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

Pacific Employers Ins. v. The Paul David Jones

Maurice T. Thompson, a longshoreman, was injured in 1947 while working for Fort Houston Iron Works, Inc., on a vessel operated by Parry Navigation Company. Fort Houston Iron Works' insurance carrier, Pacific Employers Insurance Company, paid Thompson compensation. The employer and insurer then filed a libel against Parry Navigation Company and the vessel, which the navigation company moved to quash service of process on jurisdictional grounds. The court found that Parry Navigation Company had ceased operations in Texas by July 1947 and its alleged agent, Strachan Shipping Company, was not its agent in June 1949, leading to that service being quashed. Additionally, service on the Texas Secretary of State in March 1950 was quashed as it occurred after the two-year statute of limitations had run, making it untimely.

Longshoremen's ActHarbor WorkersWorkers' CompensationAdmiralty JurisdictionService of ProcessPersonal JurisdictionMotion to QuashStatute of LimitationsAgency LawTexas Civil Statutes
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hinson v. SS PAROS

William G. Hinson, a longshoreman, died after falling from a vessel due to a rusted chain. His wife, legitimate son, and three illegitimate children sued the vessel owner, Leeward Navigation, Ltd., for damages. The Texas Employers’ Insurance Association, Hinson's employer's compensation carrier, intervened to recover benefits paid and future anticipated benefits. The court found the vessel owner negligent and awarded damages for loss of support, care, guidance, and pain and suffering to Hinson's family. However, the court denied Texas Employers’ Insurance Association's claim for future compensation benefits, limiting their recovery to the compensation already paid, citing modifications to the Longshoremen’s and Harbor Workers’ Act.

longshoremanmaritime lawnegligencewrongful deathadmiraltyworkers' compensationsubrogationdamagesvessel owner liabilitycontributory negligence
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 23, 2005

Akofin Ex Rel. Akofin v. Jumbo Navigation, N.V.

Plaintiffs, foreign personal representatives of two deceased foreign seamen, sued Jumbo Navigation, NV, a foreign vessel owner, under the Jones Act and general maritime law after the vessel capsized in Albany, New York, causing the seamen's deaths. Defendant moved to dismiss on grounds of forum non conveniens. The court determined that the Jones Act and American general maritime law did not apply due to insubstantial contacts with the U.S. Consequently, the motion to dismiss was granted, citing that Russia, the Netherlands, or the Netherlands Antilles were adequate alternative forums. The private and public interest factors also weighed heavily in favor of dismissal, leading to a conditional dismissal of the complaint.

Jones ActMaritime LawForum Non ConveniensWrongful DeathSeamen's RightsChoice of LawVessel CapsizingInternational ShippingPersonal InjuryForeign Jurisdiction
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

O'HARA v. Weeks Marine, Inc.

Plaintiffs Gerard O’Hara and Lisa O’Hara brought this suit under the Jones Act, general maritime law, and the Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act for injuries sustained by Gerard O’Hara while performing work at the Staten Island Ferry pier on September 17, 1991. O’Hara was employed by defendant Collazo Contractors, a subcontractor of defendant Weeks Marine. Weeks Marine moved for summary judgment on plaintiffs’ Jones Act claims, asserting O’Hara did not meet the definition of a “seaman” on a “vessel in navigation.” The Court, after hearing oral argument and reserving decision, applied tests from Chandris, Inc. v. Latsis and Tonnesen v. Yonkers Contracting Co. to evaluate seaman status and vessel in navigation status. The court found that O'Hara did not meet the requirements for seaman status, concluding that his duties as a dockbuilder did not contribute to the function of the barge or its mission, and he lacked a substantial connection to a vessel in navigation. Therefore, the defendant's motion for summary judgment was granted, and plaintiffs' Jones Act claims were dismissed.

Jones ActSeaman StatusSummary JudgmentMaritime LawVessel in NavigationDockbuilderLongshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation ActWork PlatformNegligenceEmployment Injury
References
8
Case No. 16-0075
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 16, 2017

Helix Energy Solutions Group, Inc., Helix Well Ops, Inc., and Helix Offshore International, Inc. v. Kelvin Gold

This case addresses whether a ship undergoing a significant 20-month, $115 million conversion from a drill ship to a well-intervention ship qualifies as a 'vessel in navigation' under the Jones Act during the claimant's employment. Kelvin Gold, hired as an 'able bodied seaman', suffered injuries while the ship, the HELIX 534, was incapable of self-navigation due to an engine overhaul. The Supreme Court of Texas reversed the court of appeals' decision, reinstating the trial court's summary judgment for Helix. The Court ruled that the extensive overhaul rendered the HELIX 534 out of navigation as a matter of law, thereby precluding Jones Act coverage for Gold during that period. The decision clarified that major overhauls which render a ship practically incapable of transportation are sufficient to remove it from 'vessel in navigation' status, irrespective of the owner's intent or the specific timing of the injury within the overhaul period.

Jones ActSeaman StatusVessel in NavigationMajor OverhaulShip ConversionMaritime LawSummary JudgmentAdmiralty LawWorkers' Compensation ActAppellate Review
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Kelvin Gold v. Helix Energy Solutions Group, Inc.

Kelvin Gold sued Helix Energy Solutions Group, Inc. after sustaining an injury aboard the Helix 534 watercraft. The trial court granted summary judgment to Helix, ruling that Gold was not a Jones Act seaman because the Helix 534 was not a "vessel in navigation." The appellate court reviewed the summary judgment de novo and examined principles of Jones Act seaman status. Ultimately, the court determined that Helix failed to conclusively establish that the Helix 534 was not a vessel in navigation, reversing the trial court's judgment and remanding the case for further proceedings, emphasizing that the "in navigation" inquiry is a fact-intensive question for the jury.

Jones ActSeaman StatusVessel in NavigationSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewMaritime LawShip RenovationPersonal InjuryHoustonCourt of Appeals
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Chambers-Liberty Cntys. Navigation Dist. v. State

The Chambers-Liberty Counties Navigation District and its Commissioners appealed the denial of their plea to the jurisdiction and Rule 91a motion to dismiss. The State of Texas, representing the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, sued them for allegedly exceeding their authority by leasing state waters to Sustainable Texas Oyster Resource Management, L.L.C. (STORM) for oyster cultivation. The appellate court affirmed in part and reversed in part. It found an express statutory waiver of immunity for the District regarding claims of unlawful oyster possession under the Texas Parks and Wildlife Code. However, it dismissed the ultra vires claim against the District itself, clarifying such claims must target individual officials. The court upheld the ultra vires claim against the Commissioners, concluding they acted beyond their statutory authority in authorizing the lease. Furthermore, it ruled that retrospective relief in the form of restitution was permissible against the District, and the State's claim was ripe for adjudication, not merely hypothetical.

Sovereign immunityUltra viresNavigation districtsOyster cultivationState watersTexas Parks and Wildlife DepartmentStatutory interpretationGovernmental immunityPlea to jurisdictionRule 91a motion
References
28
Case No. 03-15-00744-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 08, 2016

Chambers-Liberty Counties Navigation District v. State

The Chambers-Liberty Counties Navigation District and its Commissioners appealed a trial court's denial of their plea to the jurisdiction and Rule 91a motion to dismiss. The State of Texas sued them, alleging they unlawfully authorized Sustainable Texas Oyster Resource Management, L.L.C. (STORM) to cultivate and harvest oysters in state waters. The appellate court found that sections 12.301 and 12.303 of the Texas Parks & Wildlife Code provided an express statutory waiver of immunity for the District regarding claims of unlawfully possessing oysters. However, the court reversed the trial court's order concerning the State's ultra vires claim against the District, as such claims must be brought against individual officials, not the governmental unit itself. The court affirmed the ultra vires claim against the Commissioners, finding they exceeded their statutory authority by granting STORM rights related to oysters, an authority vested solely in the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department. The court also rejected the ripeness argument, stating the claim was not hypothetical.

Sovereign ImmunityUltra ViresNavigation DistrictsOyster CultivationTexas Water CodeTexas Parks & Wildlife CodeGovernmental AuthorityStatutory InterpretationPlea to JurisdictionRule 91a Motion to Dismiss
References
56
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Belmonte v. Scindia Steam Navigation Co., Ltd.

Salvatore Belmonte, a longshoreman, filed a negligence claim against Scindia Steam Navigation after an alleged fall in 1976. Belmonte faced significant delays in initiating the lawsuit, including suing the wrong parties and vessels, and serving the complaint well past the default period. Scindia moved to dismiss the claim based on the doctrine of laches, citing prejudice due to the extended delay and the inability to locate relevant crew members. The court, applying New York's three-year statute of limitations for personal injury, found Belmonte's excuses for the delays inadequate and the defendant's claims of prejudice convincing. Consequently, the District Court granted the defendant's motion, dismissing Belmonte's suit.

LachesMaritime LawLongshoremen's and Harbor Workers' Compensation ActNegligenceStatute of LimitationsPersonal InjuryMotion to DismissDiversity of CitizenshipService of ProcessPrejudice
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Penalver v. Compagnie De Navigation Frutiere, Matouba

This case involves a plaintiff, Arturo Penalver, who sued Compagnie De Navigation Frutiere (owners) for injuries sustained while working as a stevedore on the vessel Matouba. The owners then filed a third-party complaint against Lauritzen Peninsular Reefers, Ltd. (charterers), alleging that the charterers' negligence or breach of their charter party duties caused the plaintiff's injuries. The charterers moved to stay the third-party action pending arbitration, citing an arbitration clause in their charter agreement. The court analyzed the arbitration clause and relevant precedents, finding a strong federal policy in favor of arbitration. The court determined that the dispute fell within the scope of the arbitration agreement, particularly due to clauses shifting responsibility for cargo discharge and owner non-responsibility for damage to the charterer. Consequently, the court granted the charterers' motion to stay the third-party action pending arbitration.

ArbitrationStay of ActionThird-Party ActionCharter AgreementMaritime LawNegligenceLongshoreman InjuryContract DisputeFederal PolicyBurden of Proof
References
12
Showing 1-10 of 257 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