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

Smith v. Isthmian Lines, Inc.

A longshoreman filed an action against the owner of a vessel for personal injuries due to its negligence. The defendant moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing that the longshoreman's rights against the defendant were assigned to his employer and its insurer due to his acceptance of compensation under the Longshoremen’s and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act. The court denied the defendant's motion, citing a conflict of interest between the plaintiff’s employer and its insurer (who also insured the defendant) and the plaintiff, which allowed the plaintiff to proceed with the action despite the assignment.

Longshoremen's and Harbor Workers' Compensation ActPersonal InjuriesNegligenceConflict of InterestsAssignment of RightsMotion to Dismiss
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Spano v. N. v. Stoomvaart Maatschappij Nederland

This case concerns a longshoreman's personal injury action against a shipowner, which resulted in a $6,000 jury verdict. A key issue arose regarding the distribution of these proceeds, specifically the priority between a compensation lien held by Northern Assurance Company of America, totaling $6,691.38, and a $1,500 attorney's fee claimed by the plaintiff's counsel. The court affirmed that the compensation lien took priority over the attorney's fee, especially since the verdict amount was less than the compensation benefits already paid. Consequently, the motions by the shipowner and the stevedoring company's carrier to deposit the funds and satisfy the lien were granted. The plaintiff's counsel's motion for an attorney's fee was denied, as the attorney's efforts did not result in an excess recovery for the client beyond the already compensated benefits.

longshoremanpersonal injurycompensation lienattorney's feessubrogationmaritime lawverdict distributionfederal courtworkers' compensationjudgment satisfaction
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Palomino v. Winck

A longshoreman, referred to as the libelant, was injured aboard the respondent's vessel when a wooden crate being lowered caught his right ankle. The libelant claimed the injury was due to unseaworthiness or negligence, specifically implying a defective winch. However, no evidence of a defective winch was presented, nor was expert testimony offered to support the claim. The court distinguished this case from Michalic v. Cleveland Tankers, Inc., where evidence of a defective winch was provided. Ultimately, the court concluded that the libelant failed to sustain his burden of proof, and thus, the claim was denied.

longshoreman injuryunseaworthinessnegligence claimburden of proofmaritime lawdefective equipmentvessel accidentDistrict Court decisionadmiralty lawlack of evidence
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Guzman v. Farrell Lines, Inc.

This case concerns an appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, New York County, which had dismissed a longshoreman's personal injury action against a vessel owner as time-barred. The original dismissal was based on New York's three-year statute of limitations (CPLR 214, subd 5) and the precedent of McCoy v American Israeli Shipping Co. The Appellate Division unanimously reversed this decision, holding that the timeliness of such actions must be determined under Federal maritime law. The court emphasized that under Federal law, laches is the sole standard for untimeliness, not a fixed statute of limitations. This ruling ensures a uniform application of negligence remedies for longshoremen, determining that the prior McCoy precedent no longer represents the law in New York.

Longshoremen's and Harbor Workers' Compensation ActPersonal InjuryStatute of LimitationsFederal Maritime LawLachesVessel Owner NegligenceAppellate ReviewCPLR 214Precedent OverruledUniform Federal Rule
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Bloomer v. Tung

This memorandum addresses a dispute over attorney's fees in a longshoreman's injury case. The individual plaintiff longshoreman settled a claim against a vessel for $60,000 after being injured, having already received $17,152.83 in workers' compensation and medical benefits from Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, his employer's subrogee. The plaintiff moved the court to compel the insurer to contribute a proportionate share of his attorney's fees incurred during the litigation. The court denied this request, ruling that the settlement fund must first cover litigation expenses, including attorney's fees, before the intervenor, Liberty Mutual, is fully reimbursed for its compensation lien. This decision affirmed the principle that the recovery fund is primarily charged with securing the recovery, then satisfying the compensation lien, with any remaining balance going to the longshoreman.

Longshoremen's and Harbor Workers' Compensation ActAttorney's FeesLienProportional SharingSettlement FundSubrogationFederal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 56Second CircuitIndemnityMaritime Law
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

McClendon v. Charente Steamship Co.

The plaintiff, a longshoreman, sustained personal injuries in 1959 and received compensation under the Longshoremen’s and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act. After formal awards in 1960 and 1961, the plaintiff filed a third-party suit in August 1961, more than six months after the award. The defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing the cause of action was assigned to the employer under 33 U.S.C.A. § 933(b) due to the delayed filing. The plaintiff contended that he could still sue if there was a conflict of interest with his employer or insurer. The Court, interpreting Section 933(b) in light of its legislative history and purpose, ruled that a longshoreman's cause of action is assigned to the employer by operation of law if a third-party suit is not filed within six months of a compensation award, precluding the longshoreman from suing thereafter. The Court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment and dismissed the case.

LongshoremanHarbor WorkersCompensation ActThird-Party SuitSummary JudgmentAssignment of ActionConflict of InterestStatutory InterpretationSix-Month LimitEmployer Liability
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 22, 1939

Texas Employers Insurance v. Sparrow

Allen Sparrow, a longshoreman and employee of Southern Stevedoring & Contracting Company, was fatally stabbed by a fellow longshoreman on the city docks of Beaumont. This incident occurred near a public telephone provided by the Beaumont Maritime Association, which also housed longshoremen during a strike, but was not directly affiliated with Sparrow's employer. Sparrow's beneficiaries filed a compensation claim against Texas Employers Insurance Association. Initially, the trial court and Court of Civil Appeals ruled in favor of the beneficiaries. However, the Commission of Appeals reversed this decision, concluding that Sparrow's death did not occur within the course of his employment, as neither the lodging nor the telephone was furnished by his employer, nor was he required to remain on the docks.

Longshoreman InjuryOff-Duty ConductEmployment NexusCompensation ClaimAppellate ReversalTexas Supreme CourtMaritime LaborWorkplace EnvironmentIndependent Contractor DefenseCausation in Compensation
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Susino v. Hellenic Lines Ltd.

Guiseppe Susino, a longshoreman, sued Hellenic, the vessel owner and his employer, for personal injuries sustained in 1977. Susino filed the suit in 1979, after the six-month period following his compensation award, a timeframe during which his right to sue a third party would typically be assigned to his employer under 33 U.S.C. 933(b) of the LHWCA. Hellenic moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing the action was barred. The court considered the serious conflict of interest, as Hellenic would be suing itself if the right were assigned. Citing Czaplicki v. The Hoegh Silvercloud, the court held that where a demonstrable conflict of interest exists, an injured longshoreman retains the right to sue a third party despite the expiration of the statutory period. Consequently, the defendant's motions to dismiss and for summary judgment were denied.

Longshoremen’s and Harbor Workers’ Compensation ActLHWCAConflict of InterestAssignment of ClaimThird-Party ActionStatutory PeriodMotion to DismissSummary JudgmentAdmiralty LawFederal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 12(b)(6)
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Williamson v. The M/V Sandra Wesch

Louie Williamson, a longshoreman, sued J.J. Flannagan Stevedores and the M/V Sandra Wesch for an injury sustained on July 2, 1980. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss, arguing Williamson lacked standing due to Section 933(b) of the Longshoremen’s and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act (LHWCA). This section assigns the right to sue a third party to the employer if the longshoreman accepts compensation under an "award in a compensation order" and fails to file suit within six months. The court, relying on Fourth Circuit precedent, determined that Williamson's acceptance of compensation, the employer's notice of payment without controversion, and the initiation of payments constituted such an "award." Consequently, Williamson's claim was deemed assigned to his employer, and the defendants' motion to dismiss was granted.

Longshoremen's and Harbor Workers' Compensation ActLHWCA Section 933(b)Assignment of ClaimStanding to SueMotion to DismissWorkers' Compensation BenefitsFederal Court JurisdictionEmployer SubrogationThird-Party LiabilityCompensation Order Definition
References
9
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
Showing 1-10 of 93 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