligence ActionAppellate ReviewControl TestRelease Agreement
References
3
Case No. 01-04-00797-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 20, 2006

Marine Transport Corporation v. the Methodist Hospital, the Institute for Preventive Medicine/Methodist Healthcare Systems, the Methodist Hospital/Institute for Preventive Medicine Management, Inc. and Rashid Khan, M.D.

Marine Transport Corporation (Marine) appealed the dismissal of its claims against The Methodist Hospital and Dr. Rashid Khan. Marine's employee, Richard Guillory, a seaman, was certified fit for duty by the appellees despite medical issues and later died from an infection. Marine sought damages under the maritime doctrine of maintenance and cure, alleging negligence in the fitness-for-duty certification. The appellate court affirmed that while federal maritime law applied to Marine's claim, the underlying health care liability claims were governed by state law's former article 4590i, requiring expert reports. However, the trial court abused its discretion by denying Marine's motion for a 30-day extension to file these reports, as the attorney's failure was due to accident or mistake, not conscious indifference. Therefore, the judgment of dismissal was reversed, and the case was remanded for further proceedings.

Maritime LawMaintenance and CureHealth Care LiabilityMedical NegligenceExpert Report RequirementTexas Civil Practice and Remedies CodeAbuse of DiscretionAccident or MistakeSeaman InjuryFitness for Duty Certification
References
41
Showing 1-10 of 671 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