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

Trinity Industries, Inc. v. McKinnon Bridge Co.

McKinnon Bridge Company, Inc., a general contractor, appealed a trial court's decision holding it liable to its subcontractor, Trinity Industries, Inc., for costs related to a bridge collapse. Trinity and McKinnon had an agreement for structural steel fabrication, which included an indemnity clause. Following a bridge segment collapse, Trinity was sued in federal court and incurred significant defense and settlement costs. Trinity then sued McKinnon ("Trinity II") seeking indemnification based on a prior ruling ("Trinity I") that attributed the collapse solely to McKinnon's subcontractor, ABC Contractors, Inc. The trial court granted Trinity's motion for summary judgment and denied McKinnon's. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, finding that the indemnity clause was clear and that Trinity properly used collateral estoppel to prove ABC's negligence as the cause of the loss, an entity over which Trinity had no control.

Contract IndemnificationSubcontractor LiabilitySummary Judgment AppealCollateral EstoppelBridge CollapseNegligence AllegationsContract InterpretationTort LawConstruction LawAppellate Review
References
34
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Bridges v. Callahan

Richard Bridges, a former New York City Police Detective, sought judicial review of a final administrative determination by the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration, which denied his application for social security disability insurance benefits. Bridges challenged the Commissioner's finding that he was not 'disabled' and could perform sedentary work, despite suffering from multiple work-related injuries to his back and knee. The District Court found that the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) erred by substituting his own judgment for that of Bridges' treating physician and by not providing substantial evidence to support the finding that Bridges could perform sedentary work. The court, therefore, denied the Commissioner's motion for judgment on the pleadings and granted Bridges' motion, remanding the case for the calculation of benefits.

Social Security DisabilityDisability Insurance BenefitsSedentary WorkTreating Physician RuleAdministrative Law JudgeMedical EvidenceResidual Functional CapacitySpinal InjuriesKnee InjuriesHerniated Discs
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Brown v. McKinnon Bridge Co., Inc.

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.

Bridge ConstructionJones ActLHWCAMaritime LawSeaman StatusSummary JudgmentAdmiralty JurisdictionTennessee Products LiabilityPersonal InjuryWorker Injury
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Bridges v. Andrews Transport, Inc.

William Lloyd Bridges, a truck driver and owner, sued Andrews Transport, Inc. and Andrews Leasing, Inc. for fraud, conversion, unjust enrichment, and breach of contract, among other claims. Bridges operated under a dual relationship with Andrews Transport: as an employee and as a lessor of his truck via an Equipment Lease Agreement. The core dispute revolved around Andrews' deductions from Bridges' lease payments for employer-mandated taxes and workers' compensation. Bridges argued these deductions were illegal and void the lease agreement, violating public policy. The trial court granted summary judgment for Andrews. On appeal, the court affirmed the trial court's decision, citing Hathcock v. Acme Truck Lines, Inc. and reasoning that the deductions from lease payments, rather than wages, by an employer to a lessor (even if the same individual) do not contravene federal or state laws or public policy.

FraudConversionRestitutionUnjust EnrichmentBreach of ContractSummary JudgmentEquipment Lease AgreementEmployment AgreementLessor-Lessee RelationshipEmployer-Employee Relationship
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Bridges v. City of Memphis

Tern Bridges, individually and as the surviving spouse of Private William Bridges, appealed the trial court's dismissal of her wrongful death claim against the City of Memphis and its Fire Department. Private William Bridges, a firefighter, died in the line of duty due to alleged negligence and procedural violations by his supervisor and other Fire Department employees. The trial court's dismissal was presumably based on governmental immunity theories. The appellate court examined the applicability of the Tennessee Governmental Tort Liability Act (GTLA), distinguishing between discretionary and operational functions, and found that the plaintiff's allegations of negligence based on violations of the Fire Department's Operations Manual constituted non-discretionary (operational) acts, thus surviving a motion to dismiss. The court also addressed and rejected the defendants' arguments regarding the public duty doctrine and the policemen and firemen's rule, concluding they did not preclude the lawsuit against the municipal entities. The appellate court reversed the trial court's order of dismissal and remanded the case for further proceedings.

Wrongful Death ClaimGovernmental ImmunityTennessee Governmental Tort Liability Act (GTLA)Discretionary Function ExceptionPlanning-Operational TestPublic Duty DoctrinePolicemen and Firemen's RuleFire Department NegligenceProcedural ViolationsLine of Duty Death
References
14
Case No. 09-01-477 CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 10, 2002

William Lloyd Bridges v. Andrews Transport, Inc.

William Lloyd Bridges, a truck driver and owner, sued Andrews Transport, Inc. for various claims including fraud, alleging that deductions from his equipment lease payments for employer-mandated taxes were illegal. Andrews Transport, Inc. filed a counterclaim, and the trial court granted summary judgment in its favor, denying Bridges's motion. Bridges appealed, contending that the lease agreement was void due to illegality, arguing that Andrews unlawfully shifted its employment tax liability to him. The Court of Appeals for the Ninth District of Texas affirmed the lower court's judgment. The court ruled that the dual relationship of employer/employee and lessor/lessee between the parties was valid and that the deductions from the lease payment constituted consideration for the truck's use, not an unlawful deduction from wages, thereby not violating federal or state labor laws.

Employment ContractEquipment LeaseTax LiabilityEmployer ResponsibilitiesEmployee BenefitsDual RelationshipsSummary Judgment AppealContract IllegalityFraud ClaimsConversion Claims
References
2
Case No. Shelby Chancery No. 107732 C.A. No. 02A01-9704-CH-00074
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 24, 1997

Doris Bridges v. Margaret Culpepper

Doris J. Bridges appealed the denial of unemployment compensation benefits by the Board of Review of the Tennessee Department of Employment Security, a decision upheld by the chancery court. Bridges voluntarily retired from the Internal Revenue Service under an early retirement program after 22 years of service. Her claim for benefits was denied on the grounds that she voluntarily quit without good cause connected to her work, and she did not qualify for statutory exceptions regarding "lack of work" or "labor-management contract or agreement." The Court of Appeals affirmed the chancery court's judgment, finding substantial and material evidence supporting the Board's conclusion that there was no lack of work at the IRS and that the early retirement offer was not a collective bargaining agreement. The court also found no error in the Board's refusal to consider new evidence due to the appellant's lack of diligence.

Unemployment CompensationVoluntary Early RetirementGood Cause for Leaving EmploymentLack of Work ExceptionLabor-Management ContractAdministrative ReviewSubstantial EvidenceMaterial EvidenceDenial of BenefitsDue Diligence
References
6
Case No. 2018 NY Slip Op 04452
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 15, 2018

Martin v. Niagara Falls Bridge Commn.

Plaintiff Eldred Jay Martin, an appellant, sustained injuries from a 25-30 foot fall while dismantling bridge scaffolding. He sued under Labor Law §§ 240 (1) and 241 (6). The Supreme Court initially granted summary judgment to the defendants, Niagara Falls Bridge Commission and Liberty Maintenance, Inc., dismissing the complaint. On appeal, the Appellate Division, Fourth Department, modified this decision, reinstating the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim due to triable issues of fact concerning the adequacy of safety devices provided. The court affirmed the dismissal of the Labor Law § 241 (6) claim. A dissenting opinion argued that the plaintiff's own actions were the sole proximate cause of his injuries, as he allegedly failed to use available safety equipment.

Scaffolding accidentLabor Law § 240(1)Summary JudgmentAppellate ReviewConstruction SafetyFall ProtectionWorkplace InjuryProximate CauseSafety DevicesEmployer Liability
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 25, 2013

Janes v. Triborough Bridge & Tunnel Authority

Plaintiffs Riva Janes, Bruce Schwartz, Bette Goldstein, and Hillel Abraham filed a class action against the Triborough Bridge and Tunnel Authority (TBTA), Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA), and their chairmen. They alleged that differential toll policies on New York City bridges, which provide discounts only to residents of specific areas, violate the Commerce Clause, Privileges and Immunities Clause, and Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution, as well as New York State law. The court, relying on prior Selevan decisions, determined that the toll policies were merely minor restrictions on travel and did not warrant strict scrutiny. Applying the three-factor Northwest Airlines test, the court concluded that the tolls were a fair approximation of use, not excessive relative to the benefits conferred on the integrated transit system, and did not discriminate against interstate commerce. Ultimately, the court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment, dismissing all federal and state law claims.

Toll PoliciesDifferential TollsDormant Commerce ClauseRight to TravelEqual ProtectionSummary JudgmentConstitutional LawNew York City TransitVerrazano-Narrows BridgeCross Bay Veterans Memorial Bridge
References
52
Case No. 2015 NY Slip Op 07554 [132 AD3d 500]
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 15, 2015

Bridge Street Contracting Inc. v. Everest National Insurance

This case addresses an insurer's disclaimer of coverage due to late notice of claims. The Appellate Division, First Department, modified a lower court order, declaring that Everest National Insurance Company has no duty to defend or indemnify Bridge Street Contracting Inc. in the underlying action. The court ruled that Everest properly disclaimed coverage without needing to demonstrate prejudice, as it was not participating in the defense when Bridge Street was served with the claims. Arguments regarding waiver of the late notice defense and antisubrogation were rejected. CastlePoint Insurance Company's motion to intervene was also denied as academic.

Insurance CoverageLate NoticeDisclaimer of CoverageSummary JudgmentDuty to DefendDuty to IndemnifyAntisubrogationInterventionAppellate DivisionContract Law
References
4
Showing 1-10 of 539 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