Worker/Workplace Negligence
Roofer claimed icy conditions necessitated scaffold or harness
| $3,350,000.00 | |
| Labor Law, Slips, Trips & Falls - Slip and Fall, Slips, Trips & Falls - Fall from Height | |
| Richard Hadden v. James W. Boxberger, Sr., No. 2112/11 | |
| Ulster Supreme, NY | |
| Henry F. Zwack |
|
| 01-07-2013 |
- Joseph E. O'Connor; Mainetti, Mainetti & O'Connor, P.C.; Kingston, NY, for Richard Hadden
- Michael Weintraub M.D.; Neurology; Briarcliff Manor, NY called by: Joseph O'Connor
- James Lambrinos Ph.D; Economics; Clifton Park, NY called by: Joseph O'Connor
- Joseph Carfi M.D.; Life Care Planning; Great Neck, NY called by: Joseph O'Connor
- Seth Neubardt M.D.; Orthopedic Surgery; White Plains, NY called by: Joseph O'Connor
- Patrick D. Geraghty; Wilson, Elser, Moskowitz, Edelman & Dicker LLP; White Plains, NY, for James W. Boxberger Sr.
- Bradley Wiener; Orthopedic Surgery; Kingston, NY called by: Patrick Geraghty
- Sparta Insurance
On Dec. 28, 2010, plaintiff Richard Hadden, 29, a roofer, worked at a residence that was located at 11 Bon Jovi Lane, in Liberty. Hadden fell off of the home's roof while he was repairing a chimney's cap. He plummeted about 8 feet, and he landed on the ground. He claimed that he sustained an injury of his back.
Hadden sued the residence's owner, James Boxberger. Hadden alleged that Boxberger violated the New York State Labor Law.
Hadden claimed that he fell after slipping on ice. He contended that the icy roof was unsafe, and he claimed that he should have been provided a scaffold and/or a harness. Hadden's counsel claimed that the incident stemmed from an elevation-related hazard, as defined by Labor Law § 240(1), and that Hadden was not provided the proper, safe equipment that is a requirement of the statute.
Defense counsel contended that Labor Law § 240(1) is not applicable to incidents that occur during routine maintenance or work that does not involve a significant alteration of a building, and he contended that Hadden was injured during a task that was a matter of routine maintenance.
Hadden initially returned to his home, but he was later transported to a hospital, where he underwent minor treatment.
Hadden ultimately claimed that he sustained a herniation of his L5-S1 intervertebral disc. He also claimed that the herniated disc produced impingement of a nerve and resultant radiculopathy. He initially underwent about six months of conservative treatment that included chiropractic manipulation and physical therapy, but he contended that the treatment did not resolve his pain. He subsequently underwent fusion of his spine's L5-S1 level, but the fusion failed. Hadden also developed an abscess and infection of his surgical wound, necessitating the debridement of tissue.
Hadden claimed that he suffers residual pain and a residual reduction of his back's range of motion. He contended that he cannot work, exercise or perform any physically demanding activities. He also contended that he requires the use of a cane. He claimed that he will soon undergo a second fusion of the problematic area of his spine, and he contended that the procedure will be followed by a course of physical therapy.
Hadden sought recovery of past and future medical expenses, past and future lost earnings, and damages for past and future pain and suffering.
Each side moved for summary judgment of liability. During pendency of the motions, the parties negotiated a settlement. Boxberger's insurer agreed to pay $3.35 million.
This report is based on information that was provided by plaintiff's and defense counsel.
