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. W2020-00430-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 07, 2022

Julius T. Malone v. ASF Intermodal, LLC

This case concerns an appeal from a jury verdict in favor of Julius T. Malone and his wife, Margaret S. Malone, against ASF Intermodal LLC, an employer whose at-fault employee caused a motor vehicle accident. The jury awarded damages for various injuries, including loss of earning capacity, future medical expenses, permanent injury, and loss of consortium. ASF Intermodal LLC appealed, arguing the damages were contrary to law and evidence. The Court of Appeals of Tennessee affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding that material evidence supported the jury's findings regarding the causation of Mr. Malone's back, leg, and cognitive injuries, and the subsequent damages awarded. The case was remanded for further proceedings.

Motor Vehicle AccidentPersonal Injury DamagesLoss of Earning CapacityFuture Medical ExpensesPermanent InjuryLoss of ConsortiumTraumatic Brain InjurySpinal StenosisRadiculopathyDegenerative Disc Disease
References
43
Case No. 3-92-151-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 09, 1993

Southwest Airlines Co. v. Texas High-Speed Rail Authority and Texas TGV Consortium

Appellant Southwest Airlines Co. appealed the dismissal of its suit for judicial review against the Texas High-Speed Rail Authority and Texas TGV Consortium. The district court dismissed the case, citing a lack of jurisdiction and Southwest's lack of standing to challenge the Authority's decision to award a high-speed rail franchise to Texas TGV. The Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal, holding that Section 19 of the Administrative Procedure and Texas Register Act (APTRA) is a procedural provision and does not independently create a right to judicial review. Furthermore, Southwest failed to demonstrate a vested property right that would entitle it to judicial review apart from statutory authority, as its CAB certificate was insufficient and its claim against "illegal competition" was not based on a permit or regulation from the Authority. The court also found no harm in the trial court's failure to file findings of fact and conclusions of law.

Judicial ReviewJurisdictionStandingAdministrative LawHigh-Speed RailFranchiseProperty RightsDue ProcessTexasCourt of Appeals
References
23
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Southwest Airlines Co. v. Texas High-Speed Rail Authority

Southwest Airlines Company appealed the dismissal of its suit for judicial review of an order issued by the Texas High-Speed Rail Authority. The Authority had granted a franchise to Texas TGV Consortium, which Southwest sought to challenge. The district court in Travis County dismissed Southwest's petition, citing a lack of jurisdiction and standing because no statute provided for judicial review of the Authority's decisions, and Southwest lacked an inherent right to such review. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal, clarifying that the Administrative Procedure Act's provisions for judicial review are procedural and do not create jurisdiction or waive governmental immunity. Furthermore, Southwest failed to demonstrate a vested property right that would entitle it to judicial review apart from statutory authorization.

Judicial ReviewAdministrative LawGovernmental ImmunityJurisdictionStandingHigh-Speed RailFranchise LawAppellate ProcedureDue ProcessProperty Rights
References
30
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Speed v. Omega Protein, Inc.

Plaintiff Charles Speed sued Omega Protein, Inc. for personal injuries sustained while working on a vessel. Defendant filed a motion to dismiss for improper venue or to transfer venue, citing a forum-selection clause in Speed's employment contract. The Court denied the motion to dismiss but granted the motion to transfer the case from the Southern District of Texas to the Western District of Louisiana. The decision weighed factors such as the enforceability of the forum-selection clause, convenience of witnesses, location of the alleged wrong, and the plaintiff's choice of forum, concluding that the balance favored transfer.

Forum selection clauseTransfer of venueSeamen's rightsAdmiralty lawPersonal injuryEmployment contractFederal rules of civil procedureU.S. Code Title 28Judicial discretionWitness convenience
References
21
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

Ishin Speed Sport, Inc. v. Rutherford

Johnny Rutherford and Johnny Rutherford, Inc. (plaintiffs) sued Ishin Speed Sport, Inc. (defendant) for breach of contract and lost profits. The dispute arose from an agreement for Rutherford to establish and promote a racing and driving school, for which he was to receive guaranteed compensation and a commission on school revenues. Ishin ceased payments, arguing the contract terms were not fully agreed upon, particularly regarding commission calculation and the corporate entity involved. A jury found in favor of the Rutherfords, awarding them $226,388.87 in damages for lost profits. Ishin appealed the verdict, challenging the trial court's jury instructions and the legal and factual sufficiency of the evidence for both the contract's existence and the calculation of lost profits. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding that sufficient evidence supported the jury's findings on the contract and lost profits, and that no abuse of discretion occurred regarding the jury instructions.

Breach of contractLost profitsJury instructionsSufficiency of evidenceContract formationImplied contractExpert witnessRacing schoolAutomobile industryDamages
References
32
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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Loy v. North Bros. Co.

Mike Loy, a foreman for North Brothers Company, was injured in a car accident while driving to recruit a new crew member after another member quit. North Brothers appealed the trial court's judgment, arguing that Loy's injury did not arise out of and was not in the course of his employment, and that his claim was barred by willful misconduct due to speeding. The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's decision, finding that Loy's actions were within the contemplation of his employment contract as a foreman. The court also concluded that North Brothers failed to prove willful misconduct, noting that speeding alone does not necessarily constitute willful misconduct per se.

Workers' CompensationEmployment InjuryWillful MisconductScope of EmploymentImplied AuthorityAutomobile AccidentForeman DutiesEmployee RecruitmentTennessee LawAppellate Review
References
9
Case No. 2016-06-1872
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 06, 2016

Neal, James v. Connect Express

James Neal, a truck driver for Connect Express, sustained injuries in an August 2016 motor vehicle accident. His claim for workers' compensation was denied by Connect Express, which alleged a willful violation of a safety rule, specifically speeding. In an expedited hearing before Judge Joshua Davis Baker in Nashville, the Court found that Connect Express failed to provide sufficient proof that Mr. Neal was speeding or that his actions constituted willful misconduct. Consequently, the Court granted Mr. Neal's request, ordering Connect Express to provide a panel of physicians for his medical care and to pay temporary disability benefits from the date of the accident.

Workers' CompensationMotor Vehicle AccidentTruck DriverExpedited HearingTemporary Disability BenefitsMedical BenefitsSafety Rule ViolationWillful MisconductAffirmative DefenseEvidence Admissibility
References
7
Showing 1-10 of 42 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