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. ADJ15834374
Regular
Apr 14, 2025

HARMINDER SINGH vs. SUNVIEW LOGISTICS, INC.; SPEED INTERMODAL; MANPREET SINGH; CLEAR SPRING INSURANCE

The case involves Harminder Singh, a truck driver, claiming a workers' compensation injury while employed by Sunview Logistics, Inc. and/or Manpreet Singh dba Speed Intermodal. The Workers' Compensation Administrative Law Judge (WCJ) initially found joint employment and joint and several liability between Sunview Logistics and Speed Intermodal. Defendant Speed Intermodal sought reconsideration, arguing a lack of substantial evidence for joint employment. The Appeals Board denied the petition for reconsideration, concurring with the WCJ's findings of fact regarding joint employment, citing substantial documentary and testimonial evidence.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardSunview LogisticsSpeed IntermodalManpreet Singhjoint employmentjoint and several liabilitypetition for reconsiderationFindings and OrderLabor Code section 5909Electronic Adjudication Management System (EAMS)
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

United States v. Speed Joyeros, S.A.

The United States moved to strike the claims of former employees (petitioners) to assets in Panama. These assets were forfeited as part of a plea agreement in a money laundering and conspiracy case against Yardena Hebroni and her jewelry companies, Speed Joyeros, S.A. and Argento Vivo, S.A. The petitioners sought unpaid wages and vacation pay. Although Panamanian labor authorities ruled in their favor, the court found that the petitioners failed to comply with federal forfeiture claim procedures by not personally verifying their claims. Furthermore, the court determined that the petitioners, as general, unsecured creditors, lacked a particularized interest in specific assets at the time the criminal acts leading to forfeiture occurred, as required by 21 U.S.C. § 853(n)(6)(A). Consequently, the court granted the government's motion to strike the claims.

Criminal forfeitureMoney launderingAsset forfeiturePanamanian lawUnsecured creditorsEmployee wagesForfeiture claimsJudicial discretionStatutory interpretationSecond Circuit
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Rivera v. New York City Transit Authority

The dissenting opinion concerns a wrongful death case where Milton Rivera was struck and killed by a subway train after falling from a platform on January 11, 1980. The plaintiff alleged the train's speed was excessive and the motorman delayed braking. Plaintiff's expert estimated the train speed at 19-22 mph and suggested the motorman had ample time to react. The defendant's expert concurred on speed but argued it was reasonable and necessary due to a track incline, and that the relevant transit rule did not apply to passenger trains. The dissent argued for reversal of the judgment, citing four main errors: the trial court's refusal to charge on emergency situation law, the jury's verdict being against the weight of evidence due to speculative expert testimony, the improper introduction of over 150 transit rules without guidance (including an inadmissible one), and an excessive $2 million award for wrongful death which deviated from reasonable compensation based on the deceased's earnings and life expectancy.

Wrongful DeathSubway AccidentExcessive SpeedMotorman NegligenceJury InstructionsEmergency DoctrineExpert TestimonyAdmissibility of EvidenceTransit Authority RulesExcessive Damages
References
14
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 04195 [206 AD3d 1463]
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 30, 2022

People v. Faucett

On March 13, 2019, Lawrence E. Faucett, driving a tractor trailer, struck a Department of Transportation pickup truck operated by Dennis "Matt" Howe, who was alerting motorists to roadwork. Howe died five days later from his injuries. Faucett was subsequently convicted of criminally negligent homicide. On appeal, Faucett argued the verdict lacked legally sufficient evidence, specifically proof of blameworthy conduct beyond a failure to perceive and marginally exceeding the speed limit. The Appellate Division, Third Department, agreed, finding that an unexplained failure to see another vehicle, without more, does not support a conviction for criminally negligent homicide. The court also held that travelling marginally over the speed limit and failing to maintain a lane did not constitute the moral blameworthiness required. Consequently, the judgment of conviction was reversed, and the indictment dismissed.

Criminally Negligent HomicideLegal SufficiencyBlameworthy ConductFailure to Perceive RiskTraffic AccidentMotor Vehicle FatalityAppellate ReviewIndictment DismissalGross Deviation StandardCriminal Negligence
References
7
Case No. ADJ9549208 ADJ10548669
Regular
May 16, 2017

GUILLERMO PALACIOS vs. SPEED TRIMS BUSINESS MANAGEMENT, ZURICH NORTH AMERICA, GALLAGHER BASSETT SERVICES

The Board granted reconsideration to amend the original award, overturning the finding that applicant sustained an injury on March 31, 2013. However, the Board found insufficient medical evidence to support the prior permanent disability rating for the applicant's left shoulder. Therefore, the matter is returned to the trial level for further proceedings to determine the extent of disability related to the left shoulder. The award for future medical treatment for cumulative trauma injury to the cervical spine, right and left shoulders, and lumbar spine remains, but permanent disability is deferred.

Petition for ReconsiderationCumulative Trauma InjurySpecific InjuryPermanent Disability RatingLeft Shoulder Rotator Cuff TearApportionmentMedical EvidenceRange of EvidencePanel Qualified Medical EvaluatorWCJ Report
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Galasso v. Wegmans Food Markets, Inc.

Plaintiff sought damages for injuries sustained when a construction sign fell on her, allegedly due to a gust of wind caused by defendants' speeding tractor-trailer. Defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing they owed no duty and the injury was unforeseeable. The Supreme Court denied this motion. The appellate court affirmed the denial of summary judgment, concluding that defendants owed a duty of care to construction workers on or adjacent to the road, and the accident was a reasonably foreseeable hazard within the scope of that duty.

Personal InjurySummary JudgmentDuty of CareForeseeabilityTractor-Trailer AccidentConstruction AccidentWind GustAppellate ReviewTort LawNegligence
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Balk v. Austin Ford Logan, Inc.

Decedent was killed in an automobile accident while returning from a sales call after consuming alcoholic beverages. Her husband, the claimant, filed for workers’ compensation benefits which were denied on the grounds that the accident was solely due to intoxication. The Board’s decision was supported by substantial evidence including eyewitness testimony, police investigation, and medical evidence indicating alcohol as the underlying cause and a factor in high speed. No evidence suggested wet pavement contributed to the accident. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision.

Automobile AccidentIntoxication DefenseCausationSubstantial EvidenceAppellate ReviewClaim DenialAlcohol ConsumptionSales CallDecedent BenefitsEyewitness Testimony
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Klussman v. A.T. Reynolds & Sons, Inc.

Plaintiff Michael Klussman, a tractor-trailer driver, was injured while off-loading water bottles, leading to a lawsuit against the water distributor, Leisure Time, and the building occupant, Cure Connections. The Supreme Court initially denied Leisure Time's motion for summary judgment but granted Cure Connections'. On appeal, the decision was modified, with Leisure Time's motion for summary judgment being granted and the complaint against them dismissed. The appellate court determined that Klussman's chosen method of unloading, moving a heavy load at a faster speed down an incline, was the proximate cause of his injury, rather than any defective equipment provided by Leisure Time.

summary judgmentnegligencespecial employeeproximate causeworkers' compensation lawpallet jackloading dock accidentpersonal injuryappellate reviewduty of care
References
0
Case No. ADJ11111709
Regular
Sep 19, 2018

STEVEN GONZALES vs. BARRETT BUSINESS SERVICES, INC., SERVICEMASTER ANYTIME, CORVEL CORPORATION

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied defendant's petition for reconsideration, affirming the Administrative Law Judge's (ALJ) award of temporary disability benefits exceeding the 104-week cap. The Board found sufficient evidence, including applicant's testimony, to establish a "high velocity eye injury" under Labor Code section 4656(c)(3)(F). The Board reasoned that a reasonable inference could be drawn from the applicant's description of hitting a nail that splintered, striking his eye at high velocity. Defendant's arguments regarding the applicant's inability to identify the object or its speed, and a post-trial QME report, were rejected.

High velocity eye injuryLabor Code section 4656(c)(3)(F)Temporary disability indemnity104 week capTemporarily totally disabledTemporarily partially disabledPetition for reconsiderationFindings and AwardWCJQME report
References
0
Case No. 2014-1493 W CR
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 01, 2016

People v. Oliva (Edward)

Edward P. Oliva appealed convictions for driving while ability impaired and two counts of passing a red signal. The Appellate Term, Second Department, dismissed the appeal concerning passing a red signal as abandoned due to lack of raised issues. The judgment convicting Oliva of driving while ability impaired was affirmed. The court found sufficient evidence to support the conviction, noting that Oliva consumed alcohol, exhibited signs of impairment such as glassy eyes and slurred speech, fled an accident scene at high speed, and refused a breath test. Oliva's defense, attributing his condition to fatigue and shock, was deemed meritless by the court.

Driving While Ability Impaired (DWAI)Vehicle and Traffic Law ViolationsAppellate Review of ConvictionSufficiency of EvidenceRefusal to Submit to Chemical TestConsciousness of GuiltLesser-Included OffensePolice ChaseOperating a Motor Vehicle Under InfluenceTraffic Accident
References
19
Showing 1-10 of 16 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