ADJ15834374 — California WCAB decision

What the panel ordered

Petition for reconsideration denied.

What was disputed, and how it came out

Each issue the panel decided, with the reasoning it gave. An outcome is what this panel did on this record — not a rule, and not a prediction.

AOE/COEApplicant prevailed

The WCJ found substantial evidence that applicant was jointly employed by both Sunview Logistics, Inc. and Speed Intermodal, both owned by Manpreet the applicant, with joint control and mutual benefit, leading to joint and several liability. The Appeals Board affirmed this finding, rejecting the petition for reconsideration.

From the decision · page 8Based on testimony provided by the parties and exhibits offered into evidence this WCJ issued a factual determination that the applicant was jointly employed by both Sunview Logistics Inc. and Manpreet the applicant/dba Speed Intermodal, and with both employers being jointly and severally liable.

The facts that decided it

What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.

applicant was employed by both Sunview Logistics, Inc. and Speed Intermodal, jointly owned and controlled by Manpreet the applicant.

Favours Applicant prevailed

What proof carried it

The evidence the panel weighed, by kind.

Testimony and credibilityfavours Applicant prevailed

Testimony and documentary evidence showed joint enterprise and dual control by Sunview Logistics and Speed Intermodal, both owned by Manpreet the applicant.

From the decision · page 3(or venture) between the two companies that defendant Manpreet the applicant wholly owned, and which he testified he managed hands-on. (Report, pp. 4-5; Opinion on Decision, pp. 3-5; see Minutes of Hearing and Summary of Evidence (MOH), May 8, 2024, pp. 7-11, 13, 17-19, 33-35; MOH, November 18, 2024, pp. 3-4.) Speed Intermodal bought the trucks with its superior relationship with the banks and carried out all safety and regulatory compliance for their drivers required by the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration; Sunview administered the payroll for their drivers and contracted with customers for the shared business undertaking of door to door delivery of goods. (Ibid.) Manpreet the applicant owned both companies, and therefore no evidence of an agreement between several owners should be necessary. In addition, we note that while Speed Intermodal contends on reconsideration that there is no joint enterprise, defendant Sunview did not seek reconsideration of the WCJ's findings.

Documentary evidencefavours Applicant prevailed

Documents including employment applications, safety records, and payroll checks referenced both Speed Intermodal and Sunview Logistics as employers, supporting dual employment.

From the decision · page 91) Safety Performance History Records Request referencing "My Prospective Employer" as Speed Intermodal and electronically signed by applicant 10/9/2021 (page 00002); 2) Section 4 of document "to be completed by Prospective Employer Speed Intermodal" 7/31/2021 (page 00003); 3) Driver Employment Application 7/31/2021 captioned Speed Internodal (page 00004); 4) 7/31/2021 authorization for Speed Intermodal to investigate personal, financial and medical history electronically signed by applicant on 7/31/2021 (page 00007); 5) Alcohol and Controlled Substance Consent Release referencing Speed Intermodal policy regarding rule violation and potential hiring, and electronically signed by applicant on 7/31/2021 (page 00008); 6) Safety Performance History Record Request listing prospective employer Speed Intermodal, and executed electronically 7/31/2021 (page 000010);

ADJ15834374 · April 14, 2025

What the panel ordered

What was disputed, and how it came out

The facts that decided it

Your case already resembles someone else’s. Find whose.

The rules the panel named

What proof carried it

About this page