The Perecman Firm, P.L.L.C. represented a client who sustained a ligament tear to their ankle and an inability to continue in construction field.
The plaintiff concrete worker, who was employed at a condominium under construction, contended that a wooden construction ramp, comprised of a series of connected planks, was improperly attached, resulting in the ramp "deflecting" downward as the plaintiff rolled a wheelbarrow down the ramp and passed over the point one plank ended and another began. The plaintiff maintained that he fell and suffered a ligamental tear in the area of the ankle. The plaintiff contended that he will suffer permanent pain and limitations despite arthroscopic surgery and will permanently be unable to work in the construction field.
The plaintiff maintained that additional methods of securing the planks, such as the placement of crossbeams under the planks, should have been provided. The defendants owner and general contractor pointed out that the construction had been on-going for a number of months and contended that there were no prior incidents, denying that ramp violated the code or that there was liability under Sec. 241 (6). The plaintiff maintained that the planks were clearly not secured properly and the plaintiff's engineer would have maintained that it was very likely that such an incident would ultimately occur. The plaintiff also elicited testimony from a carpentry subcontractor that the ramp should not "deflect" in the manner described by the plaintiff at the junction of two sections. The defendant also maintained that the plaintiff had failed to walk with sufficient care and contended that he was comparatively negligent.
The plaintiff maintained that he suffered a tear of the anterior talo-fibular ligament and that the injury was treated by way of arthroscopic surgery. The plaintiff contended that despite the surgery, he continues to suffer pain and swelling and that the symptoms are heightened when he places stress on the foot. The plaintiff contended that he clearly can no longer work in the construction field. The defendant contended that the plaintiff, who is a reasonably bright individual in his 30s, can clearly obtain another type of work.
The plaintiff, who did not dispute that he is capable of performing work in a less physically challenging job, contended that he has made attempts to find such work and has not been successful. The plaintiff would have argued that the jury should consider that the plaintiff faces very significant uncertainties.
The plaintiff maintained that jury should take into account that he greatly loved being physically active. The plaintiff contended that he has been forced to lead a much more sedentary lifestyle and that the impact on his enjoyment of life warranted very substantial compensation.
The case settled prior to trial for $ 1,185,000.
The Perecman Firm, P.L.L.C.'s team of NYC personal injury attorneys have recovered more than $350 million in verdicts and settlements for their clients. We understand the financial and emotional toll a serious accident can have on your life. That’s why we dedicate ourselves to maximizing your recovery and securing what you deserve.