Articles Posted in Work Injury

by

A Chicago jury awarded $850,000 to a Chicago construction employee who suffered severe injuries after falling from his work on elevated train tracks. The personal injury verdict in Raul Luna et al. v. Chicago Transit Authority, Kiewit Western Co., Divane Brothers Electric Co., et al., No. 07 L 12550, came despite evidence that suggested the employee was injured because he violated some of the construction site’s safety requirements.

Raul Luna was an industrial painter employed by SCI Coatings, LLC. At the time of his construction site accident, Luna was working on Chicago Transit Authority’s (CTA) elevated railroad tracks as part of the CTA’s Chicago Loop renovation project. Luna was brought in to help sandblast and paint columns on the Van Buren St. train tracks between State St. and Wabash Ave. Because the train tracks were elevated, workers were using a manlift to reach the above ground areas. This essentially involved workers securing themselves using a harness-like device in order to prevent them from falling in the event that they slipped while working above ground.

In addition to his painting duties, Luna was also responsible of removing the construction site’s containment structure, which was constructed of tarps and wood two-by-fours. In order to reach the top of containment structure, Luna used the manlift as required by the job’s safety requirements. Luna proceeded to remove the nails from the two-by-fours in order to break down the containment structure. However, at some point Luna untied himself from the manlift, exited its basket area, and began to crawl across the elevated tracks.

It was while crawly unprotected across the tracks that Luna fell; one of the two-by-fours broke as Luna was removing a nail, sending him falling to the street below. Luna sustained an epidural hematoma, a comminuted displaced wrist fracture, and a comminuted fibula fracture. The fibula fracture required an internal fixation surgery so that Luna’s bones would heal properly. In addition, Luna suffered from a traumatic brain injury, which left him with cognitive, psychological, and behavioral deficits following his construction site injury.

Continue reading

by

Three Cook County construction workers secured a $5.4 million settlement from Walsh Construction Company in a Will County personal injury lawsuit. The settlement during the middle of the Cook County trial regarding the 2006 construction site accident.

In 2006, the three plaintiffs were working on a construction of a bridge that would extend Interstate 355 over the Des Plaines River. The bridge project was intended to have three lanes of traffic in each direction and rise to over 100 feet above the ground. The project was overseen by Walsh Construction Company, who in turn hired various subcontractors to handle different components of the construction project.

The three plaintiffs were employed as ironworkers by one of the subcontractors hired by Walsh Construction and were working on the bridge’s foundations at the time of the construction site accident. The plaintiffs became injured after a steel rebar cage collapsed. The rebar cage is meant to provide structure to the bridge and hold the concrete in place. The structure is typically composed of reinforced steel, with the cages generally being constructed off site.

As a result of the Cook County construction accident, one of the plaintiffs sustained two herniated discs in his back and broke his ankle. Another tore his rotator cuff and also suffered aggravation of a prior anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) tear. And the last faired the best of the three injured workers, sustaining only a contusion, or bruise, to his elbow.

Continue reading

by

A Chicago jury entered a $3 million jury verdict against a forklift manufacturer in an Illinois product liability lawsuit. The Chicago lawsuit arose out of a work injury involving 35 year-old Keith Price and a forklift designed and manufactured by Nacco Materials Handling Group, Inc. As a result of the Chicago work injury, Price was left with an amputated right leg and was unable to work for over five years. Keith Price v. Nacco Materials Handling Group, Inc., Voss Equipment, Inc., 06 L 12915.

The work injury occurred in February 2005 at a Chicago plant of ICI Uniqema, where Price was employed as a forklift operator. On the date of the work injury, Price was using a forklift to load a bag of spent nickel into a nearby hopper. However, as Price attempted to the bag into the hopper, it became caught on another bag. Price then needed to use a chain to readjust the position of the spent nickel bag. These chains were still attached when Price lifted the forks above the bag, at which point the forklift tipped over onto its side.

While Price was wearing a seatbelt at the time of the forklift accident, the seat itself was not properly attached to the forklift. As a result, the seat Price was sitting on rolled forward as the forklift moved. Price’s legs did not remain inside the vehicle and were crushed underneath the forklift. The weight of the large machine caused severe crushing injuries to his right leg, necessitating a below the knee amputation. In addition, Price sustained facial fractures to his jaw and lost four of his teeth.

Continue reading

by

In the Cook County personal injury case of Wayne C. Bland and Suzanne Bland v. Citgo Petroleum Corp., 07 L 1633, a company takes responsibility for the negligence of one of its employees. The worker at the Citgo Petroleum Corp.’s Lemont plant left a piping system valve open, thereby releasing hydrofluoric gas into the surrounding areas. The cloud of noxious gases left another man hospitalized and led to the filing of this work injury lawsuit.

The 41 year-old plaintiff, Wayne Bland, was working as a crane operator for Imperial Crane at the time of his work injury. After breathing in the dangerous gas, Bland required a six day hospitalization due to the respiratory damage caused by the toxic gas. Bland was diagnosed with acute respiratory tract damage, which presented as a general chest tightness and a persistent cough. While Bland’s symptoms lasted for several months, his medical providers were unable to find any significant respiratory problems.

Because Bland was not employed by Citgo, it would not be responsible for paying any workers’ compensation he received as a result of his work injury. However, its employee was the cause of Bland’s accident, so by association Citgo was also at fault for Bland’s injury. Therefore, Bland brought a lawsuit against Citgo which accused the petroleum company of being responsible for its employee’s negligence in leaving the pipe valve open and for causing Bland’s subsequent injuries.

Continue reading

by

A Central Illinois product liability lawsuit springing from a construction site injury returned the highest verdict in Tazewell County history. The Illinois jury awarded $13.5 million to the twenty-some year-old plaintiff who suffered a traumatic leg amputation; Justin Stone v. MiTek Industries and Central Illinois Truss, Inc., 10th Judicial Circuit, Tazewell County, Illinois (2011).

At the time of his work injury, 19 year-old Dustin Stone was working on a machine building roof trusses, or roof rafters, which are the triangle supports used to build roofs in homes. The roof truss machine consisted of several different work tables spread out over the length of the 100 ft. long machine. Stone was adding support to the wood trusses by hammering metal plates into the various truss joints.

Stone was standing between two opposite-facing machine tables when another truss operator drove a crane gantry toward the area where Stone was working. Protocol requires the gantry operator to first make sure the aisles are clear of workers; however, this was obviously not done on the date of Stone’s construction site injury. The gantry pinned Stone against a metal rail, crushing his left femur so severely that he required an above the knee amputation of his left leg.

Continue reading

by

A construction job site can be a confusing place. Not only is there the obvious confusion created by the construction itself, but the different levels of workers and managers further complicates matters. The tangled web of responsibility and liability on construction job sites becomes evident in the wake of a construction site injury, as lawyers sit down and try to determine whose to blame.

Consider the Illinois personal injury case of Piotr Mieszkowski v. Patel Builders Inc., Divyadeep Patel v. Illinois Brick Layers Inc., 08 L 4113. Piotr Mieszkowski was working as a brick layer at a job in South Barrington, a northwest suburb of Chicago. While at the construction site, the twenty-nine year-old Mieszkowski was being supervised by his boss from Illinois Brick Layers, Inc. Mieszkowski spent the majority of the morning working on building large stone columns and railings at the Barrington residence.

However, problems arose when Mieszkowski’s boss left the construction site. While his direct supervisor was away, the construction job’s general contractor asked Mieszkowski and his co-worker to help empty a large storage container. It was while performing this task, which had nothing to do with his actual job at the construction site, that Mieszkowski became injured. A large, heavy box fell on his ankle as he was emptying the storage container. Mieszkowski suffered a severe ankle fracture and needed to undergo an open reduction internal fixation (ORIF) surgery during which pins and rods were placed in his ankle to fix the fractured bone in place.

Continue reading

by

Summertime in Chicago is synonymous with construction – every Chicago resident is familiar with the site of orange cones, torn up pavement, and workers flagging cars through the construction zone. And while construction season means longer commutes for Chicagoans and increased traffic delays, it also means risker job conditions for many construction workers and more construction site injuries. The Chicago personal injury lawsuit of Donald Martinelli and Annette Martinelli v. City of Chicago, 06 L 11846, is an example of the dangers of construction work.

In 2002, 52 year-old Donald Martinelli and his co-worker were marking the location of underground telephone cables at a street construction project. While Martinelli and his coworker were SBC Communications employees, the construction site was run and managed by the City of Chicago. Martinelli was marking the cables’ locations at the City’s request.

At the same time this was happening, Oscar Soto was driving his car through the road construction site. When Soto realized the City of Chicago’s construction equipment was blocking his lane of traffic, he made a decision to veer into the oncoming lane of traffic. However, Soto was eventually forced back into his lane by an oncoming vehicle, causing him to run into one of the SBC vans parked on the side of the road.

At the time of the Chicago car accident, Martinelli had finished marking the cable lines and was standing at the back of his SBC van. Martinelli became pinned against the back of his van and suffered a traumatic amputation of his left leg. The above the knee amputation required future medical expenses and resulted in lost wages due to Martinelli’s inability to perform the same type of job duties. Martinelli brought a personal injury claim against Soto and the City of Chicago for the loss of his leg and livelihood, while his wife brought a loss of consortium claim against both parties for the loss of companionship and household assistance.

Continue reading

by

Construction negligence lawsuits can be somewhat confusing insofar as there are typically several entities involved: the general contractor, the project manager, subcontractor, etc. Oftentimes when plaintiffs file a lawsuit following a construction site injury, there is a lot of finger pointing by the defense, so it is crucial that the plaintiff’s attorneys have a clear understanding of who each party is and what their role was on the construction job.

In the construction negligence case of The Estate of John Maggi, etc. v. RAS Development, Inc., No. 1-09-1955, the defendant tried to get the $3.2 million verdict overturned by claiming that the plaintiff had sued the wrong entity. In Maggi, the plaintiff’s attorney filed a lawsuit against the construction site’s general contractor. In its initial complaint the plaintiff identified the general contractor as RAS Wolfram.

The Chicago construction negligence complaint alleged that as the general contractor, that RAS Wolfram was negligent for its failure to provide a safe workplace and inadequately supervising the work of its subcontractors. The decedent, John Maggi, died after falling three stories through an unprotected window. The fall was prompted after the bundle of bricks Maggi was carrying broke apart, causing him to lose his balance and fall through the open window.

Continue reading

by

A Macon County jury entered one of the highest verdicts in its county’s history when it awarded $3.09 million to an Illinois worker who sustained a brain injury at work. The Illinois personal injury verdict was entered against Tate & Lyle Ingredients Americas, Inc. for its failure to maintain a safe work environment in William C. Jones v. Tate & Lyle Ingredients Americas, Inc., 07 L 152 (Macon County).

At the time of the workplace injury, William Jones was working as a contract employee for Tate & Lyle at its Decatur corn processing plant. Jones had been hired to perform general maintenance work and was performing his duties in the vicinity of an above ground storage tank when the tank unexpectedly broke apart. Its contents burst out towards Jones, knocking him down.

The storage tank contained 300,000 gallons of corn gluten that was heated to 115 degrees Fahrenheit, which caused burn injuries to parts of Jones’s body. In addition, the force of the fall resulted in a closed head injury, which was eventually diagnosed as a brain injury. The plaintiff contended that this brain injury caused Jones to suffer not only from short-term memory loss, but also from a perceivable personality change.

Continue reading

by

Certain jobs carry a degree of risk. For example, while an office worker would not typically be in danger of falling from a scaffold, this is a reality for many construction workers. As a result, these higher risk jobs often have various safety standards and procedures in place to try and minimize the risk for workers. Yet these safety rules are not always followed, which opens manufacturers and construction companies up to liability for workers’ injuries.

The Cook County wrongful death lawsuit of Jensen v. Earle M. Jorgensen Co., et al., No. 09 L 2754, involved the death of a worker killed during an industrial accident. The Illinois lawsuit alleged that various entities were involved in maintaining an unsafe environment which resulted in the circumstances that led to Jensen’s death.

Twenty-eight year-old Brian Jensen was working as a service technician for Katso, Inc.; in the capacity of his employment, Jensen performed maintenance on Katso products housed at various facilities. At the time of his death, Jensen and some co-workers were performing maintenance and repair work on an automatic storage and retrieval system manufactured by his employer’s parent company, Katso Machinenbau GMBH & Co. The machine itself was located at Earle M. Jorgensen, Co., an industrial plant located in Schaumburg, Illinois.

Continue reading