CompFox AI Summary
Plaintiff Michael R. Brown sued McKinnon Bridge Company, Inc. and Vimco, Inc. for serious injuries sustained while working for McKinnon Bridge during bridge construction on the Tennessee River. Brown brought claims under the Jones Act, LHWCA, and general maritime law against McKinnon Bridge, and under the Tennessee Products Liability Act against Vimco. The court addressed dispositive motions concerning Brown's Jones Act, LHWCA, and general maritime law claims against McKinnon Bridge. The court concluded that Brown was not a seaman under the Jones Act, was not entitled to pursue an original claim under LHWCA § 905(b), and his general maritime law claims lacked a significant relationship to maritime activity. As a result, McKinnon Bridge's motions for partial summary judgment and to dismiss were granted, while Brown's motion for partial summary judgment was denied. Brown's claims under the Jones Act, original LHWCA action, and general maritime law were dismissed, and his administrative LHWCA claims were dismissed without prejudice.
Brown v. McKinnon Bridge Co., Inc. is a workers' compensation case decided in District Court, E.D. Tennessee. This case addresses legal issues related to compensation claims, benefits, and court rulings.
It is commonly referenced in legal research involving workers' compensation laws in District Court, E.D. Tennessee.
Full Decision Text1 Pages
Plaintiff Michael R. Brown sued McKinnon Bridge Company, Inc. and Vimco, Inc. for serious injuries sustained while working for McKinnon Bridge during bridge construction on the Tennessee River. Brown brought claims under the Jones Act, LHWCA, and general maritime law against McKinnon Bridge, and under the Tennessee Products Liability Act against Vimco. The court addressed dispositive motions concerning Brown's Jones Act, LHWCA, and general maritime law claims against McKinnon Bridge. The court concluded that Brown was not a seaman under the Jones Act, was not entitled to pursue an original claim under LHWCA § 905(b), and his general maritime law claims lacked a significant relationship to maritime activity. As a result, McKinnon Bridge's motions for partial summary judgment and to dismiss were granted, while Brown's motion for partial summary judgment was denied. Brown's claims under the Jones Act, original LHWCA action, and general maritime law were dismissed, and his administrative LHWCA claims were dismissed without prejudice.
Read the full decision
Join + legal professionals. Create a free account to access the complete text of this decision and search our entire database.