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. 14-08-00493-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 21, 2009

BACM 2002 PB2 Westpark Dr LP, Houston Parkwest Place Ltd, as the Property Owners and the Property Owners v. Harris County Appraisal District and the Appraisal Review Board of Harris County Appraisal District

This appeal concerns a lawsuit where a former property owner initiated judicial review of an ad valorem tax valuation protest by the county appraisal district. A subsequent property purchaser was later included as a plaintiff. The appraisal district challenged the plaintiffs' standing through a plea to the jurisdiction, leading the trial court to dismiss the suit. The appellate court affirmed this dismissal, concluding that neither the initial property owner (BACM 2002 PB2 Westpark Dr. LP) nor the subsequent owner (Houston Parkwest Place Ltd.) possessed the requisite standing to pursue judicial review. Consequently, the trial court was found to lack subject-matter jurisdiction over the dispute.

Property TaxAd Valorem TaxJudicial ReviewStanding DoctrineSubject-Matter JurisdictionPlea to the JurisdictionTexas Tax CodeTexas Rule of Civil Procedure 28Appellate ProcedureProperty Ownership
References
30
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 23, 2007

Lee v. Astoria Generating Co.

This dissenting opinion argues that the majority incorrectly concluded that a power-generating barge, on which the plaintiff was injured, was not a 'vessel' under the Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act (LHWCA). Citing Stewart v Dutra Constr. Co. (2005), the dissent asserts that the barge, which is periodically moved for maintenance and to provide power, is 'practically capable of maritime transportation' and thus qualifies as a vessel. Consequently, the dissent argues that the LHWCA's exclusivity provision (33 USC § 905 [b]) should preempt the plaintiff’s state Labor Law claims (Labor Law § 240 [1] and § 241 [6]), which are based on vicarious liability against the vessel owner. The dissent contends that section 905(b) expressly immunizes vessel owners from liability without fault under state law, advocating for the affirmation of the original summary judgment dismissal.

LHWCAVessel DefinitionStatutory PreemptionLabor Law § 240 (1)Labor Law § 241 (6)Vicarious LiabilityMaritime LawDissenting OpinionBarge ClassificationFederal Preemption
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Citizen v. M/V TRITON

This Memorandum Opinion addresses an injury sustained by a plaintiff longshoreman in the Port of Beaumont on July 26, 1973, while working for Gulf Stevedore Corporation, an independent contractor for the defendant vessel owner, M/V TRITON. The longshoreman was injured after stepping into an open space between bags of flour in the No. 4 hold, a condition created by improper stowage by the Stevedore during a previous loading in Galveston. The core legal issue revolves around the interpretation of the 1972 Amendments to the Longshoremen’s & Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act, which eliminated unseaworthiness as a basis for vessel liability and shifted the primary duty for a safe workplace to the stevedore. The Court found that the Stevedore was in sole charge of all loading operations, and the vessel owner had no duty regarding the stowage method, thus precluding a finding of vessel negligence. Consequently, the Court entered judgment for the defendant vessel owner, emphasizing that the burden of proving negligence was not met.

Longshoremen's & Harbor Workers' Compensation Act1972 AmendmentsVessel NegligenceStevedore DutyUnseaworthiness DoctrineSafe Place to WorkCargo StowageMaritime LawThird Party LiabilityPort of Beaumont
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Lumbermen's Reciprocal Ass'n v. Kaisha

Culver, an injured employee, and his insurer initiated a lawsuit against the owner of the ship Jufuku Maru and the ship itself, seeking damages under the Longshoremen’s and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act. The court confirmed that the ship and its owner could be sued as third parties, rejecting the argument that the ship should be considered a statutory employer. However, on the merits, the court determined that the injury was not proximately caused by any negligence of the ship, such as a defective winch or missing bolts for a beam. Instead, the injury resulted directly from the culpably negligent and dangerous work methods voluntarily adopted by Culver's employer and the specific negligence of the gangwayman in operating the winch. Consequently, the claim against the ship was denied, as the ship was wholly exonerated from liability for Culver's injuries.

Longshoremen's ActHarbor Workers' CompensationThird-Party LiabilityShip Owner LiabilityStevedore NegligenceProximate CauseStatutory EmployeeAssigned Cause of ActionMaritime LawPersonal Injury
References
8
Case No. 2021 NY Slip Op 01436 [192 AD3d 839]
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 10, 2021

Rodriguez v. HY 38 Owner, LLC

Plaintiff Herman Rodriguez was injured at a construction site owned by HY 38 Owner, LLC, where Monadnock Construction, Inc. was the construction manager. The accident occurred while repairing a plywood gate, when another part of the gate was blown shut by wind, striking him. Rodriguez sued, alleging violations of Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence. The Supreme Court, Kings County, granted summary judgment to HY 38 Owner, LLC, and Monadnock Construction, Inc., dismissing these claims. The Appellate Division, Second Department, reversed this decision, finding that the defendants failed to prima facie establish entitlement to judgment as a matter of law because they did not adequately address the premises liability theory of the plaintiff's case. Therefore, the Supreme Court should have denied that branch of their motion.

Construction AccidentPersonal InjuryLabor Law § 200Common-Law NegligencePremises LiabilitySummary Judgment MotionAppellate DivisionDangerous ConditionWork Site SafetyContractor Liability
References
15
Case No. 2025 NY Slip Op 05574 [242 AD3d 488]
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 09, 2025

Murillo v. Downtown NYC Owner, LLC

The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed the Supreme Court's order dismissing Luis Murillo's Labor Law claims (§ 241 (6) and § 200) and common-law negligence claim against Downtown NYC Owner, LLC, and related entities. The court held that Murillo, a worker responsible for debris removal, could not recover for injuries caused by the very condition he was tasked with remedying. Furthermore, the Appellate Division affirmed the dismissal of the defendants' common-law and contractual indemnity claims against third-party defendant William Erath & Son, Inc., concluding that Erath had no contractual duty to perform debris removal, and thus Murillo's accident did not arise out of Erath's work. The decision emphasizes the principle that responsibility for cleanup tasks dictates liability.

Labor LawSafe Place to WorkDebris RemovalContractual IndemnityCommon-Law IndemnitySummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewPremises LiabilityNegligenceThird-Party Claim
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Arceneaux v. Lykes Bros. Steamship Co.

This dissenting opinion concerns a longshoreman, Arceneaux, who was injured after falling from a ladder in a ship's hold after a ten-and-a-half-hour workday. Arceneaux alleged that the ladder had a defective design, causing his fall. The dissent argues against liability for the vessel owner, Lykes Brothers Steamship Co., Inc., contending that the ladder was an open and obvious condition, known and repeatedly used by Arceneaux and his fellow longshoremen. Citing the 1972 amendments to the Longshore and Harbor Worker's Compensation Act (LHWCA), the judge asserts that claims based on unseaworthiness or strict liability for defective equipment are no longer actionable against vessel owners, and the shipowner's 'turnover duty' is limited to warning of latent hazards. The dissent concludes that Arceneaux failed to demonstrate maritime negligence on the part of Lykes, and therefore, the judgment in favor of Lykes should be affirmed.

Longshoremen's ActMaritime NegligenceVessel Owner LiabilityUnseaworthiness DoctrineDefective Design ClaimsOpen and Obvious HazardsTurnover DutyStevedore Contractor Duties1972 LHWCA AmendmentsProximate Cause
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Jackson Housing Authority v. Auto-Owners Insurance Co.

This case involves an appeal from a declaratory judgment action initiated by the Jackson Housing Authority (JHA) to clarify the rights and liabilities of various parties concerning injuries sustained by Ralph Wilson, a participant in the Comprehensive Employment Training Act (CETA) program. Wilson, while working as a painter at JHA facilities, was paid by the Chickasaw Area Development Commission (CADC), which also provided workers’ compensation coverage through Aetna Insurance Company. After Wilson was injured, he collected workers’ compensation from Aetna and filed both a workers’ compensation claim against JHA’s carrier, Travelers, and a common law tort action against JHA. JHA's liability insurer, Auto-Owners Insurance Company, defended the tort action under a reservation of rights, alleging untimely notice. The Chancellor found Wilson to be an employee of CADC, not JHA, for workers’ compensation purposes, and that JHA provided timely notice to Auto-Owners, ordering Auto-Owners to defend JHA. On appeal, the court affirmed the Chancellor's findings regarding Wilson's employment with CADC and JHA's timely notice to Auto-Owners. However, it modified the decision by holding that Wilson was also an apprentice employee of JHA, establishing a joint employment relationship under Tennessee law, based on the interpretation of T.C.A. § 50-6-102.

CETA ProgramJoint EmploymentDeclaratory JudgmentWorkers' CompensationInsurance Coverage DisputeApprentice EmployeeEmployer LiabilityNotice RequirementsStatutory InterpretationTort Action
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Vargas v. American Export Lines, Inc.

Plaintiff, an employee of A & G Maintenance Corp., sustained injuries while working as a lasher aboard a vessel and received compensation benefits under the LHWCA. The plaintiff then initiated an action against the vessel owner, American Export Lines, Inc., alleging negligence. The vessel owner impleaded Universal Maritime Service Corporation, a stevedore, which subsequently filed a fourth-party complaint seeking indemnity from the plaintiff's employer, A & G Maintenance Corp. A & G Maintenance Corp. moved to dismiss the fourth-party action, arguing it was barred by the exclusiveness of liability provisions of the Longshoremen’s and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act (LHWCA), 33 USC § 905 (a), (b). The Special Term denied the motion, but the appellate court reversed, holding that allowing such a fourth-party claim would indirectly make the employer liable to the vessel, which is explicitly prohibited by LHWCA section 905 (b).

Longshoremen's and Harbor Workers' Compensation ActLHWCAExclusiveness of LiabilityIndemnity ClaimThird-Party ActionFourth-Party ActionVessel NegligenceStevedoreEmployer LiabilityRyan Indemnity
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Ortiz v. SFDS Development

A construction worker sustained injuries after falling 20 feet from a roof that unexpectedly collapsed, having not been provided with any safety equipment. The defendants, SFDS Development and San Francisco Houses, Inc., were the building owners. The Supreme Court initially denied the worker's motion for partial summary judgment on liability under Labor Law § 240 (1) and the owners' cross-motions for common-law indemnification against the worker's employer, Catspaw Construction Corp. The appellate court unanimously reversed this decision, granting the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on liability and the owners' cross-motions for indemnification, finding that Catspaw had direct control over the worksite.

Construction AccidentLabor Law § 240(1)Summary JudgmentAbsolute LiabilityIndemnificationElevated WorksiteSafety DevicesComparative NegligenceGeneral Contractor LiabilityOwner Liability
References
11
Showing 1-10 of 6,244 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