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

District 2 Marine Engineers Beneficial Ass'n v. Puerto Rico Marine Management, Inc.

District 2, a marine engineers union, sued Puerto Rico Marine Management, Inc. (PRMMI) to compel arbitration after PRMMI terminated their collective bargaining agreement and discharged union members. PRMMI argued the agreement was terminable at will, while District 2 maintained it was still in effect, terminable only by the union. The court found both interpretations unpersuasive, ruling the agreement's extension implied a reasonable period for good faith negotiations and required reasonable notice for termination. Therefore, the court denied both parties' motions for summary judgment and PRMMI's motion to dismiss, ordering a factual hearing to determine the effectiveness of the termination, while making accrued benefit claims immediately arbitrable.

ArbitrationCollective Bargaining AgreementContract TerminationLabor DisputeSummary JudgmentSubject Matter JurisdictionUnionEmployerGood Faith NegotiationsReasonable Notice
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Nielsen v. Weeks Marine, Inc.

Francis Nielsen, a dock-builder, and his wife, Jacqueline Nielsen, sued Weeks Marine Inc. for personal injuries and loss of consortium under the Jones Act and general maritime law. The case, initially filed in state court, was removed to federal court. The court denied the plaintiffs' motion to remand, citing a procedural defect in removal, but maintained subject matter jurisdiction under the Jones Act. Ultimately, the court granted summary judgment for the defendants, ruling that Barge 525 was not a 'vessel in navigation' and therefore Nielsen was not a 'seaman' under the Jones Act, dismissing all claims.

Jones ActSeaman StatusVessel in NavigationSummary JudgmentMaritime LawPersonal InjuryLoss of ConsortiumRemoval JurisdictionFederal Rules of Civil ProcedureBarge
References
17
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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

O'Hare v. General Marine Transport Corp.

In this opinion, the District Court denied General Marine Transport Corporation's motion to amend a prior judgment that awarded damages to the Trustees of the New York Marine Towing and Transportation Industry Pension Fund and Insurance Fund. General Marine sought to amend the judgment based on the recent Supreme Court ruling in DelCostello v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters, arguing for the application of a six-month limitations period. The court determined that DelCostello specifically applies to "hybrid 301/fair representation" claims and does not necessitate a departure from the previously applied six-year New York state statute of limitations for breach of contract actions, citing Auto Workers v. Hoosier Corp. Therefore, the motion was denied, reaffirming the earlier decision.

Motion to Amend JudgmentStatute of LimitationsLabor LawBreach of ContractFederal Rules of Civil ProcedureNational Labor Relations ActLabor Management Relations ActHybrid 301/Fair Representation ClaimsPension FundInsurance Fund
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Stellar Mechanical Services of New York, Inc. v. Merchants Insurance of New Hampshire

This case involves an appeal concerning an insurance dispute over the duty to defend and indemnify. The plaintiff, Stellar Mechanical Services of New York, Inc., sought a declaratory judgment against Merchants Insurance of New Hampshire, claiming primary insurer obligations in an underlying personal injury action. Stellar, insured by American Empire Surplus Lines Insurance Company, had subcontracted duct work to Serge Duct Design, which was insured by Merchants. Serge was obligated to name Stellar as an additional insured. After a worker's injury and subsequent lawsuit, Merchants disclaimed coverage. The appellate court modified the lower court's order, ruling that Merchants is obligated as the primary insurer to defend Stellar from the time the second amended complaint was served, but not to indemnify Stellar. The case was remitted to the Supreme Court, Queens County, for an assessment of costs incurred by American Empire Surplus Lines Insurance Company.

Insurance CoverageAdditional Insured StatusDuty to DefendDuty to IndemnifyPrimary InsurerExcess InsurerSummary JudgmentContract LawSubcontract AgreementPersonal Injury Action
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 19, 2001

District No. 1-PCD v. Apex Marine Ship Management Co.

This case concerns an appeal to vacate an arbitration award that dismissed a grievance filed by District No. 1-PCD, Marine Engineers’ Beneficial Association (AFL-CIO) and Harry A. Kirmon. Kirmon, a discharged engineer, had his grievance dismissed by an arbitrator who found the Union failed to provide Kirmon's written statement to the Company, deeming it a procedural prerequisite. The Supreme Court upheld this dismissal. However, the appellate court reversed, ruling that the arbitrator's decision did not derive its essence from the collective bargaining agreement, which only required the statement be given to the Union. The court concluded the arbitrator exceeded his authority by basing the dismissal on procedural grounds not outlined in the CBA's limitations on his jurisdiction.

Labor ArbitrationCollective BargainingGrievance ProcedureArbitrator JurisdictionFederal Labor LawWrongful DischargeJudicial Review of ArbitrationUnion RightsEmployment TerminationContract Interpretation
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 01, 1981

State v. New Hampshire Merchants Insurance

This case involves cross-appeals concerning insurance coverage for a State employee, David L. Sinnamon, after an accident. The Attorney-General defended Sinnamon when New Hampshire Merchants Insurance Company, Inc. and Travelers Indemnity Company both refused to provide coverage, despite a prior ruling establishing their respective primary and secondary duties to defend. The State then commenced an action seeking reimbursement for legal fees incurred. Initially, summary judgment was granted against Merchants but dismissed against Travelers due to perceived lack of contractual privity. The appellate court modified this decision, concluding that both insurers breached their independent duty to defend Sinnamon, thus granting summary judgment on liability against both companies and remanding for a damages hearing.

Insurance CoverageDuty to DefendSummary JudgmentCross AppealsReimbursement of Legal FeesPublic Officers LawState Employee DefenseBreach of ContractAppellate ReviewDeclaratory Judgment
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Tanzini v. Marine Midland Bank, N.A.

Plaintiff Anthony Tanzini initiated legal action against his former employer, Marine Midland Bank, alleging age and disability discrimination, a violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), and breach of employment contract, following his layoff in 1993. The court reviewed the defendant's motion for summary judgment. It found that the plaintiff successfully established a prima facie case for the age and disability discrimination claims under the ADEA, ADA, and New York Human Rights Law, which the defendant failed to rebut with legitimate non-discriminatory reasons. Consequently, the defendant's motion to dismiss these claims was denied. However, the court granted summary judgment to the defendant on the ERISA claim, determining that the plaintiff did not provide proof that his termination was motivated by preventing the vesting of pension benefits, and dismissed the breach of employment contract claim, citing New York's employment-at-will doctrine.

Employment DiscriminationAge DiscriminationDisability DiscriminationERISABreach of ContractSummary JudgmentPrima Facie CaseMcDonnell Douglas FrameworkWrongful TerminationNew York Human Rights Law
References
40
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Seaman v. A.P. Green Industries, Inc.

Defendant Viad Corporation moved to dismiss the complaint in 98 personal injury actions, including one brought by plaintiff Joseph Seaman, a former railroad worker alleging asbestos-related disease from locomotive components. Plaintiffs sued under State common-law tort principles. Viad argued that these claims were preempted by the Federal Locomotive Boiler Inspection Act (BIA). The court, citing Napier v Atlantic Coast Line R. R. Co. and Second Circuit precedent, agreed that the BIA occupies the entire field of locomotive safety, preempting both State legislation and State tort claims against manufacturers. The motion to dismiss was granted, and the plaintiffs' claims were dismissed.

Federal PreemptionLocomotive Boiler Inspection Act (BIA)Asbestos LitigationRailroad WorkersState Tort ClaimsProducts LiabilityFailure to WarnField PreemptionLocomotive SafetyFederal Employers' Liability Act (FELA)
References
12
Showing 1-10 of 289 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