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. 2020 NY Slip Op 06470 [188 AD3d 506]
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 12, 2020

Singh v. Manhattan Ford Lincoln, Inc.

Plaintiff Balwinder Singh appealed an order denying his motion for summary judgment on Labor Law § 241 (6) claims and granting defendants' motions to dismiss various claims. The Appellate Division, First Department, modified the Supreme Court's order. The court reinstated Singh's Labor Law § 241 (6) claim (predicated on Industrial Code § 23-1.7 (e)(2)) and his common-law negligence and Labor Law § 200 claims against Manhattan Ford Lincoln, Inc. However, it dismissed the Labor Law § 241 (6) claim (predicated on Industrial Code § 23-1.7 (e)(1)) against Benny & Son Construction Corp. The decision noted triable issues of fact regarding whether the debris causing the slip was integral to Singh's work and MFL's constructive notice of the debris. Industrial Code § 23-1.7 (e)(1) was found inapplicable due to the accident's location in an open area, not a passageway.

Summary JudgmentLabor LawIndustrial CodeWorkplace SafetyConstruction AccidentSlip and FallDebris AccumulationConstructive NoticeAppellate DivisionLiability
References
6
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 07015 [211 AD3d 496]
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 08, 2022

Singh v. New York City Hous. Auth.

Plaintiff Nishan Singh appealed the denial of his motion for summary judgment on Labor Law §§ 240 (1) and 241 (6) claims. Singh testified he was injured when an unsecured ladder he was ascending slipped, causing him to fall. However, his foreman, who he claimed witnessed the accident, denied Singh's account. The motion court found triable issues of fact, precluding summary judgment. The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed the denial, ruling that the conflicting testimonies raised factual questions regarding the accident's occurrence and the defendants' liability, and that plaintiff's argument concerning collateral estoppel by the Workers' Compensation Board was not properly raised on appeal.

Labor LawSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewLadder AccidentTriable Issues of FactConflicting EvidenceCollateral EstoppelWorkers' Compensation BoardIndustrial CodeConstruction Accident
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Melchor v. Singh

The plaintiff, injured in a ladder fall while performing brickwork, sought summary judgment against general contractor Ricky & Bros. Construction, Inc. and property owner Sukhjinder Singh for violations of Labor Law §§ 240(1) and 241(6). The Supreme Court initially denied the motion, citing factual disputes regarding the fall. However, the appellate court reversed, granting summary judgment to the plaintiff. It found that the defective and unsecured ladder, coupled with the absence of adequate safety equipment, established prima facie violations of the Labor Law and relevant Industrial Code sections. The court concluded that the defendants failed to present a triable issue of fact to counter this showing.

Ladder fallConstruction accidentLabor Law 240(1)Labor Law 241(6)Summary judgmentAppellate reviewIndustrial Code violationsDefective equipmentUnsecured ladderProximate cause
References
33
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 02146 [203 AD3d 1194]
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 30, 2022

Singh v. 180 Varick, LLC

Hemraj Singh, an independent contractor, was injured while descending a ladder during HVAC work on a property managed by 180 Varick, LLC and tenanted by Ostra Capital Management, LLC. He subsequently filed an action alleging violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240 (1), and 241 (6). The Supreme Court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment, dismissing these claims. The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed this decision, concluding that the defendants lacked supervisory authority, the ladder was not defective, and the plaintiff's own actions were the sole proximate cause of the accident. The court also found that the Industrial Code provisions cited by the plaintiff were inapplicable to the circumstances of the fall.

Personal InjuryIndependent ContractorHVAC WorkLadder FallSummary JudgmentLabor Law § 200Labor Law § 240(1)Labor Law § 241(6)Industrial Code ViolationsSole Proximate Cause
References
20
Case No. CV-22-2011
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 15, 2024

In the Matter of the Claim of Sukhwinder Singh

Claimant Sukhwinder Singh was injured while working for Atlas NY Construction Corporation. National Liability & Fire Insurance Company (NLF) denied liability, asserting it had canceled its workers' compensation policy for nonpayment of premiums prior to the accident. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) initially found NLF's cancellation effective, placing liability on the general contractor. However, the Workers' Compensation Board modified this, ruling NLF failed to prove proper cancellation and was the liable carrier. NLF appealed this decision. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, emphasizing the requirement for strict compliance with Workers' Compensation Law § 54 (5) regarding policy cancellation notice and deferring to the Board's credibility determinations.

Policy CancellationInsurance LiabilityNonpayment of PremiumsStrict ComplianceNotice RequirementsCertified MailReturn Receipt RequestedBurden of ProofCredibility DeterminationsAppellate Review
References
9
Case No. ADJ16790828
Regular
Nov 10, 2025

Surinder Singh vs. S Line Transportation, Ajaib Singh Kahlon, Uninsured Employers Benefit Trust Fund

This case concerns Surinder Singh's petition for reconsideration regarding a WCJ's finding that he was not an employee of S Line Transportation. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted the petition, rescinded the WCJ's July 15, 2025 decision, and remanded the matter for further proceedings. The Board found the record to be inadequate and inconsistent, citing issues with unauthenticated evidence, unclarified bank statements indicating payments for "yard security guard" services, and the late joinder of Ajaib Singh Kahlon as a defendant. Emphasizing due process, the Board instructed that the record be further developed and the employment status be re-evaluated using the "ABC test" as codified in Labor Code section 2775.

Employment statusIndependent contractorSecurity guardPort of OaklandYard operationsAsylum claimLoan repaymentSubstantial evidenceAdmitted evidenceDeveloping the record
References
26
Case No. ADJ8496155
Regular
May 16, 2016

EALWINDER MANN (Deceased) MOHINDER MANN (Widow) vs. DARBARA SINGH, DARBARA SINGH Dba D&G TRANSPORT

This case concerns a deceased truck driver, Balwinder Mann, whose widow, Mohinder Mann, is claiming workers' compensation benefits. The defendant, Darbara Singh, dba D&G Transport, appealed a decision finding Mann was an employee and that the statute of limitations did not bar the claim. The defendant argued Mann was an independent contractor due to an agreement and lack of control, and that the claim was time-barred. The Appeals Board denied reconsideration, affirming the WCJ's findings that Singh retained sufficient control to establish an employer-employee relationship, and that the defendant's failure to provide a claim form tolled the statute of limitations.

AOE/COEIndependent Contractor AgreementEmployee statusStatute of limitationsRight to controlLabor Code Section 3351Labor Code Section 3357Labor Code Section 3353Borello factorsTruck driver
References
10
Case No. W2022-00239-COA-R3-JV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 09, 2024

State of Tennessee, ex rel., Alicia Janelle Collins v. Vikramjeet Sethi Singh

The State of Tennessee sought child support for a minor child from Vikramjeet Sethi Singh. The Juvenile Court for Shelby County, finding no reliable evidence of Father’s income, imputed the statutory median gross income. Father appealed, challenging the child support amount and the reliability finding. The Court of Appeals determined that the trial court erred by not adequately assessing Father's income potential separately from his actual income's reliability. Consequently, the appellate court vacated the child support award and remanded the case for further proceedings, emphasizing a proper analysis of Father's income potential or willful underemployment based on specific statutory criteria.

Child Support DisputeIncome Imputation ErrorWillful Underemployment AnalysisParental Earning CapacityAppellate Court DecisionJuvenile Court AppealTennessee Child Support GuidelinesWitness CredibilityFinancial Evidence ReliabilityRetroactive Child Support
References
37
Case No. 2024 NY Slip Op 00832 [224 AD3d 1052]
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 15, 2024

Matter of Singh v. Atlas NY Constr. Corp.

Sukhwinder Singh, a claimant, was injured while working for Atlas NY Construction Corporation, a subcontractor on a construction project. National Liability & Fire Insurance Company (NLF) denied liability for the claim, asserting it had canceled its workers' compensation policy for nonpayment of premiums prior to the accident. Initially, a Workers' Compensation Law Judge ruled in favor of NLF, placing liability on the general contractor. However, the Workers' Compensation Board modified this decision, concluding there was insufficient evidence of proper policy cancellation by NLF. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decision, reiterating that carriers must strictly comply with Workers' Compensation Law § 54 (5) for policy cancellation and that the Board's credibility determinations, when supported by substantial evidence, are not to be disturbed. The court found NLF failed to meet its burden of establishing proper cancellation.

Workers' Compensation Policy CancellationInsurance Coverage DisputeNotice RequirementsStrict ComplianceNonpayment of PremiumsWorkers' Compensation Board DecisionAppellate ReviewCredibility DeterminationsSubstantial EvidenceBurden of Proof
References
9
Showing 1-10 of 52 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