Articles Posted in Work Injury

by

Manufacturers have an obligation to make their products safe for regular use. However, how far does this obligation extend? Are manufacturers required to make it overly difficult for consumers to modify their products? A recent Illinois Appellate Court decision examines to what extent manufacturers are liable for after-market modifications made to their products; Geronimo Perez v. Sunbelt Rentals, Inc., et al., Nos. 2-11-0382, 2-11-0486 cons (April 9, 2012).

In January 2008, Geronimo Perez was injured while using a scissor lift machine manufactured by JLG Industries. In his product liability lawsuit, Perez claimed that his injury could have been prevented if there had been a guardrail on the scissor lift machine. What is interesting about Perez is that JLG Industries had installed a guardrail when it designed its scissor lift; however, someone had removed the guardrail after the scissor lift machine left JLG’s factory.

So while JLG Industries had designed its scissor lift machine so that falls like Perez’s would be prevented, someone unconnected to the company had removed that safety feature. Yet Perez alleged that JLG was liable because it should have foreseen that someone would remove that guardrail, thereby causing his subsequent fall. JLG countered that it was not responsible for modifications others made to its product and that its scissor lift machine’s design was not defective.

Continue reading

by

While a personal injury claim is subject to a jury’s decision, Illinois workers’ compensation claims are decided by the Illinois Workers’ Compensation Commission. Rather than undergoing a jury trial, workers’ compensation cases undergo an arbitration process in which both parties present their case to the arbitrator, who then determines an appropriate award. And because the Illinois workers’ compensation damages are clearly laid out in the Illinois Workers’ Compensation Act, there are generally few surprises when it comes to workers’ compensation cases.

However, disputes can arise when a company does not honor the terms set out in the arbitration agreement. The Illinois Appellate Court recently reviewed an Illinois workers’ compensation lawsuit involving a dispute over payment of attorney fees and costs. In Patel v. Home Depot USA, Inc., 2012 IL App. (1st) 103217, the plaintiff brought a claim against its employer after it stopped paying his workers’ compensation benefits. A Circuit Court judge had entered a decision in favor of the plaintiff and ordered the defendant company to pay the plaintiff’s attorney fees, costs, and interests.

On two separate occasions, the plaintiff Naresh Patel was injured while working at the Home Depot. As a result of these injuries, Home Depot was paying temporary total disability (TTD) to Patel. However, at least twice Home Depot suddenly stopped those payments to Patel without providing any written notice or warning. And while Patel was able to reinstate the TTD payments, doing so required him to hire an attorney and an arbitrator.

Continue reading

by

An Illinois District judge denied the U.S. government’s motion for summary judgment on the basis that the government had failed to establish that the plaintiff’s claim was not valid in James D. Fowler v. The United States of America, 08-CV-2785. The U.S. government had attempted to prove that the plaintiff was barred from receiving compensation from the post office because he had already received workers’ compensation directly from his employer. However, the district court disagreed with the U.S.’s classification of the plaintiff as a “borrowed employee,” thereby denying its motion for summary judgment.

The claims in Fowler arose out of an injury that James Fowler sustained at a while delivering mail to a Libertyville Post Office. Fowler was an employee of Eagle Express, a company which regularly contracted with the U.S. Postal Service to move mail between its various facilities. Under these “highway contract routes” (HCR) agreements, Eagle Express was responsible for covering all of the costs and duties associated with delivering mail on its required routes, including the payment and insuring of Eagle Express employees.

So even though Fowler was injured at the Libertyville Post Office while engaged in work for the U.S. Postal Service, his workers’ compensation claim was covered by Eagle Express. However, he sought to recovery additional damages from the U.S. Post Office based on the negligence of its employees in causing his injury based on the Federal Tort Claims Act. The FTCA allows parties to sue the U.S. for personal injury “caused by the negligent or wrongful act or omission” of any federal government employee “while acting within the scope of his office or employment, under circumstances where the United States, if a private person, would be liable to the claimant in accordance with the law of the place where the act or omission occurred.” 28 U.S.C. § 1346(b)(1).

However, the U.S. argued that it was not liable for Fowler’s injuries because he was a borrowed employee. Because the Illinois Workers’ Compensation Act is an exclusive remedy, an employee’s employer and any borrowing employer are immune from tort liability arising from an injury. Jorden v. U.S., Dist. Court, ND Illinois 2011. U.S. argued that just as Fowler was barred from pursuing a lawsuit against Eagle Express because he had already recovered workers’ compensation, so was Fowler barred from suing the U.S. Post Services based on his status as a borrowed employee.

Continue reading

by

It is commonly acknowledged that employers have a duty to provide a safe, healthy environment to their employees. If an employer fails to provide a safe environment, perhaps resulting in a work injury, then that employer may be held liable for the employee’s injuries. However, a new Illinois Supreme Court decision extends an employer’s duty beyond just to its employee, but to the employee’s family as well.

The Illinois case of Cynthia Simpkins v. CSX Transportation,110662 (March 22, 2012), was filed after the wife of a CSX Transportation employee developed mesothelioma; the wife alleged that her mesothelioma was caused by exposure to asbestos on her husband’s work clothes. The trial court dismissed the case on the basis that CSX owed no responsibility to its employee’s wife because there was no direct relationship between her and CSX. However, both the Illinois Appellate Court and the Illinois Supreme Court reversed that ruling, although for different reasons.

The Illinois Appellate Court decision held that not only does an employer have a responsibility to its employee’s family members, but that the plaintiff had shown sufficient evidence to support its claims against CSX. Specifically, the court found that “it takes little imagination to presume that when an employee who is exposed to asbestos brings home his work clothes, members of his family are likely to be exposed as well.” Therefore, the appellate court found that Simpkins had provided evidence to suggest that CSX was negligent and did not fulfill its duty to her. And while the Illinois Supreme Court agreed that in theory an employer does have a duty to its employees’ family members, it did not agree that Simpkins had provided enough evidence to prove that CSX did in fact have a duty towards her.

Continue reading

by

An Illinois employee who was involved in a car accident during the course of his employment sought to recoup payments from both his employer’s workers’ compensation policy and its car insurance policy. When the insurance company denied his claims, the employee filed a lawsuit in order to recoup those costs. And while the Illinois Appellate Court allowed some of the plaintiff’s claims, it denied others in Burcham v. West Bend Mutual Insurance Co., 2011 IL App (2d) 101035.

In 2007, the plaintiff, Curtis Burcham, was driving a truck for his employer, P&M Mercury Mechanical Corporation (P&M), when he was struck by an uninsured motorist. Burcham sustained multiple injuries from the truck accident and had to undergo several surgeries. Because the accident occurred while Burcham was working, his employer, P&M, paid for his medical expenses and lost wages out of its workers’ compensation policy. To date, P&M has paid $490,000 for medical expenses, more than $100,000 for temporary-total incapacity, and continues to pay $925 per week based on Burcham’s 2/3 weekly wage.

P&M also had an uninsured and underinsured motorist policy through West Bend Mutual Insurance Company. Since the other driver involved in Burcham’s truck accident was not insured, he sought to receive additional payments from West Bend under P&M’s truck insurance policy. However, West Bend denied the claim, citing a provision in its policy that it “will not pay for any element of loss if a person is entitled to receive payment for the same element of loss under any worker’s compensation, disability benefits or similar law.” West Bend’s position was that since Burcham was already receiving workers’ compensation payments for the truck accident that he was not entitled to any money from West Bend’s uninsured motorist policy.

Continue reading

by

The Illinois Appellate Court affirmed a circuit court’s ruling regarding the venue in a railroad employee’s personal injury lawsuit. While the railroad company had wanted to transfer the case to Mississippi, the Illinois courts supported the plaintiff’s choice of Illinois as the case’s venue. Fennell v. Illinois Central Railroad Company, 2012 WL 19455 (Ill.App.2012).

The plaintiff, Walter Fennell, had been working for Illinois Central Railroad Company for over 35 years. In 2009, Fennell filed a Federal Employers Liability Act (FELA) lawsuit against Illinois Central Railroad. The FELA lawsuit alleged that Fennell was exposed to asbestos, diesel exhaust, environmental tobacco smoke, sand, and toxic fumes, dust, and gases during the tenure of his employment, which in turn resulted in Fennell’s current respiratory problems. Fennell was seeking compensation for the health problems he allegedly developed during the course of his employment with Illinois Central.

Shortly after Fennell was filed, Illinois Central sought to have the case dismissed under the doctrine of interstate forum non conveniens, which is a legal doctrine that allows a court to deny its jurisdiction if it finds that a different forum would be more convenient and more equitable. The defendant railroad argued that Mississippi would be a more convenient and fair location on the grounds that Fennell himself lived in Mississippi, that Fennell had worked in Mississippi for the majority of his career, and because the alleged injury likely occurred in Mississippi. However, the trial court denied the defendant’s motion and affirmed Illinois’s jurisdiction in the case; the defendants appealed this decision.

Continue reading

by

Compared to many jobs, construction work is a dangerous field. For most office workers, their job’s safety policies involve emergency situations, like a fire. However, for construction workers, safety policies and procedures are a part of their every day tasks. These safety policies and procedures are helps many construction site injuries and are essential to decreasing the number of injured construction workers.

Therefore, when these policies and procedures are not in place, the likelihood of a construction site injury increases. In the New York case of Carmona v. Dormitory Authority of New York, No. 303798/08 (N.Y., Bronx Co. June 10, 2011), a construction worker filed a personal injury lawsuit alleging that his work injury was caused by a lack of safety procedures.

Forty-one year-old Raymond Carmona was working as an ironworker at the time of his injury. Carmona was in the process of removing an old steel awning from a New York building owned by the Dormitory Authority of New York when he struck his head on a duct. Carmona lost his balance and fell 25 feet to the ground below. As a result of the fall, Carmona fractured his coccyx and sacrum and severely injured his lower back. His injuries eventually required a fusion surgery to his lower back, severely limiting his future mobility.

Continue reading

by

An Illinois construction worker’s lawsuit was dismissed after the trial judge found that the plaintiff had failed to show sufficient evidence to support his claim against the one of the construction job subcontractors. While the plaintiff attempted to overturn this ruling in his appeal, the Illinois Appellate Court agreed with the trial court, thereby dismissing the plaintiff’s Illinois construction injury claims against the ironwork subcontractor. Oshana v. FCL Builders.pdf.

The personal injury claim was based on an injury that occurred at the Willow Inn construction site. Plaintiff Anwar Oshana was working as an ironworker for JAK Ironworks when he fell from a steel beam. Oshana filed a personal injury claim against Suburban Ironworks, the site’s ironwork subcontractor that was responsible for fabricating and delivering the project’s structural steel. Oshana claimed that Suburban Ironworks was responsible for ensuring that the steel was erected in a safe manner.

However, Suburban Ironworks argued that it was not responsible for JAK Ironworks’s employees safety. Suburban Ironworks pointed out that it did not have an ongoing presence at the job site and therefore was not responsible for overseeing the safety of the various employees involved in erecting its steel structures. Under this theory, Suburban Ironworks moved to dismiss the case on the basis that Oshana had not presented sufficient evidence to show that Suburban had control of the construction site. The trial judge agreed and dismissed Oshana’s claim against Suburban Ironworks, a decision that Oshana then appealed.

Continue reading

by

A Chicago jury awarded a train engineer damages for an injury he sustained while operating a Metra train; Clarence Hatchett v. Metra, 09 L 5185. The award came after a Cook County injury trial in which the railroad attempted to prove the train engineer was at fault for his own injury, a theory that the jury seemed to agree with – it apportioned 70% of the train accident to the engineer.

The train injury took place in January 2009, while the plaintiff, Clarence Hatchett, was employed by Metra Rail. Hatchett was about to depart from Chicago’s Union Station on Metra’s Milwaukee District North Central Line when he did what many driver’s do before departing- he tried to adjust his engineer’s seat.

At the Cook County trial Hatchett explained that he determines his seat back position based on his ability to easily reach the automatic break. However, Hatchett was unable to reach his ideal seat position because the seat back was stuck in a forward position, leaving him roughly six inches further forward than he would have liked. However, Hatchett made no further attempts to adjust the stuck train seat and departed from Union Station.

As Hatchett’s train approached the line’s track crossovers located near Franklin Park, he needed to reach back to apply the automatic break. As he did so, Hatchett heard a loud pop and felt immediate pain in his left shoulder. A later diagnosis revealed that Hatchett had sustained from a torn tendon in his left rotator cuff, for which he would require a total shoulder replacement.

Despite the prior existence of Grade III and Grade IV shoulder injuries, Hatchett attributed the rotator cuff tear to the pop he heard while reaching for the automatic break. He brought a FELA lawsuit against his employer, Metra, for the medical bills related to the injury, his lost time from work, and general pain and suffering.

Continue reading

by

While most lawsuits are tried in the same state where they occurred, an Indiana construction accident was recently the subject of an Illinois personal injury lawsuit. The Indiana injury was tried in Illinois because one of the defendant’s businesses was based out of Illinois. However, to make John Mazzorana v. Berglund Construction Co., et al., No. 06 L 12451, even more unique, although the case was tried in Illinois, the court applied Indiana law.

The personal injury lawsuit was brought by John Mazzorana, an Indiana resident who was working as a bricklayer for Hawk Construction at construction site in Chesterton, Indiana. The 2006 Indiana construction accident occurred after Mazzorana fell 30 feet after stepping on a plank. The Indiana resident ruptured his Achilles tendon and fractured both his heel and a vertebrae.

Berglund Construction Co. was the general contractor for the Indiana construction job and as such was one of the main defendants in the construction accident lawsuit. Bergland Construction was based out of Illinois and so moved to remove the Indiana lawsuit to Illinois courts, a move Mazzorana’s attorneys agreed to. However, Berglund then settled its portion of the lawsuit with Mazzorana for $400,000 prior to the start of the Illinois trial. Therefore, the only remaining parties in the Illinois lawsuit were all based out of Indiana.

Continue reading