$______ VERDICT - CONSTRUCTION SITE NEGLIGENCE - COLLAPSE OF TEMPORARY STAIRCASE - SHOULDER FRACTURE - CONCUSSION - NECK AND BACK INJURIES WITH RADICULOPATHY - NERVE ABLATION.

Pages6-7
Attorneys for plaintiff: Michael A. Trunk and Garabet
M. Zakeosian of Kline & Specter in Philadelphia, PA.
COMMENTARY
The plaintiff’s damages were driven by the details presented at
trial regarding the pain and agony of living with an open hole in
your throat which constitutes a tracheostomy. The plaintiff showed
that she can only speak through a special valve, which is unlike a
natural voice.
In addition, testimony established that the plaintiff endured multi-
ple surgeries and now lives in fear that something foreign could
enter her unprotected airway. The plaintiff’s experts established
that the plaintiff’s tracheostomy tube must be replaced every three
months and she remains on medication.
The bulk of the jury’s total $2,739,549 award ($1,099,231) was
slated for future medical treatment.
The plaintiff’s economist presented future medical expense calcula-
tions at inflationary rates of 1.5%, 4%, and 6.5%. The jury chose
to award the future medical expenses using a 3% increase each
year. The expenses were detailed on the verdict form beginning
with the amount of $25,352 in 2015 and listed in increasing yearly
amounts until the year 2043 (28 years), based on the plaintiff’s in-
troduction of the US Life (mortality) tables.
$3,000,000 VERDICT – CONSTRUCTION SITE NEGLIGENCE – COLLAPSE OF
TEMPORARY STAIRCASE – SHOULDER FRACTURE – CONCUSSION – NECK AND BACK
INJURIES WITH RADICULOPATHY – NERVE ABLATION.
Philadelphia County, PA
This action arose when a temporary staircase
collapsed at a Philadelphia construction site and
caused the plaintiff to fall. The defendants at trial
included the construction company which built the
temporary staircase and two drywall
subcontractors. The plaintiff alleged that the stairs
were negligently constructed, were unsafe, and
that the defendants had notice of the dangerous
condition. The general contractor was dismissed
from the case on a directed verdict based on a
workers’ compensation immunity. Another drywall
company was voluntarily dismissed during trial.
The remaining defendants each denied
negligence, and maintained that the plaintiff had
removed portions of the stair supports and was
responsible for the collapse.
The plaintiff was a 50-year-old carpenter working at a
Center City, Philadelphia construction site in January,
2012. Evidence showed that the defendant construc-
tion company had installed a set of temporary steps
to the building for use by workers until the permanent
stairs were built. The plaintiff contended that the steps
were not properly built and were shaky, unstable, and
bowed under the weight of workers who used them.
The plaintiff also alleged that the defendant drywall
contractors (including a subcontractor and a drywall
finish company hired by the subcontractor) had re-
moved portions of the stair supports to facilitate dry-
wall installation, and failed to properly replace the
parts removed, as well as re-secure the staircase.
The plaintiff testified that he had complained to the
general contractor’s on-site supervisors that there was
a safety problem with the stairs, and that it was gen-
erally known that the stairs were wobbly, but nothing
was done to correct the problem. Other workers at
the site also testified that they had complained that
the temporary stairs were dangerous. The stairs ulti-
mately collapsed while the plaintiff was walking on
them, and he fell from the second level of the
building to the first level.
The plaintiff was transported to the hospital and diag-
nosed with a displaced fracture of the scapula in the
left shoulder. The plaintiff complained of continuing
shoulder pain, and was diagnosed with neuropathy.
He underwent injections for pain, as well as a
suprascapular neurolysis procedure, designed to treat
pain by destroying specific nerves. The plaintiff addi-
tionally claimed that the fall caused a concussion
and neck and back injuries with radiculopathy. The
plaintiff’s orthopedic surgeon opined that the plaintiff
has been left with permanent restrictions, and is
limited to light-duty employment.
The defendants argued that a permanent staircase
was scheduled to be installed the day after the plain-
tiff’s fall. He was instructed to take off the handrail of
the temporary staircase, according to evidence of-
fered. The defense contended that the plaintiff had
started removing parts of the stairs and then walked
on them, resulting in the collapse.
The defendant drywall contractors maintained that
they had not removed any part of the temporary
staircase. They argued that the stairs had been used
without incident, up until the time of the plaintiff’s fall.
The defendant contractor contended that it had
properly built the temporary staircase, and had not
returned to the site since the temporary stairs had
been completed.
On damages, the defense claimed that the plaintiff’s
low back complaints were chronic in nature and not
caused by the fall. Records showed that the plaintiff
had prior work-related back injuries. The defendant’s
orthopedic surgeon opined that the shoulder injury
suffered by the plaintiff in the fall was minor and had
resolved.
6 SUMMARIES WITH TRIAL ANALYSIS
Volume 33, Issue 11, October 2015 Subscribe Now

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT