The Injury Board Commentary - Workplace Injuries - Most Commented

AIG - Workers Compensation - The Bailout

Jon Lewis — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 13:24:55 GMT

Well, I have just seen first hand what the bailout has done for AIG: made them even more heartless and cold than ever before. We represent a family who lives in Mexico. Their son was employed by a company in Atlanta, and he was killed on the job. The company is insured by AIG, and it is a clear liability case. What is AIG's response?

First, they made this man's parents travel across Mexico, obtain a special permit to enter our country, and come to Atlanta to give a deposition with a translator. They do not speak English. These individuals live in a two bedroom, aluminum house with 8 family members. We cannot imagine the life they live.

They cried at their deposition over the loss of their son. This was VERY emotional for them. They went back to Mexico, and the defense attorney and I discussed the possibiliity of settling the case.

I learned today that AIG is not interested in settling this case because they want to make it hard on this family. They know how difficult it is for them to travel back to this country, and they know it's difficult to get them back into this country. It's a foregone conclusion that the case will be won, but AIG doesn't care. They want to hold on to their money until the last possible date.

So, not only does AIG know the case is a loser from their standpoint, but they want to make it difficult on a very poor family in Mexico who just lost their son while he was working hard for AIG's insured. Furthermore, AIG knows that they have nothing to lose by doing this because the worst that can happen is they pay what they should pay anyway. The Judge cannot rule that they owe more than what the workers compensation statute says they owe so what do they care.

I ask you the following questions:

1. Is this right?
2. Is this humane?
3. Should AIG be punished for taking this stance?
4. Should AIG's insured have to endure further litigation because AIG wants to hold onto its money?
5. Should my client's family be made to suffer further?
6. Should they have to spend more money to come back to this country?
7. How should our system handle these situations?

The next time you hear about trial attorneys and tort reform, think about this case. It is insurance companies that drag out litigation and increase costs. It is insurance companies that turn down fair settlement offers and make their insured's go through the litigation process. It is insurance companies that make us take doctor depositions. AND, it is insurance companies that blame everything on the trial lawyers of America.

Isn't it time someone started holding these insurance companies accountable? AIG received billions of dollars of our tax money, and yet, this is how they treat human beings while they go to their spas and on their English hunting trips. It is time for these companies and the individuals operating them who have fleeced America to start paying the price.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Jon Lewis

Loser Pays: Is it a Part of Justice?

Mike Bryant — Mon, 19 Sep 2011 09:18:00 GMT

In Minnesota we have a procedure that allows for loser pays. The concern I have always had is that our clients aren't allowed to sue the insurance company directly, they have to sue the person who caused the collision. The insurance company then gets to hide behind the person as they call the shots and then if the jury finds no threshold, the insurance company gets to pop out and collect their costs.

For a person who was offered nearly nothing, who is by agreement injured from the collision and not at fault, it is a brutal reality to have to them pay more money back to the company than they were offered. Include in that cost the price of the hired gun medical doctor who was used to create the myth that the client was all better. I bet the person wishes they were all better and that they never had to suffer through the case.

I saw recently that KRB is now going after 2 million in fees and $145,000 in costs against Jamie Leigh Jones. Wow, that's a lot of money and considering the facts of the case, it seems like KRB might be better off to take their win and head down the road. We know it took a bunch of political pressure to get her out of Iraq, but my guess is that wasn't because she was the loose woman they portrayed her as. I find it hard to believe, that they fought so hard to keep this out of litigation because they knew they were right. Seems like enough has been done to ruin her.

Now it's interesting that I did read some suggestions that the scumbag trial lawyer foots the bill. Guess what? That is what we do already. We pay the costs and get a fee if we recover. That is the deterrent that keeps us from taking the frivolous cases that the loonier claim we take.

This is a very tough system for a plaintiff. There is no magic money or jackpot justice. The reality is that they need to fight for every cent. Loser pays rewards those who least deserve it and who do the most to prevent justice.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Mike Bryant

Tornado Hero Denied Workers Compensation

Doug Landau — Mon, 24 Oct 2011 06:11:00 GMT

Courage in the face of a tornado's 200 mph winds is something to be respected and honored. The EF-5 tornado that struck Joplin, Missouri was among the nation's worst ever. It killed 162 people and destroyed more than 7,000 homes. A Joplin Social Worker's heroic acts have resulted in permanent injuries, disability from work and a denial from the workers compensation insurance company.

Mark Lindquist's survival defies logic. Lindquist noticed the skies darkening on the evening of May 22 while on his way to the group home occupied by three middle-aged men with Down syndrome. Soon after he arrived, a tornado siren began to blare. Lindquist's employer, Community Support Services, had recently put workers through a tornado drill, so Lindquist and a co-worker knew what to do. Because there was no basement or shelter and the residents moved too slowly to relocate, they placed mattresses over the men for protection, then climbed atop the mattresses for added weight. After the storm, rescuers found Lindquist buried in rubble, impaled by a piece of metal. He was in a coma, expected to be in a vegetative state, and developed the fungal infection that killed other Joplin tornado victims.

But this heroic social worker with no medical insurance and a job barely paying above minimum wage did survive, and even recover, though not completely. But what stunned me was the fact that his workers compensation claim was turned down ! Lindquist's claim was denied "based on the fact that there was no greater risk than the general public at the time you were involved in the Joplin tornado," according to a letter from Accident Fund Insurance Company of America, his company's workers' comp provider. Had he been running around on the street or commuting home, perhaps. But he was trying to save those in the group home from a tornado, something he and his co-workers had been trained to do ! Please read the full news account.

Everyone at the Landau Law Shop hopes that Mr. Lindquist appeals this unconscionable insurance claim denial and that he eventually gets justice in the Division of Workers Compensation or courts of Missouri. Lastly, as an eternal optimist, I would encourage everyone to read the ending to the news story !

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Doug Landau

Fatal Houston Crane Accident Raises Concern Over Lax Regulations

Scott Kappes — Tue, 22 Jul 2008 13:34:55 GMT

As many will already know a massive crane collapse on Friday left four workers dead. Yet another to add to the growing list of fatal crane accidents that have occurred over the last several months. The accident happened when the massive 30–story crane collapsed at the Lyondell oil refinery, in SE Houston. The terrible accident took four lives and left seven more injured. Federal investigators began their investigation of the accident on Saturday.

The crane owners, Deep South Crane and Rigging of Baton Rouge, has expressed sympathy and sorrow over the loss, and has said that they are committed to making sure that this type of terrible tragedy never happens again.

The company has released the names of those workers that were killed in the accident. The four workers who lost their lives were Marion "Scooter" Hubert Odom III, 41, of Highlands; John D. Henry, 33, of Dayton; Daniel "DJ" Lee Johnson, 30, of Dayton; and Rocky Dale Strength, 30, of Santa Fe, Texas.

This tragic accident should strengthen the case for greater regulations for crane operators and general crane safety. Scrutiny of crane safety has been on the rise in the recent months following the catastrophic crane collapse in Manhattan that claimed seven lives. Fatal accidents have also recently taken place in Miami and Las Vegas.

Although many states regulate crane operation, Texas does not. Texas lead the nation in crane-related fatalities, with 26, in 2005 and 2006, and despite these shocking numbers does not require crane operators to even be licensed. This is an issue that must be addressed. The lack of local and state regulations leaves crane safety up to federal regulations that have not kept up with technological advances, to say the least.

Hopefully this heartbreaking tragedy will help to create the awareness that is needed to enact long overdue crane regulations to ensure that these types of tragedies are avoided in the future.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Scott Kappes

Do Guns Create Unsafe Workplace?

Linda Chalat — Tue, 07 Sep 2010 11:51:06 GMT

A Nashville server has come up with an interesting strategy to try to reign in the proliferation of guns in public places. The server has filed a complaint with the state alleging that the mixture of guns and bars creates an unsafe work environment. The server, who remains anonymous, works at Jackson's Bar and Bistro. The complaint alleges that it is a violation of Tennessee Occupational Safety and Health Administration regulations to allow permit holders to carry guns into places that serve alcohol, such as Jackson's.

A Nashville judge ruled last year that a law allowing guns only in establishments that primarily sold food in addition to alcohol was unconstitutionally vague. In response, the General Assembly passed a new law allowing permit holders to carry into any establishment that serves alcohol. The new law allowing guns in establishments that serve alcohol provides restaurant owners the choice to post a sign prohibiting firearms, but Jackson's elected not to do so.

Our local gun battle has been on the campuses of the two large state universities, University of Colorado (CU) and Colorado State University (CSU). CU banned guns in 1970 but allowed students to keep weapons in campus police lockers. After the Concealed Carry Act was passed in 2003, the CU regents asked then-Attorney General Ken Salazar whether the act applied to CU and he ruled it did not.

The CU ban went unchallenged until December 2008, when the lawsuit was filed in the wake of the fatal Virginia Tech shootings. The challenge to the ban went to the state appeals court, where it ruled that CU had violated the state's Concealed Carry Act, which allows those in possession of a concealed-carry permit to carry a firearm in any public place in Colorado, except for K-12 schools and a few other federal and public buildings. The appeals court made its ruling in April and the University of Colorado Board of Regents voted to appeal a lower court decision that said the school violated state law with its campus ban of concealed weapons in June.

CSU passed a gun ban in February, but pulled back its gun ban, in response to the appeals court ruling in the CU case.

Perhaps the university professors will carry the day with an “unsafe work environment” argument. With more than 70 CU faculty members signing a letter requesting that the Regents pursue the case through the courts and maintain the gun ban on campus, there may be keen interest in the success of the Jackson Bar server’s claim.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Linda Chalat

The Federal Government and Other States Should Look To Minnesota Concerning Crane Operation

Mike Bryant — Mon, 11 May 2009 12:21:00 GMT

Two years ago, after a series of deaths involving cranes, Minnesota passed a law requiring that anyone operating a construction crane pass a certification test after undergoing classroom and practical training. Minnesota is one of about 13 states that require a license or certification to operate cranes, according to Glen Johnson, business manager of the International Union of Operating Engineers Local 49 chapter in Minneapolis.

Federally, there is no such requirement despite safety records showing that crane-related accidents kill about 90 workers in the United States each year. Johnson, who operated a crane for more than 15 years, says crane deaths are “unacceptable.” One of the problems: “everyone and his brother” is jumping in cranes on job sites, regardless of their qualifications to use the equipment. It’s ironic, he noted, that most states require a license to drive a car, but don’t have a similar requirement to operate a five-ton crane, which has the potential to tip over, strike an overhead power line or cause severe damage to bodies and property.

Few jobs are as dangerous as operating a crane, Johnson, who helped write the Minnesota certification law, told an OSHA panel in Washington, D.C., considering similar federal standards. But with proper national standards in place, he said, operators across the country can “greatly reduce the risk of injury or death.”

We have been involved in a number of these cases over the years. Usually they involved complicated interchanges with workers compensation coverage and also with the need for extensive investigation. The injuries are usually fatal or very severe. Hopefully, other governmental units will look to the helpful protections that Minnesota has.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Mike Bryant

Jury Awards $24 Million to Man Paralyzed in Workplace Accident

Fred Schultz — Mon, 15 Dec 2008 16:32:23 GMT

A Lake County, Indiana jury recently found against a contractor in a workplace injury case and awarded a severely injured worker $24 million. The injured worker fell from a ladder that had not been properly maintained by the contractor, and became paralyzed from the waste down.

Anthony Arciniega, 42, was rendered a paraplegic as a result of a Nov. 20, 2004, fall at ISG Burns Harbor steel mill, which is now known as ArcelorMittal.

Arciniega, who still works for the mill, fell from a ladder that was covered with refractory concrete due to the negligence of Minteq International, a contractor at the mill, according to court documents.

Jury verdicts of this size are extremely rare, and reflect the fact that the Plaintiff, or the person who brought the lawsuit, suffered very dramatic injuries. Generally speaking, if the jury finds that the defendant in the lawsuit was responsible for the injuries to the plaintiff, the jury is able to compensate an injured plaintiff for the nature and extent of their injuries, whether the injuries are temporary or permanent, past and future lost wages, past and future medical expenses, and for what is generally called, "pain and suffering."

In a case involving paralysis, it becomes easy to see how the damages awarded by a jury could reach a number in the tens of millions. First of all, the overall lifetime cost of a paralyzed person's medical care can easily run in the range of $10 million. Likewise, a paralyzed person needs special modifications done to their home, such as widening of the doors between rooms and modifications to their bathroom and kitchen They also need specialized transportation, such as a wheelchair accessible van, so they can get around town. I have no doubt but that this kind of evidence was presented for the jury's consideration.

In addition to all that, the jury is allowed to consider the nature and extent of the injury and its impact on the plaintiff's ability to function as a whole person. Obviously, when a person is paralyzed, they lose a great deal of their freedom and ability to function on their own. Under this set of circumstances there is no limit to what a jury can award for being paralyzed due to the fault of another party. Clearly, this jury tried to compensate the plaintiff and hold the wrongdoer accountable for the full extent of the injuries that were suffered.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Fred Schultz

Massive Explosion and Fire at Texas Chemical Plant Causes Public Safety Concerns

Bryan Pope — Mon, 03 Oct 2011 19:19:35 GMT

A huge explosion this morning at the Magnablend chemical plant in Waxahachie, Texas caused a massive fire which created a potentially dangerous situation for the area around the plant. According to preliminary reports from the Waxahachie fire chief, the explosion was caused by a bad reaction to the mixing of chemicals. The plant is a custom chemical manufacturing and blending plant that also packages chemicals.

Toxic fumes from the clouds of billowing black smoke contained contaminates which were potentially dangerous to inhale or to be exposed to the skin. A nearby elementary school and other buildings and homes were evacuated due to the safety concerns.

There were at least 85 employees working at the plant at the time of the explosion and it is still unknown if there are any injuries, although initial reports indicate that all of the workers may have made it miraculously out of the plant just in time to avoid serious injury or death. OSHA inspectors were on their way to the scene this afternoon.

Big fires and explosions at chemical plants usually do not happen without a violation of some type of workplace safety rule. There have been other similar type explosions in chemical facilities in Texas and all over the country which have resulted in serious injuries and loss of life due to major safety violations.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Bryan Pope

Injury, Death When Boom Lift Falls In Kansas City Crane Accident

Brett Emison — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 17:27:22 GMT

The Kansas City Star reported that one man was killed and another critically injured when a boom lift or crane toppled over this afternoon at the site of Kauffman Center for the Performing Arts in Kansas City.

A construction accident at the future home of the Kauffman Center for the Performing Arts killed one man and critically injured a second this afternoon.

A portable boom lift with a basket on top toppled over about 1:45 p.m. just north of the building under construction at 16th Street and Broadway. Both workers were in the basket before it plummeted about 50 feet to the pavement, said Kyle McQuiston with J.E. Dunn Construction Co.

The workers apparently fell from the basket on the way down, police said.

The injured workers were taken to area hospitals. One died at the hospital, Kansas City police said. The other was conscious in serious condition this afternoon, police said.

Our thoughts and prayers go out to the families of these workers. Construction workers rely on their equipment to protect them and no worker should be forced to face the danger of falling to their death.

One has to ask -- why do these crane accidents keep happening? There was a crane collapse in Westin, Missouri just last year. In that collapse, one worker was killed and three other workers were injured. There have been similar crane and boom lift accidents in Oklahoma City, in Florida, and in Philadelphia.

In my work, I see far too many deaths from crane accidents and lift accidents. Each of these deaths or injuries was easily and tragically preventable.

In a recent case we handled, a repairman was working on a similar type crane/boom lift. The repairman extended the boom to test his repair and the crane suddenly tipped over, crushing and killing him. Why don't these manufacturers implement simple safety measures to prevent tragedies like this from happening?

Instead of fixing the problems, these cranes and lifts are often designed without adequate safety protections. For example, in our recent case, the crane was not equipped with a device that prevented the boom from being extended without the outriggers being firmly locked in place. Many other cranes had a safety device that would have prevented the accident, but the crane manufacturer decided it was wasn't worth the cost.

The news report was unclear as to the cause of the crane accident at the Kauffman Center for the Performing Arts. But is makes you wonder. Could the boom extend without the outriggers deployed to stabilize the crane? Was the crane situated on uneven ground? Was the lift maintained correctly? Did the hydraulics fail? Remarkably, none of the other co-workers saw the crane tip over. Why?

You can learn more about dangeorus and defect products -- including cranes and lifts -- at our safety blog or at our web site.

Learn more and become a fan of Langdon & Emison on Facebook.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Brett Emison

Forklift Safety Is Serious Business

George Fusner — Mon, 17 Aug 2009 17:31:12 GMT

Last week I wrote about Brandon Walker from Chapmansboro who was killed while operating a fork lift in Nashville. Did you know that every three days someone is killed in a forklift related accident? Each year over 95,000 injuries related to forklift accidents are reported. According to the United States Department of Labor Occupational Safety & Health Administration (OSHA) violations of the OSHA forklift standard resulted in over $1 Million in fines in 2008 alone.

OSHA has standards for the operation of forklifts around electrical lines since the early 1990's. Training is mandatory for operators of forklifts. In Brandon's case did he receive the proper training required by OSHA? Was he trained specifically to work around overhead wires? Many unanswered questions. Perhaps this tragedy could have been avoided.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by George Fusner