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

Shearon v. Seaman

This is a legal malpractice action filed by Norma E. Shearon against her former attorney, Jack E. Seaman. Shearon alleged malpractice due to Seaman's failure to re-file a workers' compensation lawsuit within one year after taking a voluntary non-suit. The underlying workers' compensation claim was for death benefits following the death of her husband, Thomas Shearon, at his workplace. The trial court granted Seaman's motion for summary judgment, finding Shearon's evidence insufficient to establish the damages element of the malpractice action, specifically that her husband's death arose out of his employment. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, concluding that there was insufficient evidence to prove a causal connection between the Decedent's employment and his death to satisfy the "arising out of employment" requirement for workers' compensation benefits.

Legal malpracticeWorkers' compensationSummary judgmentCausationArising out of employmentIn the course of employmentMedical evidenceExpert testimonyAutopsy findingsIdiopathic fall
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Seaman v. A.P. Green Industries, Inc.

Defendant Viad Corporation moved to dismiss the complaint in 98 personal injury actions, including one brought by plaintiff Joseph Seaman, a former railroad worker alleging asbestos-related disease from locomotive components. Plaintiffs sued under State common-law tort principles. Viad argued that these claims were preempted by the Federal Locomotive Boiler Inspection Act (BIA). The court, citing Napier v Atlantic Coast Line R. R. Co. and Second Circuit precedent, agreed that the BIA occupies the entire field of locomotive safety, preempting both State legislation and State tort claims against manufacturers. The motion to dismiss was granted, and the plaintiffs' claims were dismissed.

Federal PreemptionLocomotive Boiler Inspection Act (BIA)Asbestos LitigationRailroad WorkersState Tort ClaimsProducts LiabilityFailure to WarnField PreemptionLocomotive SafetyFederal Employers' Liability Act (FELA)
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 07, 2007

Seaman v. Bellmore Fire District

The plaintiff Thomas Seaman appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Nassau County, dated May 7, 2007. The order granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment, dismissing Seaman's Labor Law § 240 (1) claim, and denied his cross-motion for summary judgment on liability for Labor Law § 240 (1) and § 241 (6) violations. The court affirmed the dismissal of the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim, ruling that the injury was not an elevation-related hazard. It also upheld the denial of Seaman's cross-motion for summary judgment on the Labor Law § 241 (6) claim, citing his failure to establish a prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. The appellate court affirmed the Supreme Court's order.

Personal InjuryLabor LawSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewElevation HazardConstruction Site SafetyStatutory InterpretationProximate CauseNegligenceNew York Law
References
8
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

Buccellato v. City of New York

Plaintiff Frank Buccellato, a digger gang member employed by the New York City Department of Sanitation, was injured while working at a Staten Island sanitation unloading facility. He filed a personal injury action under the Jones Act, claiming to be a seaman. Defendant City of New York moved for summary judgment, arguing Buccellato was not a seaman under the Jones Act, and therefore, the Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act (LHWCA) should be the exclusive remedy. The court, noting the fact-specific nature of seaman status determination and drawing inferences in favor of the plaintiff, found that reasonable jurors could differ on Buccellato's status. The court also rejected the defendant's argument that an unmanned barge is not a vessel for Jones Act purposes, concluding that the barges transported cargo and plaintiff contributed to their mission. Thus, the defendant's motion for summary judgment was denied, and the issue of seaman status was left for a jury to decide.

Seaman StatusJones ActSummary JudgmentMaritime LawPersonal InjuryBargeDigger GangVessel in NavigationFederal Rules of Civil ProcedureEmployer Liability
References
34
Case No. ADJ7210580
Regular
Feb 17, 2012

DAVID COLLINS vs. CROWLEY TECHNICAL SERVICES, ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board reversed a finding of concurrent jurisdiction for an injured seaman. The seaman was employed by Crowley Technical Services, an agent of the U.S. Department of Transportation, and injured while working on the U.S.S. Curtis, a vessel owned by a U.S. agency. Because the seaman was a member of the crew of a U.S. government-owned vessel and employed by a U.S. agent, federal law dictates exclusive jurisdiction, precluding California from adjudicating the claim.

Exclusive JurisdictionAdmiralty LawSeaman StatusJones ActLHWCACrew MemberMaritime AdministrationSuits in Admiralty ActPublic Vessels ActConcurrent Jurisdiction
References
15
Case No. 01-11-00849-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 20, 2013

Jeff Hartley v. Williams Southern Company, LLC

Jeff Hartley, an oil-rig floorman, was injured while performing maintenance on a blowout preventer on an oil well in an intercoastal waterway. He sued his employer, Williams Southern Company, L.L.C., and Hilcorp under the Jones Act, arguing he qualified as a seaman. The employer successfully challenged Hartley’s seaman status in a motion for summary judgment, leading to the case's dismissal. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s judgment, concluding that Hartley's six days of employment did not establish a substantial connection to a vessel in navigation, as required for seaman status under the Jones Act, considering both the nature and duration of his duties.

Jones ActSeaman StatusMaritime LawSummary JudgmentOil Rig WorkerVessel in NavigationSubstantial ConnectionPerils of the SeaEmployment DurationFifth Circuit Precedent
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Willis v. Titan Contractors Corp.

The appellant, an employee of Titan Contractors, sustained personal injuries when he slipped on a skiff in the Houston Ship Channel. He filed a lawsuit under the Jones Act, claiming seaman status, but a jury found he was not a seaman and attributed 50% comparative negligence to him. The appellant sought to recover damages under the unseaworthiness doctrine and the Longshoremen and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act, arguing several points of error on appeal. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's 'take nothing' judgment, rejecting all of appellant's contentions, including claims of seaman status as a matter of law, erroneous jury instructions, unseaworthiness, and recovery under the LHWCA. The court also found no error in the admission of certain evidence or the lack of submission regarding maintenance and cure.

Jones ActSeaman StatusPersonal InjuryContributory NegligenceUnseaworthinessLongshoremen and Harbor Workers' Compensation ActAppellate ReviewJury VerdictMaritime LawTexas
References
30
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 30, 2006

Calcaterra v. City of New York

The Supreme Court, Bronx County, affirmed an order granting the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment regarding his status as a seaman under the Jones Act and denying defendant Spearin, Preston & Burrows' (SPB) cross-motion to dismiss claims under the Jones Act and LHWCA. Plaintiff, employed by SPB, a marine construction company, was involved in installing a sewer main using barges equipped with cranes and tugboats. The court found that the barge was a "vessel in navigation" and the plaintiff's duties contributed to its mission, establishing a substantial and continuous connection to the vessel. This decision was based on precedents like Chandris, Inc. v Latsis and Stewart v Dutra Constr. Co., confirming that the plaintiff qualified as a seaman despite having previously commenced an LHWCA claim. The Appellate Division concurred, finding no error in the lower court's determination of seaman status.

Jones ActSeaman StatusSummary JudgmentVessel in NavigationMaritime LawLongshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation ActMarine ConstructionBarge OperationsStatutory InterpretationAppellate Review
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Ditmore v. Fairfield Industries, Inc.

The case concerns a dispute over the reimbursement of workers' compensation benefits paid to an injured worker, Gerald G. Ditmore. Ditmore, a Texas resident, was injured while working for Fairfield Industries, Inc. and received over $42,000 in Texas workers' compensation benefits from Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Company, Fairfield's underwriter. Subsequently, Ditmore filed a Jones Act complaint, claiming seaman status, and settled with Fairfield. Liberty Mutual intervened, seeking reimbursement for the benefits paid, arguing Ditmore was not entitled to state workers' compensation as a seaman under the Jones Act, which provides an exclusive remedy. Ditmore opposed, citing lack of statutory subrogation or employee wrongdoing for restitution, and challenged the timeliness of Liberty Mutual's claim. The District Court granted Liberty Mutual's motion for summary judgment, ruling that Liberty Mutual was entitled to reimbursement for benefits paid to a worker ultimately determined to be a seaman, and that Ditmore's acceptance of Jones Act benefits effectively abandoned his workers' compensation claim, preventing double recovery.

Jones ActWorkers' CompensationSeaman StatusReimbursementSubrogationRestitutionSummary JudgmentElection of RemediesMaritime LawPersonal Injury
References
24
Showing 1-10 of 76 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