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. 80-3008, 81-1497
Regular Panel Decision

Hartley v. Peter Kiewit Sons' Co.

Plaintiff James Hartley sustained personal injuries while employed by Peter Kiewit Sons' Co. during bridge construction in Troy, New York. He filed two consolidated actions: one against Kiewit under the Jones Act for bodily injury and loss of earnings, and another against Home Indemnity Company, Kiewit's workers' compensation insurer, alleging denial of LHWCA benefits after receiving New York State benefits. Defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing Hartley's injury was covered by neither the Jones Act nor LHWCA. The court granted summary judgment for Home Indemnity, dismissing the LHWCA claim based on precedents that Hartley's construction activities were not considered "maritime employment" under the Act. However, the court denied Kiewit's motion to dismiss the Jones Act claim, finding a sufficient evidentiary basis for Hartley to potentially qualify as a "seaman," thus allowing that claim to proceed to trial.

Jones ActLongshoremen's and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act (LHWCA)Maritime EmploymentSeaman StatusSummary Judgment MotionPersonal InjuryBridge ConstructionNavigable WatersVesselDockworker
References
18
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

In re the Arbitration between I. Miller & Sons, Inc., & United Office & Professional Workers

This case involves a motion to stay arbitration filed by petitioners, who are employees of I. Miller & Sons, Inc. The petitioners sought to stay an arbitration proceeding between their employer and a respondent union. The union and employer had an agreement requiring new employees to join the union after thirty days as a condition of employment. The petitioners refused to join the union, and the employer declined the union's request to discharge them, citing the Labor Management Relations Act, 1947 (Taft-Hartley Law). The petitioners argued the agreement was invalid under the Taft-Hartley Act and they had no obligation to arbitrate. The court denied the motion to stay arbitration, ruling that the petitioners, not being parties to the arbitration agreement, lacked standing to interfere with the proceeding. The court clarified that the phrase 'any party to the controversy' in the Civil Practice Act sections 1462 and 1462-a refers to parties to the arbitration agreement itself.

Arbitration AgreementStandingThird-Party RightsLabor LawUnion MembershipEmployer ObligationsContract InterpretationMotion to StayCivil Practice ActTaft-Hartley Act
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Wesby v. Act Pipe & Supply, Inc.

Glenn Wesby was injured while working on Act Pipe & Supply, Inc.'s premises, employed by Labor Express Temporary Services. He sued Act Pipe for negligence. Act Pipe sought summary judgment, arguing that Wesby's claims were barred by Texas Workers’ Compensation statutes under either the Staff Leasing Services Act or the borrowed servant doctrine. The trial court granted summary judgment without specifying the grounds. On appeal, the court affirmed the summary judgment, finding that Wesby was Act Pipe’s borrowed servant and Act Pipe's workers’ compensation insurance applied, thus barring his common law claims, irrespective of whether notice of coverage was provided.

Personal InjurySummary JudgmentBorrowed Servant DoctrineStaff Leasing Services ActWorkers' Comp ExclusivityTemporary EmploymentNegligence ClaimsAppellate AffirmationEmployer Affirmative DefenseTexas Labor Law
References
28
Case No. 08 Civ. 4337(NRB)
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 19, 2011

Hartley v. Rubio

Plaintiff Roger Hartley, a former teacher, filed an action against Principal Henry Rubio, the City of New York, and the New York City Department of Education, alleging race and national origin discrimination and retaliation under various federal, state, and city human rights laws. Hartley claimed he was discriminated against and retaliated against following a series of incidents, including insubordination and unauthorized absences, which led to his termination. The defendants moved for summary judgment, asserting legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for their actions. The court granted the defendants' motion, finding no sufficient evidence of discrimination or pretext, and dismissed Hartley's state and city law claims due to procedural non-compliance.

Employment discriminationRetaliationHostile work environmentSummary judgmentMcDonnell Douglas frameworkNew York State Human Rights LawNew York City Human Rights LawTeacher terminationInsubordinationDue process
References
69
Case No. 2015-02-0283
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 18, 2016

Hartley, Kevin v. Allen Hammons (General Contractor)

Kevin Hartley filed a Request for Expedited Hearing seeking workers' compensation benefits against Alan Hammons, a general contractor, after sustaining serious injuries from a fall on a job site. Hartley argued he was an employee of Brian Glover, a brick mason contracted by Hammons, and thus Hammons' insurance carrier should be responsible due to Glover lacking workers' compensation insurance. Hammons and Glover contended Hartley was an independent contractor. The Court, weighing statutory factors and case law, found Hartley to be an independent contractor and denied his claim for temporary disability and medical benefits.

Independent ContractorEmployment StatusWorkers' Compensation BenefitsConstruction AccidentExpedited HearingLabor LawStatutory InterpretationBurden of ProofTennessee LawGeneral Contractor
References
8
Case No. 10-9055(CGM)
Regular Panel Decision

Hartley v. Esposito (In re Hartley)

Richard and Kara Hartley appealed a Bankruptcy Court order that granted summary judgment to Jennifer Esposito. Ms. Esposito sought to prevent the discharge of a judgment against the Hartleys' business, Hartley's Catering, Inc., from their personal bankruptcy petition. The Bankruptcy Court found the Hartleys fraudulently concealed the dissolution of their business, thus rendering the debt non-dischargeable under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A) and § 523(a)(3). The District Court, finding no clear error in the factual findings and upholding conclusions of law, affirmed the Bankruptcy Court's decision, confirming the Hartleys' joint and several liability and the debt's exception from discharge due to fraud and lack of proper notice.

Bankruptcy LawDischargeabilityFraudulent ConcealmentCorporate DissolutionShareholder LiabilityNew York LawCreditor RightsSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewDebt Exception
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hartley v. City of New York

James Hartley, a commercial diver, was allegedly injured on October 3, 1989, while working for MVN Associates, Inc., a subcontractor for Healy Tibbitts Construction Co., Inc., who had a contract with the City of New York. Hartley claimed decompression sickness due to improper decompression procedures and sued under Labor Law sections and common-law negligence. The court determined that federal maritime law applied, preempting the state Labor Law claims, leading to their dismissal against Healy and the City. However, Healy's motion to dismiss Hartley's common-law negligence claims was denied due to unresolved factual issues regarding Healy's actions. The City's motion to dismiss all claims against it was granted, severing the action. Lastly, MVN's motion to dismiss Healy's third-party indemnification claim was denied, pending clarification of Healy's 'vessel' status under the LHWCA.

Decompression SicknessMaritime JurisdictionFederal PreemptionUnderwater ConstructionLongshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation ActVessel StatusCommon-Law NegligenceIndemnification ClaimDiver InjuryNavigable Waters
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Feller

The case involves a petitioner's motion to stay arbitration proceedings initiated by respondents under a collective bargaining agreement. The petitioner argues the agreement's provisions for sick benefit and vacation holiday fund payments violate the Taft-Hartley Act (Labor Management Relations Act, 1947). The court addresses the applicability of the Act to the petitioner and the agreement's effective date, determining these issues are moot if the provisions are legal. The court finds the sick benefit fund contributions legal due to a grandfather clause. Regarding the vacation-holiday fund, the court interprets the Act liberally, concluding that contributions to a separate, but associated, vacation fund are also legal despite a literal reading. Consequently, the motion to stay arbitration is denied.

Taft-Hartley ActCollective Bargaining AgreementArbitration StayLabor Management Relations ActSick Benefit FundVacation Holiday FundInterstate CommerceContract LegalityStatutory InterpretationFederal Labor Law
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 26, 1989

Hartley v. Concrete

The plaintiffs, including Donald Hartley, appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, that denied their motion for partial summary judgment on liability against defendants Spartan Concrete, Paul Schmergel & Son, and Seymar Associates d/b/a Seagull Associates. Donald Hartley, an iron-worker, was injured when wood decking collapsed at a construction site. The plaintiffs argued a violation of Labor Law § 240. The Supreme Court denied the motion, stating that while a Labor Law violation was established, proximate cause was not demonstrated. The appellate court reversed this decision, finding no triable issues of fact regarding proximate cause and ruling that the collapse of the unsafe elevated structure itself constituted the proximate cause of the injury, imposing absolute liability on the defendants under Labor Law § 240. Consequently, the plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of liability was granted.

Construction AccidentPersonal InjuryLabor Law § 240Absolute LiabilityProximate CauseSummary JudgmentElevated Work SiteScaffolding LawAppellate ReviewWorker Safety
References
5
Showing 1-10 of 6,769 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