COVID-19 Notice: The Perecman Firm has returned to in-person operation in accordance with safety regulations set by New York State and CDC health officials. Our attorneys will continue to provide top-notch legal representation and are available to discuss your case in person, over the phone, via email or video.

Result: $3.25 Million Settlement for Plumber Who Lost Two Fingers on Unguarded Table Saw

The Perecman Firm, P.L.L.C. secures multi-million settlement over table saw accident resulting in traumatic finger amputations.

The Perecman Firm, P.L.L.C. Attorneys Adam Hurwitz and Zach Perecman were successful in recovering a six-figure settlement for a client who lost two fingers after using an unguarded table saw.

The plaintiff was a 51-year-old plumber who had been performing work at a renovation site in Manhattan. While using a table saw to cut a sheet of plywood, the wood kicked and caused the plaintiff’s left hand to be pulled into the path of the blade.

Injuries & Treatment

The plaintiff suffered severe injuries to his left hand and fingers, including:

  • Traumatic amputation of parts of the index and middle fingers of the left, non-dominant hand.
  • Open fractures to the left hand’s index, middle, and ring fingers.
  • Laceration and tearing of ligaments, nerves, and tendons and lacerations of the left hand, thumb, and little finger.

The plaintiff was treated surgically with procedures involving debridement of the damaged tissue, open reduction and internal fixation of the fractures, and repairs to damaged ligaments, nerves, and tendons. He underwent approximately 12 months of physical therapy.

The plaintiff was unable to work since his accident, claiming that residual pain, numbness, and limited range of motion prevented his performance of manual labor or any gainful employment. He sought reimbursement of a workers’ compensation lien, approximately $1 million for past and future lost earnings and work-related insurance benefits, and damages for past and future pain and suffering.

The defense countered with a vocational-rehabilitation expert who opined that the plaintiff could perform unskilled labor that would provide annual earnings between $30,000 to $54,000.

Claims

The Perecman Firm, P.L.L.C. filed suit against the premises’ owner, tenant, and management, and the construction company overseeing the renovation project claiming that the defendants negligently failed to provide a safe workplace and that said failure constituted a violation of New York State Labor Law.

Specifically, it was alleged that the accident resulted from the saw’s lack of a protective guard, with plaintiff’s counsel contending that the defendants violated the following New York Codes, Rules and Regulations:

  • Title 23, part 1.12(c)(2), which specifies that a non-portable power-driven saw's blade must be protected by guards that effectively shield the blade.
  • Title 23, part 9.2(a), which governs maintenance of power-operated equipment at work sites.

Plaintiff’s counsel further contented that the violations established the defendants’ failure to provide reasonable and adequate protect as required by Labor Law 241(6).

The defense contended that the plaintiff was an experienced worker who knew the dangers of using an unguarded table saw. The defendant construction company in charge of the renovation argued that because it was a manager and not the general contractor, it was not subject to the requirements of Labor Law § 241(6), and that the plaintiff had not been given permission to use the saw, as a sign affixed to the saw warned that it was not to be used by workers not employed by the company.

The defendant tenant and construction company impleaded the plaintiff’s employer seeking indemnification for alleged negligence in supervising the plaintiff. The defendant premises owner, tenant, and management filed a cross complaint against the project manager construction company seeking indemnification.

Result

After moving for summary judgment of liability, the presiding judge found that the defendant construction company and premises owners violated Labor Law § 241(6) and denied the property tenant’s motion for summary judgment.

While an appeal was pending, a settlement was negotiated in which the construction company’s insurer agreed to pay $1,125,000, and the plaintiff’s employer paid $1 million of its primary policy and an additional $1,125,000 from an excess policy, for a total settlement of $3.25 million. The settlement also included a reduction of the plaintiff’s workers’ compensation lien.

The initial settlement offer was $750,000.

  • Best Lawyers "Lawyer of the Year" 2022
  • Best Lawyers in America©, 2008-2022
  • U.S. News' Best Law Firms in America, 2011-2022
  • TopVerdict™
  • TopVerdict™
  • Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch
  • Super Lawyers® Top 100, 2019-2021
  • Super Lawyers®, 2007-2021
  • New York Law Journal's "Top Verdicts in New York"
  • New York Magazine' s Legal Leaders 2021
  • Multi-Million Dollar Advocates Forum®
  • The National Trial Lawyers
  • 10 Best Law Firms
  • Avvo 10.0 Rating
  • Lawyers of Distinction
  • National Academy of Personal Injury Attorneys Top 10
  • Top 10 Personal Injury Law Firms
/

When You Call Us

YOU CAN BE CONFIDENT KNOWING:
  • We have a stellar record of success in accident cases.
  • We are premier trial lawyers and smart litigators.
  • We are highly respected in the legal community.
  • We make you our top priority.
  • We have over 40 years of proven legal experience under our belts.

No Fees 

UNLESS WE WIN YOUR CASE
  • Please enter your first name.
  • Please enter your last name.
  • Please enter your phone number.
    This isn't a valid phone number.
  • Please enter your email address.
    This isn't a valid email address.
  • Please make a selection.
  • Please enter a message.