Construction
Carpenter alleged spine, ankle injuries from 15-foot fall
| (P) $18,500,000.00 | |
| Labor Law, Construction - Accidents, Slips, Trips & Falls - Fall from Height, Construction - Scaffolds and Ladders, Civil Practice - Summary Judgment | |
| Luis Barros v. New Roc Parcel 1A, LLC, George A. Fuller Company, Inc., No. 14727/06 | |
| Bronx Supreme, NY | |
| Howard Sherman |
|
| 01-26-2010 |
- Howard R. Borowick; of counsel, Law Offices of Jacob Oresky; Bronx, NY, for Luis Barros
- Jose Terrazola; Physical Therapy; Ossining, NY called by: Howard Borowick
- Craig Rogers; Psychiatry; Tarrytown, NY called by: Howard Borowick
- Andrew F. Pisanelli; Milber, Makris, Plousadis & Seiden, LLP; White Plains, NY, for New Roc Parcel 1A, LLC, George T. Fuller Construction Co. Inc.
- John Rigney M.D.; Radiology; Chappaqua, NY called by: Andrew Pisanelli
- Joseph Pessalano M.A., C.R.C.; Vocational Rehabilitation; Garden City, NY called by: Andrew Pisanelli
- David Kaufman; Neurology; New York, NY called by: Andrew Pisanelli
- Michael Rosen M.D.; Orthopedics; White Plains, NY called by: Andrew Pisanelli
- Steven Shapiro; Economics; Woodbridge, CT called by: Andrew Pisanelli
- Harleysville Group Inc. for both defendants
On Feb. 21, 2006, plaintiff Luis Barros, 44, a carpenter, was a member of a crew that was renovating a high-rise condominium that was located in New Rochelle. The work necessitated the use of multiple scaffolds, and the workers routinely moved among the platforms of those scaffolds. Barros fell while he was moving to the platform of a scaffold. He plummeted about 15 feet, and he claimed that he sustained injuries of his back and neck.
Barros sued the project's general contractor, George T. Fuller Construction Co. Inc., and the premises' owner, New Roc Parcel 1A, LLC. Barros alleged that the defendants violated the New York State Labor Law.
Barros claimed that the scaffold shifted while he was stepping onto it. He contended that a crossbar was missing, and he claimed that the resultant instability caused the shifting of the scaffold. Barros' counsel contended that the incident stemmed from an elevation-related hazard, as defined by Labor Law ? 240(1), and that Barros was not provided the proper, safe equipment that is a requirement of the statute. Barros' counsel also contended that the site was not properly safeguarded, as required by Labor Law ? 241(6).
Defense counsel contended that Barros should have procured a safer scaffold. Alternatively, he suggested that Barros should have utilized a safer means of reaching the subject scaffold's platform.
Barros' counsel moved for summary judgment of liability, and the motion was granted. The trial addressed damages.
Barros was transported to Sound Shore Medical Center of Westchester, in New Rochelle. Doctors determined that he was suffering a pilon fracture--a comminuted fracture of the lowest portion of a leg's tibia, which forms the upper portion of the associated ankle. The injury affected his left ankle. The fracture was addressed via closed reduction: the application of a cast. Barros' hospitalization lasted two days.
After about four weeks had passed, Barros presented to a doctor. He reported that he was suffering pain that stemmed from his back and neck. Tests ultimately revealed that Barros was suffering herniations of his C4-5, C5-6 and L4-5 intervertebral discs. Barros claimed that the injuries were products of the accident.
Barros' spinal injuries were initially addressed via medication and physical therapy, but Barros contended that the treatment did not resolve the pain that stemmed from the injuries. In November 2007, he underwent fusion of the anterior side of a portion of his spine's cervical region. In February 2009, he underwent a diskectomy, which involved the excision of his L4-5 disc.
Barros claimed that he suffers residual arthritis of his left ankle, and his treating doctor opined that the ankle's joint will have to be fused. Barros also claimed that he suffers residual pain that stems from his back and neck. He contended that the pain prevents his resumption of recreational activities that include fishing excursions and family outings. He also contended that he cannot resume his carpentry work. He was not educated beyond the fourth grade, so he cannot procure significant sedentary work.
Barros sought recovery of his past and future lost earnings, his future medical expenses, and damages for his past and future pain and suffering.
Defense counsel contended that Barros' pre-accident physical condition was problematic. He noted that Barros had sustained a fracture of a leg, and he also noted that Barros had undergone chiropractic manipulation and physical therapy that addressed injuries that were sustained in a motor-vehicle accident that occurred in 2002. He claimed that bulging discs were demonstrated by the results of an MRI scan that was performed in 2002, and the defense's expert radiologist opined that the 2002 test's pathology was duplicated by the results of MRI scans that were performed after the instant accident. Thus, defense counsel argued that Barros' spinal injuries were not products of the instant accident.
Defense counsel also contended that Barros exaggerated the extent of his residual injuries. The jury viewed a lengthy videotape that demonstrated that Barros can bend his neck, operate a motor vehicle and walk.
The parties negotiated an $8 million/$3 million high/low agreement.
The jury found that Barros' damages totaled $18,334,231, but Barros' recovery was reduced to the high/low agreement's maximum amount: $8 million.
Luis Barros
$6,808,989 Personal Injury: Future Medical Cost
$300,000 Personal Injury: Past Lost Earnings Capability
$2,225,242 Personal Injury: FutureLostEarningsCapability
$4,000,000 Personal Injury: Past Pain And Suffering
$5,000,000 Personal Injury: Future Pain And Suffering
This report is based on information that was provided by plaintiff's counsel. Defense counsel did not respond to the reporter's phone calls.
