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

Dozier v. Rowan Drilling Co., Inc.

Herbert Dozier, an employee of Baker Atlas, was injured on December 20, 2003, while working on the ROWAN FORT WORTH drilling rig off the coast of Louisiana, falling approximately eight feet. He subsequently filed for workers' compensation under the OCSLA and LHWCA. Plaintiffs, Herbert and Tracey Dozier, filed a negligence suit seeking damages, initially alleging general maritime law jurisdiction. Defendants moved to strike the jury demand, arguing maritime law applied, while Plaintiffs sought leave to amend their complaint to assert jurisdiction under OCSLA and Louisiana state law to secure a jury trial. The court, applying the Demette analysis, determined that the OCSLA and Louisiana substantive law governed the negligence action, allowing for a jury trial, as maritime law did not apply by its own force to the tort. Consequently, the court granted Plaintiffs’ motion to amend and denied Defendants’ motion to strike the jury demand.

NegligencePersonal InjuryWorkers' CompensationOuter Continental Shelf Lands ActLongshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation ActMaritime LawLouisiana State LawJury TrialJack-up Drilling RigWireline Services
References
27
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Torch Operating Co. v. Bartell

Gary Bartell, employed by Plaisance Inspection & Enterprises, Inc., suffered personal injuries while working on a Torch Operating Company platform off the Louisiana coast. He began receiving workers’ compensation benefits from Plaisance under the Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act through the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act. The Bartells alleged various causes of action against Torch, including strict liability and negligence, and were awarded damages after a bench trial. Torch appealed, contending that the Bartells failed to plead a cause of action under OCSLA and that their claims were barred by Louisiana’s workers’ compensation act immunity. The court found that the Bartells' amended petition sufficiently notified the court and opposing party of the OCSLA claim. The court also held that federal immunity rules under OCSLA and LHWCA preempt Louisiana's broader contractor immunity, thus denying Torch's immunity argument. The judgment in favor of the Bartells was affirmed.

Personal InjuryWorkers' CompensationOuter Continental Shelf Lands ActLongshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation ActJones ActNegligenceStrict LiabilityContractor ImmunityFederal PreemptionLouisiana Law
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Cunningham v. Offshore Specialty Fabrications, Inc.

This order addresses multiple motions to dismiss filed by Service Defendants and Manning Defendants in a class action lawsuit. Plaintiffs allege an "Illegal Worker Hiring Scheme" violating RICO and the INA by employing illegal workers on the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) to depress wages. Plaintiffs also brought claims for negligence and violations of the OCSLA. The court denied dismissal of the RICO and negligence claims against most defendants, finding the pleadings adequate. However, it granted dismissal of the OCSLA claims, concluding no private right of action exists. Stolt Offshore, Inc.'s motion to dismiss all claims was granted due to the lack of a named plaintiff employed by Stolt.

RICOImmigration and Nationality ActOCSLAMotion to DismissClass ActionWage DepressionIllegal WorkersOuter Continental ShelfNegligencePrivate Right of Action
References
90
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Moore v. Bis Salamis, Inc.

Resten Moore, an employee of Bis Salamis, Inc. (BSI) working on the 'Thunder Horse' offshore oil production facility, filed a motion to remand his personal injury case to state court after it was removed to federal court by BSI. Moore sustained injuries from chemical exposure and a fall while working. He initially filed claims under the Jones Act and general maritime law, but BSI argued federal question jurisdiction under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA). The court denied Moore's motion to remand, ruling that the Thunder Horse is a permanent work platform, not a vessel, thus Moore is not a Jones Act seaman and his Jones Act claim is fraudulently pleaded. Consequently, the OCSLA applies, providing federal subject matter jurisdiction and making removal proper.

Motion to RemandFederal Question JurisdictionJones ActOuter Continental Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA)Seaman StatusVessel DefinitionOffshore Oil Production FacilityWork PlatformFraudulently Pleaded ClaimMaritime Law
References
68
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Williamson v. Petroleum Helicopters, Inc.

Plaintiffs Kay Williamson, John Richards, and Carol Richards filed a wrongful death suit under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA) following a helicopter crash in the Gulf of Mexico that killed James Edward Williamson and John Paul Richards. The crash occurred during transport between offshore platforms. Defendants Petroleum Helicopters, Inc., Eurocopter S.A., and American Eurocopter Corporation moved for partial summary judgment, arguing that the Death on the High Seas Act (DOHSA) should apply, thereby precluding punitive and non-pecuniary damages. The Court found that admiralty jurisdiction existed, leading to the application of maritime law, specifically DOHSA, over OCSLA. Consequently, DOHSA's limitations on damages resulted in the granting of the defendants' motion and the dismissal of the plaintiffs' claims for punitive and non-pecuniary damages.

Wrongful DeathOuter Continental Shelf Lands ActDeath on the High Seas ActAdmiralty JurisdictionMaritime LawSummary JudgmentPunitive DamagesNon-Pecuniary DamagesHelicopter CrashOffshore Platform Accident
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Smith v. Anadrill, Inc.

This order addresses the defendants' Motion for Reconsideration regarding the remand of a case to state court. Defendants Union Oil Company of California and Reading & Bates Corp. argued that all claims joined with a Jones Act claim are non-removable unless they are 'separate and independent.' The Court disagreed, clarifying that while Jones Act claims are non-removable under 28 U.S.C. § 1445(a), claims under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA) and Longshoremen's and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act (LHWCA) are removable federal claims under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1441(a) and (b). However, the Court found the defendants' removal attempt on January 28, 1991, to be untimely because they failed to file their notice of removal within thirty days of the OCSLA and LHWCA claims being added to the complaint. Consequently, the defendants' Motion for Reconsideration was denied.

Jones ActRemoval JurisdictionFederal PreemptionState Court JurisdictionOuter Continental Shelf Lands ActLongshoremen's and Harbor Workers' Compensation ActTimeliness of RemovalMotion for ReconsiderationStatutory InterpretationCivil Procedure
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Bonnette v. Shell Offshore, Inc.

This case concerns a motion to remand to state court after plaintiffs' injury during a man-overboard drill on a fixed platform in the Gulf of Mexico. Four plaintiffs were injured when a survival capsule, intended for emergency evacuation, fell fifty feet into the water due to operator error. Plaintiffs sued Shell Oil, Shell Offshore, Juan M. Porras, and Whittaker Corporation in Texas state court, alleging state law negligence and maritime strict products liability. The defendants removed the action to federal court under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA). The court, applying the Executive Jet and Kelly tests, determined that maritime locality and nexus were satisfied, thus maritime law applied and preempted OCSLA. Consequently, the court granted the plaintiffs' motion to remand, allowing the case to proceed in state court under the Saving to Suitors clause.

Maritime LawOuter Continental Shelf Lands ActSaving to Suitors ClauseFederal Question JurisdictionRemandFixed Platform InjuryMan-Overboard DrillSurvival Capsule AccidentAdmiralty JurisdictionMaritime Tort
References
47
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

W & T Offshore, Inc. v. Apache Corp.

W & T Offshore, Inc. (WTI) sued Apache Corporation, alleging breach of a Production Handling Agreement (PHA) and various state-law torts related to the misallocation of oil from offshore platforms. The case was removed to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas under the Outer Continental Shelf Land Act (OCSLA). Apache moved to dismiss WTI's second amended complaint. The court determined that Louisiana law applies as surrogate federal law under OCSLA. The court granted Apache's motion to dismiss with prejudice WTI's claims for conversion, negligent misrepresentation, and gross negligence, finding them time-barred under Louisiana's one-year prescriptive period. However, the court denied the motion to dismiss WTI's fraud claim, as factual questions remained regarding whether WTI could have reasonably known about the alleged fraudulent concealment earlier. The court also denied dismissal of requests for estoppel, attorney's fees, and exemplary damages, classifying them as remedies rather than separate claims.

Oil ProductionOffshore PlatformsProduction Handling AgreementOCSLALouisiana LawTexas LawBreach of ContractFraudNegligenceConversion
References
69
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 04, 2018

Total E&P USA, Inc. v. Marubeni Oil & Gas (Usa), Inc.

This case addresses a dispute between Plaintiff Total E & P USA, Inc. and Defendant Marubeni Oil & Gas (USA), Inc. regarding the applicable state law for decommissioning offshore oil and gas properties in the Gulf of Mexico, specifically under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA). Total sought to apply Louisiana law, while MOGUS contended Alabama law was appropriate. United States Magistrate Judge Dena Palermo, after a comprehensive four-factor analysis, recommended that Alabama law should govern the dispute. Upon de novo review, Senior United States District Judge Nancy F. Atlas adopted the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, overruling Total's objections and granting MOGUS's motion for partial summary judgment, thereby denying Total's motion to apply Louisiana law. The court's decision hinged on factors including geographic proximity, federal agency determinations, and prior court rulings in the vicinity of the assets, ultimately concluding that Alabama is the adjacent state for choice of law purposes.

OCSLAChoice of LawSummary JudgmentGulf of MexicoOffshore Oil and GasDecommissioningGeographic ProximityFederal Agency DeterminationsPrior Court DeterminationsProjected Boundaries
References
18
Showing 1-9 of 9 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