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

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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hearst Newspapers, LLC v. Status Lounge Inc.

This case involves Status Lounge Incorporated suing media outlets, Hearst Newspapers, LLC and KHOU-TV, Inc., along with their reporters, for libel and business disparagement stemming from articles published about a shooting incident. The defendant media outlets filed a verified plea in abatement under the Defamation Mitigation Act (DMA), which automatically abated the lawsuit for sixty days. Following the abatement period, they moved to dismiss the claims under the Texas Citizens Participation Act (TCPA), but the trial court denied these motions as untimely, adhering to the TCPA's strict sixty-day filing deadline post-service. On appeal, the central question was whether the DMA's abatement period tolls the TCPA's deadline for filing a motion to dismiss. The appellate court concluded that the DMA's abatement period does toll the TCPA's filing deadline, thereby making the defendants' motions timely, and consequently reversed the trial court's order and remanded the case for further proceedings on the merits.

DefamationLibelBusiness DisparagementTexas Citizens Participation ActDefamation Mitigation ActAbatementStatutory DeadlinesFirst Amendment RightsFree SpeechInterlocutory Appeal
References
16
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

Sweeney v. City of New York

Plaintiff Partnow, a dock builder, was injured in a slip and fall on a barge deck while working for Reicon, a marine construction contractor, at a site for the City of New York. He sued Reicon, Reinauer Transportation Companies, L.P. (vessel owner and Reicon's parent), and the City for Labor Law and LHWCA violations. Defendants Reicon and Reinauer moved for summary judgment, arguing LHWCA's exclusive remedy and a lack of vessel negligence. The court found genuine issues of material fact regarding Reinauer's employer status and its breach of "turnover duty" as a vessel owner by allegedly providing a barge with a defective nonskid coating. Consequently, the court denied dismissal for the LHWCA vessel negligence claims and the Labor Law §§ 200 and 241 (6) claims, while granting dismissal solely for the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim due to the absence of a gravity-related injury.

LHWCASummary Judgment MotionVessel Owner LiabilityLabor Law (New York State)Corporate Veil PiercingParent-Subsidiary RelationsMaritime NegligenceDock Builder InjuryBarge OperationsNon-Skid Coating Failure
References
30
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Stewart v. MAGNUM TRANSCONTINENTAL CORP.

Plaintiff Stewart was allegedly injured twice while working on the vessel SSV LOUISIANA. Defendants Lantz Services, Inc. and Louisiana Overseas, Inc. moved for final summary judgment, arguing Stewart was not a seaman and thus limited to remedies under the Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act. Defendants contended the vessel was not "in navigation" during repairs and that Stewart lacked a "substantial connection" to it. The Court, presided over by Judge Kent, denied the motion, finding that genuine issues of material fact existed regarding both the vessel's status and Stewart's connection, making summary judgment inappropriate for trial.

Seaman statusvessel in navigationsummary judgmentJones Actmaritime lawpersonal injurypipe-fitting workGalvestonindustrial accidentemployment law
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

George v. Intercontinental Transportation, Ltd.

Stanley George, a longshoreman employed by Sealand Terminals, Inc., initiated this action under the Longshoremen’s and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act against Intercontinental Transportation Ltd., the vessel owner, and Standard Fruit & Steamship Company, the charterer. George sought damages for personal injuries sustained when he fell into an open space between ventilation battens while unloading the SANTA MARTA. The court found that the plaintiff failed to establish that his injuries were caused by the vessel’s negligence, concluding that the primary responsibility for ensuring safety rested with the stevedore, which failed to implement known remedial measures. Additionally, the court found no basis to impose liability on the Charterer, rejecting claims of third-party beneficiary status and duties related to vessel inspection or equipment supply. Consequently, judgment was entered for the defendants, and their cross-claims were dismissed as moot.

LongshoremenHarbor WorkersVessel NegligenceStevedore DutyPersonal InjuryCargo UnloadingShipowner LiabilityCharterer LiabilityThird-Party BeneficiaryWorkplace Safety
References
4
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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 05, 1973

In re Jones

This case concerns the foster care status of Marie Jones, born November 17, 1965, who was placed in foster care with the Commissioner of Social Services in 1968 and subsequently surrendered for adoption by her natural parents in 1969. Marie has lived continuously with her foster parents, Mabel and William Oliver, since 1968 and has developed deep emotional ties with their family. A hearing was held pursuant to Social Services Law section 392 to review her foster care status and determine her best interests. The maternal grandparents, who had regular visitation, initially sought increased visitation but later requested custody and opposed the adoption by the foster parents. The court, considering all testimony and circumstances, found it was in Marie's best interest to remain with her foster parents and ordered her placed for adoption in their home, while also allowing continued grandparent visitation.

Foster CareAdoptionChild CustodySocial Services LawBest Interest of the ChildGrandparents' RightsParental RightsDe Facto ParentFamily LawSurrender Instrument
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re Lyondell Chemical Co.

Mrs. Regina Jahnke sought administrative expense status under Bankruptcy Code Section 1114 for payments due under a prepetition private annuity contract from Lyondell Chemical Company, the successor to her late husband's employer, ARCO Chemical Company. Lyondell contended that the contract was not covered by Section 1114, arguing that the payments were general unsecured claims. The Court, presided over by Bankruptcy Judge Robert E. Gerber, agreed with Lyondell. The Court found that the contract did not qualify as a "plan, fund, or program" under ERISA standards, and furthermore, the benefits were not "retiree benefits" as defined in Section 1114(a). Therefore, Mrs. Jahnke's motion for administrative status was denied, and her claim remained a general unsecured claim.

BankruptcyAdministrative Expense StatusRetiree BenefitsAnnuity ContractEmployee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA)Chapter 11Unsecured ClaimsContract LawCorporate SuccessionJudicial Interpretation
References
17
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
Showing 1-10 of 1,790 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