Articles Posted in Work Injuries

by

It is sometimes overlooked in trial practice or not given enough emphasis that the conduct of a defendant must be proved to have proximately caused the injuries or damages claimed in the pleadings. Also, expert testimony must meet the rules of scientific reliability. 

For example, Gary McCann, an engineer for more than 17 years for the defendant, Illinois Central Railroad, sued the railroad in a 4-count complaint. He claimed damages for carpal tunnel syndrome caused by the railroad’s inadequate and defective cab seats, rough track, oversized ballast and defective switches.

In this case, McCann claimed negligence under the Federal Employer’s Liability Act (FELA), 45 U.S.C. §51 et seq.; negligence per se; violations of the Locomotive Inspection Act, 49 U.S.C. §20701; and negligence for causing his carpal tunnel syndrome.

Continue reading

by

Anthony Waring was a worker for a company that owned and operated an assisted-living facility. Waring was in the process of retrieving a snow shovel from a shed on the facility’s grounds. He fell on snow and ice as he was walking down the ramp leading from the shed.

Waring was 22 years old at the time and suffered herniated disks at L3-S1 and bulging disks at C4-6. He also developed radiculopathy, which caused pain radiating from his lower back into both of his legs. 

After the injury, Waring underwent four months of physical therapy and epidural steroid injections, but he continued to suffer pain. He might in the future require the implanting of a spinal stimulator to help with his pain problem.  Since the incident, he has not returned to work.

Continue reading

by

Teodoro Ramirez was injured while working for his employer and subcontractor, Sullivan Roofing. The case was tried before a jury in Cook County against the general contractor on the project, FCL Builders. At the end of the trial, the trial judge included Sullivan Roofing on the jury verdict form for apportioning fault under Illinois Code of Civil Procedure, §2-1117. 

The jury’s verdict of $1.588 million against FCL included a finding that Ramirez was 20 percent at fault for his own injuries while FCL and Sullivan were held to be 40 percent at fault each. 

FCL appealed, arguing that Sullivan Roofing should not have been on the verdict form. 

Continue reading

by

Scott Weigle and John Moore, two mechanics, were working on a trailer from a semi-truck. Weigle and Moore had considerable experience as mechanics working at a trucking repair company.

On July 31, 2009, Weigle and Moore were about to do a job to rebuild the braking system on a semi-truck trailer.  They used an airlift to raise the rear portion of the trailer and then lowered the trailer onto two support stands.  Weigle had already begun work on the trailer when Moore came over to help.  The trailer moved as both mechanics were working underneath, causing the support stands to tip over and the trailer came crashing down on the two men.  Both Weigle and Moore suffered serious injuries.

The two support stands were designed by the company SPX.  These support stands consist of a conical base, an extension tube and a support pin. 

Continue reading

by

The Illinois Appellate Court has affirmed a partial summary judgment order for a defendant in a head-on crash and death case.  This case arose out of a collision in which the car driven by Jeffrey Pister was struck head-on by an employee of the defendant, Matrix Service Industrial Contractors.  At the time of the crash in April 2009, the Matrix driver, Brian Stultz, was nearing his destination in Champaign, Ill.  Stultz was scheduled to work there later that morning for Matrix. Stultz and Jeffrey Pister were killed in the collision.

Jeffrey’s widow, Tisha Pister, filed a third-amended complaint against Matrix and the Estate of Brian Stultz.  The Estate of Stultz was not part of the appeal.

In the lawsuit, the Pister family claimed that Matrix was liable for Jeffrey’s death under the doctrine of respondeat superior.  Pister asserted two theories:  (1) Brian was a “traveling employee” of Matrix, on which the court, before the trial granted summary judgment for Matrix, and (2) Brian was on a “special errand” for Matrix at the time of the crash. The jury returned a verdict in favor of Matrix on Pister’s “special errand” theory.

Continue reading

by

On Aug. 31, 2009, the plaintiff, Juan Zamora, filed a lawsuit alleging negligence against the defendants for injuries he suffered.  A lawsuit was filed against defendants Cheri and Paul Payne. On March 24, 2010, that lawsuit was dismissed because it was barred by the exclusivity provisions of the Illinois Workers’ Compensation Act and included an Illinois Supreme Court Rule 304(a) finding. On April 23, 2010, Zamora filed a motion to reconsider the dismissal. On June 29, 2009, the trial judge allowed the defendants leave to file a third-party complaint seeking contribution against Ricardo Montiel, Newsboy Delivery Systems,

Inc. and Unique Distribution Services, Inc.

On July 11, 2012, more than two years after the Paynes filed their third-party claim, the trial court dismissed the Payne defendants’ contribution claim. On that date, Zamora asked the trial judge to make a new Rule 304(a) finding with respect to the March 24, 2010 dismissal order. On July 24, 2012, Zamora filed a notice of appeal regarding the March 24, 2010 dismissal order and the subsequent denial of his motion to reconsider.  On May 14, 2013, the trial judge dismissed all remaining causes of action directed against the Payne defendants. On June 5, 2013, Zamora filed the notice of appeal initiating the current appeal seeking reversal of the March 24, 2010 dismissal and the March 20, 2013 denial of his motion to renew the March 2010 Rule 304(a) finding.

 Illinois Supreme Court Rule 304(a) allows for the appeal of a final judgment in a case involving multiple claims or parties where the judgment concerns “one or more but fewer than all of the parties or claims.” To allow for a judgment to be appealed under the Rule, the trial court must make a finding that “there is no just reason for delaying either enforcement or appeal or both.”  Ill.S.Ct.R. 304(a) (eff. Jan. 1, 2006).

Continue reading

by

A district court judge in Chicago granted the motion of defendant Ryobi Technologies Inc.  to exclude an expert witness as unreliable and irrelevant. Purportedly, it would have cost Ryobi $50 to $150 to install an automatic braking system on the table saw that sliced off Brandon Stollings’s index finger and portions of several other fingers in a “kickback” incident.

Under Illinois law, it is required that expert testimony is necessary to prove that a product was unreasonably dangerous.  Stollings wanted to call John Graham as his expert to testify that each saw sold without the safety device burdens society with an average of $753 in accident costs. The basis of Graham’s opinion was that the automatic braking system would have been 90 percent effective.

After this appeal was taken, the U.S. Court of Appeals reversed ruling that the district court judge’s exclusion of Graham’s testimony on reliability grounds was an abuse of discretion because it “intruded too far into the province of the jury.” Graham’s expert opinion was relevant as to whether the Ryobi saw was unreasonably dangerous. 

Continue reading

by

Paul Junod, 51, a locomotive mechanic, fell from an elevated platform while changing shock absorbers at the Illinois Central Railroad’s Woodcrest shop in Homewood, Ill.  Junod suffered multiple fractures of his left wrist with median and radial nerve damage, which required open reduction internal fixation with a plate and screws inserted. Following the June 26, 2006 incident, Junod also developed post traumatic arthritis, chronic pain and increasing impairment of the hand. He will need future surgeries for hardware removal, nerve decompression and a possible wrist fusion.

Junod contended that the railroad chose not to provide him with adequate equipment to perform his job, which included a high-torque impact gun with deep well impact sockets, forcing him to use a breaker bar and box wrench to remove nuts from the shock absorbers. This made the task more difficult and allegedly caused Junod to lose his balance and fall off the platform.

Junod also argued that the platform was not equipped with handrails and a toe-board as required.

Continue reading

by

In October 2007, John Walls suffered a work injury at I-Maxx Metalworks Inc. when “a stair stringer and/or perimeter cable protection failed.”

Walls filed suit against I-Maxx, Turner Construction, Frontier Construction and against Waukegan Steel Sales. The lawsuit alleged that Waukegan Steel negligently chose not manage, operate and maintain the work premises in a safe way, failed to inspect, failed to provide a safe workplace or provide proper fall protection.

By the contract with subcontractors, I-Maxx was solely responsible for the “means, method and safety of employees while on the job site.”

Continue reading

by

The U.S. Department of Labor’s Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) has fined Cold Drawn Inc., a St. Louis steel manufacturer, for $52,000 after finding more than two dozen safety violations.

OSHA investigated a worker’s electrocution at the St. Louis Cold Drawn plant. Cold Drawn manufactures cold-finished steel bars at plants in St. Louis, Point Pleasant, West Virginia and Opodaca, Mexico.

The Cold Drawn worker was electrocuted on May 15, 2013 when he reached into an electrical panel box to retrieve work gloves.  The gloves were stored in a box at the company’s St. Louis manufacturing facility. Of the many safety violations, 19 of them were considered serious.

Continue reading