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. 2025 NY Slip Op 02959
Regular Panel Decision
May 14, 2025

Weekes v. Tishman Tech. Corp.

Samuel Weekes, an employee, was injured while dismantling a scaffold at a construction site managed by Tishman Technologies Corporation. He sued, alleging violations of Labor Law § 240(1) and § 241(6). The Supreme Court initially denied Weekes's summary judgment motion and granted the defendants' cross-motion to dismiss, also denying Weekes's motion for leave to renew. The Appellate Division modified the Supreme Court's order, ruling that Tishman could be considered a statutory agent of the owner due to its control over safety. The court also found that Weekes's activity was covered under Labor Law § 240(1) and that triable issues of fact existed regarding the elevation-related hazard and proximate cause, thereby denying the defendants' cross-motion for summary judgment. The denial of Weekes's motion for leave to renew was affirmed, and part of the appeal from the November 4, 2020 order was dismissed as academic.

Construction AccidentLabor Law Section 240(1)Labor Law Section 241(6)Industrial Code ViolationScaffold SafetyElevation HazardSummary JudgmentStatutory AgentConstruction Manager LiabilityTriable Issues of Fact
References
36
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Kennedy v. Weeks Marine, Inc.

Martin R. Kennedy was injured while working on a barge chartered by his employer, American Bridge Company, from Week’s Marine, Inc. Kennedy fell from a wooden plank serving as the barge's gangway, which was supplied by American Bridge. He brought suit pursuant to 33 U.S.C. § 905(b), but Magistrate Judge David F. Jordan granted summary judgment for Week’s Marine, concluding they had no duty to provide a safe gangway under a bare boat charter. Kennedy appealed this judgment, arguing Week's Marine had knowledge of workers on the barge. The District Court affirmed the lower court's decision, ruling that Week's Marine, having relinquished control of the vessel in a bare boat charter, was not responsible for conditions arising after the charter or for providing a gangway, as the charterer, American Bridge, became the owner pro hac vice and bore that duty.

Bare Boat CharterMaritime LawSummary JudgmentLongshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation ActVessel Owner LiabilityCharterer LiabilityGangway SafetyDuty of CareOwner Pro Hac ViceAppellate Review
References
14
Case No. 13-07-00451-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 11, 2009

Old Republic Insurance Company v. Edward Weeks

This case concerns an appeal by Old Republic Insurance Company against a district court's judgment favoring Edward Weeks, who suffered a compensable workplace injury. Weeks, a truck driver, experienced a severe back injury and alleged repetitive trauma from his job, despite initial denials from the Texas Workers' Compensation Commission (TWCC) and its appeals panel. The district court overturned the TWCC panel's decision and found in favor of Weeks, prompting Old Republic's appeal challenging jurisdiction, evidence admissibility, and sufficiency of proof. The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's judgment, confirming that Weeks properly exhausted administrative remedies and that the evidence supported his claims of both acute and repetitive trauma injuries. The court also upheld the district court's conclusion regarding Old Republic's liability for Weeks's medical expenses.

Workers' CompensationCompensable InjuryRepetitive TraumaSubject-Matter JurisdictionAdministrative RemediesJudicial ReviewExpert TestimonyLay Witness TestimonySufficiency of EvidenceMedical Expenses
References
27
Case No. 04-20-00499-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 30, 2021

Weeks Marine Company, LLC v. David Landa

This case concerns an appeal regarding personal jurisdiction in a lawsuit for personal injuries. Appellee David Landa sued Appellant Weeks Marine Company, LLC under the Jones Act and general maritime law for injuries sustained during his employment on a crane barge in New York. Weeks, a New Jersey corporation, filed a special appearance, which the trial court denied. The appellate court reviewed de novo, finding Landa failed to establish specific or general personal jurisdiction over Weeks in Texas. Consequently, the court reversed the trial court's order and dismissed Landa's claims.

Personal InjuryJones ActMaritime LawSpecial AppearancePersonal JurisdictionSpecific JurisdictionGeneral JurisdictionTexas Court of AppealsAppellate ReviewEmployment Injury
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Fireman's Fund Insurance Co. v. Weeks

This case involves an appeal by Fireman’s Fund Insurance Company against a district court’s judgment in favor of workers’ compensation claimant, Weldon Weeks. Weeks sustained a lower back injury on the job, leading to spinal fusion surgery. The core dispute centers on Weeks’s Maximum Medical Improvement (MMI) date and impairment rating, with the district court adopting Dr. Chapman’s findings of a 25 percent impairment and an MMI date of April 17, 2002. Fireman's Fund argued that Dr. Chapman’s reliance on spinal fusion surgery to determine impairment was legally insufficient under the AMA Guides, fourth edition. The appellate court agreed, reversing the district court's judgment and rendering judgment for Fireman’s Fund, thereby affirming the Division's earlier decision which had adopted Dr. Singleton's 10 percent impairment rating and January 28, 2002 MMI date.

workers' compensationimpairment ratingmaximum medical improvementspinal fusionAMA Guideslegal sufficiencyDRE categorylumbar radiculopathyappellate reviewTexas Labor Code
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Weeks Marine, Inc. v. Garza

The Texas Supreme Court reviewed an appeal involving Maximino Garza, a seaman injured while working for Weeks Marine. Garza sued for Jones Act negligence and a claim that Weeks Marine unreasonably failed to pay maintenance and cure, leading to prolonged suffering. While a jury awarded damages for both, the Supreme Court reversed the award for the unreasonable failure to pay, finding no evidence that this specific breach caused distinct, additional injuries to Garza. Conversely, the Court affirmed that Garza's negligence award should not be reduced by his comparative fault, as he was following specific orders at the time of the accident. Therefore, the judgment was affirmed in part and reversed in part.

Maritime LawJones ActMaintenance and CureEmployer NegligenceSeaman's InjuryComparative FaultSpecific Orders ExceptionUnreasonable Failure to PayCompensatory DamagesAppellate Review
References
28
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 02, 1997

Robinson v. Metro-North Commuter Railroad

Plaintiffs, 25 current or former Metro-North employees, filed two class action lawsuits alleging employment discrimination based on race under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and various New York State laws against Metro-North Commuter Railroad. They sought class certification for "all African-American employees of defendant Metro-North Commuter Railroad from 1983 through 1996." The Court consolidated the two actions but subsequently denied the motion for class certification. The denial was based on the plaintiffs' failure to satisfy the commonality and typicality requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a). The Court found that the plaintiffs' statistical data and sociological opinion were insufficient to establish company-wide discriminatory practices, and individual claims varied significantly, thus lacking typicality for such a broad class.

Employment DiscriminationRace DiscriminationClass ActionClass Certification DenialFederal Rules of Civil Procedure 23Commonality RequirementTypicality RequirementStatistical EvidenceSociological OpinionTitle VII
References
19
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. 08-06-00170-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 30, 2008

Fireman's Fund Insurance Co. v. Weldon W. Weeks

This case concerns an appeal by Fireman’s Fund Insurance Company against a district court's judgment favoring workers' compensation claimant, Weldon Weeks. The core dispute revolved around the legal sufficiency of evidence for Weeks' impairment rating and maximum medical improvement (MMI) date, following an on-the-job spinal injury and subsequent fusion surgery. The district court had adopted a 25 percent impairment rating and April 17, 2002 MMI date, based on Dr. Chapman's report, which considered the spinal fusion surgery in violation of AMA Guides for impairment ratings. The Court of Appeals, affirming that surgery is not a permissible factor under the AMA Guides' Injury Model, found Dr. Chapman's reliance on the spinal fusion legally insufficient. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the district court’s judgment and rendered judgment for Fireman’s Fund, effectively upholding the Division's original decision of a 10 percent impairment rating and January 28, 2002 MMI date.

Impairment RatingMaximum Medical Improvement (MMI)Spinal Fusion SurgeryAMA GuidesLegal SufficiencyAppellate ReviewTrial Court JudgmentDesignated DoctorTexas Labor CodeDiagnosis-Related Estimate (DRE)
References
13
Case No. 03-09-00159-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 29, 2010

Texas Department of Transportation// Texas Weekly Advocate and Dr. Jeffrey White v. Texas Weekly Advocate and Dr. Jeffrey White// Cross-Appellee, Texas Department of Transportation

The Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) amended its crash report form, removing a space for driver telephone numbers. Texas Weekly Advocate and Dr. Jeffrey White (Plaintiffs) sued TxDOT under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and the Uniform Declaratory Judgments Act (UDJA), arguing that TxDOT failed to comply with proper rulemaking procedures. The trial court granted summary judgment for Plaintiffs on their APA claim, enjoining TxDOT, but dismissed the UDJA claim and denied attorney's fees. On appeal, the court vacated the trial court's APA injunction and dismissed that part of the cause as moot, as TxDOT had subsequently completed the required rulemaking process. Additionally, the Plaintiffs' UDJA claim was deemed moot due to redundancy with the APA claim, and the appellate court affirmed the trial court's denial of attorney's fees, finding no abuse of discretion as the UDJA claim did not substantially broaden the action already provided by the APA.

Administrative Procedure ActUniform Declaratory Judgments ActMootnessAttorney's FeesSummary JudgmentInjunctive ReliefRulemaking ProceduresCrash Report FormTexas Department of TransportationAppellate Jurisdiction
References
10
Showing 1-10 of 1,435 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