Norfolk-Portsmouth Personal Injury Lawyer - Workplace Injuries

Fall-Related Death of Worker at Norfolk Sanitation Plant Under Investigation

Rick Shapiro — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 08:57:00 GMT

Randy Piche, a long-time Hampton Roads Sanitation District employee, died Tuesday morning after falling through an opening on a third-floor walkway at the Army Base Treatment Plant in Norfolk on Tuesday morning. Neither the wastewater and sewage-treatment organization nor the Virginia Occupational Safety and Health department have yet determined why Piche, a 37-year HRSD veteran, would have fallen to his death.

Industrial plants are inherently dangerous places to work. In Virginia alone, more than 150 workers died in workplace accidents during 2008. The U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration posts weekly summaries of deaths at work on its Web site. The most recent set of summaries, from Aug. 28, 2009, includes 18 entries. Listed causes of death ranged from electrocutions and crush injuries to falls and explosions.

Employers have legal and moral obligations to minimize risks to their employees. If HRSD did not have signs, guardrails or procedures in place to make it difficult or impossible to fall through the walkway opening at its plant on the grounds of the Norfolk International Terminals, then the organization would be liable for contributing to, or even, principally causing, Piche's death.

Regardless of the cause of the accident, my thoughts go out to Piche and his friends and family. I have seen too many times the tragedies that can result when people work in unsafe conditions and environments.

About the Editors: Shapiro, Cooper Lewis & Appleton is a law firm which focuses on injury and accident law, and we have experience handling slip, trip and fall cases. Check out this case result involving a woman who slipped and was injured at a restaurant. Our primary office is in Virginia Beach, Virginia (VA), but our lawyers hold licenses in NC, SC, WV, KY and DC. We are ready to talk to you by phone right now. We provide free initial confidential injury case consultations, so call us toll free at 1-800-752-0042. Our injury attorneys also host an extensive injury law video library on Youtube. Further, our lawyers proudly edit the Virginia Beach Injuryboard and Norfolk Injuryboard as pro bono public information services.

EJL

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Rick Shapiro

The Locomotive Inspection Act - Protecting Railroad Train Crews From Serious Injury On The Job

John Cooper — Wed, 14 Oct 2009 11:27:09 GMT

When it comes to legal liability and negligence, the threshold question is generally what attorneys call "duty." If I am injured in some way, I cannot recover any damages unless the person responsible for the injury had a duty of care toward me. The duties owed by a railroad employer to its workers are controlled by the FELA (Federal Employers Liability Act). Railroad employees do not get Workers’ Compensation like regular people in other industries. The major railroad companies have to provide the train crews like engineers and conductors, as well as all persons on the job, with a reasonably safe place to work. This basic FELA duty is owed to all railroaders on duty.

Proof of some negligence by the railroad is normally required under the FELA. Negligence standards sometimes are replaced with strict liability. Strict liability means basically that if you break it, you bought it. If someone is injured in certain aspects of railroad work, the railroad is automatically responsible. One such area often governed by strict liability standards is the equipment involved in the operation of locomotive engines. According to the Locomotive Inspection Act [LIA] (formerly the Boiler Inspection Act), a supplemental law to the Federal Employer’s Liability Act, interstate railroads have an absolute and continuing duty to provide safe locomotives for their workers running the trains. This legislation is intended for remedial and humanitarian purposes, and is to be construed liberally in favor of the worker.

What this means for employees of railroads is that if you are injured while on board a train, due to defective locomotive equipment, your employer is almost always liable. Note, however, that the locomotive must be "in use," though not necessarily in motion for this law to apply. Haworth v. Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Ry. Co., 281 F.Supp.2d 1207 (E.D. Wash. 2003). I must reemphasize that if death or injury results from a defective condition on a locomotive, then liability is automatic.

Examples of what qualifies as defective engine equipment are broken chairs, ill-maintained brakes, or inoperative cabin lights. The injury must be caused in whole or in part by the bad equipment on the engine to come under the LIA. If an employee is injured without any defective or misused equipment being the cause, then the LIA will likely not apply.

A showing that the injury was caused by defective or misused locomotive equipment will be a powerful argument to force the railroad company to fairly compensate the worker. An LIA case is typically going to be more valuable than a regular FELA claim and command more money in settlement. As always, if you have been injured and are seeking restitution, you should consult qualified legal counsel. That counsel should be experienced and have a working knowledge of the specific legal area (railroad worker injuries). If you have been injured while operating or riding on a train or locomotive engine, that expertise should include detailed knowledge of the FELA and the Locomotive Inspection Act.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by John Cooper

Workplace Fatalities Rebound After One-Year Low

Emily Mapp Brannon — Fri, 18 Sep 2009 10:44:01 GMT

"Exposure to Harmful Substances and Environments." "Contact with Objects and Equipment." "Transportation Incidents."

These are the rather neutral categories the Virginia (VA) Department of Labor and Industry uses to group on-the-job incidents in which workers got killed each year. In 2007, 146 Virginians died on construction sites, in factories and at offices. That depressing total increased to 154 in 2008. The most-deadly recent year for employees in Virginia was 2005, which saw 186 workplace fatalities in the Commonwealth.

Looking inside the statistics reveals stories like that of construction worker Marcus Brown, who died after falling from a platform at a White Wave Foods plant in Harrisonburg. Another story behind the statistics is that of Richard Slone, a highway construction worker struck and killed by a car while doing repairs on Virginia Route 419 near Roanoke.

Workplace injuries such as electric shocks, amputations and inhalation of toxic fumes take an even greater toll on Virginia workers than outright fatalities. My colleagues and I have many decades of experience representing injured workers and their families, so we know how devastating industrial accidents can be. We particularly specialize in railroad injury cases, but we are dedicated to protecting workers in all settings. We can only hope that both injuries and fatalities on the job decline this year and moving forward.

About the Editors: Shapiro, Cooper, Lewis & Appleton personal injury law firm (VA-NC law offices ) edits the injury law blogs Virginia Beach Injuryboard, Norfolk Injuryboard, and Northeast North Carolina Injuryboard as a pro bono service to consumers. We also host a YouTube injury law video library with more than 50 videos covering many FAQs on personal injury subjects. Lawyers with Shapiro, Cooper, Lewis & Appleton are licensed in VA, NC, SC, WV, DC and KY. They handle car, truck, railroad, medical negligence cases and more.

EJL

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Emily Mapp Brannon

Will Dangerous Ammonia Refrigeration Systems be Phased Out?

John Cooper — Sat, 20 Jun 2009 20:47:23 GMT

Every year ammonia refrigeration systems cause accidents and explosions in large commercial factories across the United States. Although large companies are aware of the risks of using ammonia refrigeration, it is very important that companies inform their workers of these risks as well. Workers who may be exposed to ammonia or become victims of an ammonia blast should know the potentially lethal effects of this chemical. Even a small leak in these refrigeration systems can have deadly consequences if not caught in time. Ammonia refrigeration is very dangerous because when the chemical is mixed with air in the 16%-25% range it can cause a large explosion capable of leveling an entire building. The ammonia itself is also very toxic and is corrosive to the eyes, skin, and lungs. Workers involved in ammonia accidents of this type are likely to sustain severe injuries and burns if they survive. Even though ammonia is a serious health hazard, many large corporations choose to use this type of refrigeration because of ammonia’s heat transferring properties, its cost effectiveness, its wide availability, and its low impact on the environment.

As OSHA and EPA regulations for ammonia refrigeration systems are becoming more stringent, corporations and insurance companies are looking for an alternative to ammonia refrigeration that would also minimize the safety risk to workers. It seems that carbon dioxide may be a good candidate for future refrigeration systems. Carbon dioxide refrigeration is already being widely used in Europe because unlike ammonia, carbon dioxide does not pose a health risk and is non-toxic and non-flammable. Since carbon dioxide is a benign chemical it is also not heavily regulated by OSHA or the EPA. Carbon dioxide does have some drawbacks however. Carbon dioxide is very effective for use in freezers, and coolers in the low range of the temperature scale, but is not very effective for the high side of the scale for use in an engine room or condensers because carbon dioxide has to be highly pressurized.

However, many companies have found that using both ammonia and carbon dioxide is a very effective method. Using both chemicals allows for effective use with low and high scales. It also increases safety because concentrations of ammonia will be lower and the ammonia will be contained in areas such as engine rooms far away from workers. This method using both ammonia and carbon dioxide is called a CO₂/Ammonia Cascade System and it is likely to replace refrigeration systems that use ammonia alone in the next few years. Greenhouse gases called chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) and hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs) that have been commonly used as refrigerants are being banned and phased out in most developed countries including the United States. These bans have led companies to seek alternative refrigerants that do not have a negative impact on the environment. As the United States is scheduled to conclude its phase out of HCFCs by 2030, refrigerants such as ammonia and carbon dioxide that are non-ozone depleting will be more widely used. The CO₂/Ammonia Cascade System that offers the advantage of increased safety may very well be the future of refrigeration.

 

About the Editors: Shapiro, Cooper, Lewis & Appleton personal injury law firm (VA-NC law offices ) edits the injury law blogs Virginia Beach Injuryboard, Norfolk Injuryboard, as well as the Northeast North Carolina Injuryboard as a pro bono service to consumers. Lawyers licensed in: VA, NC, SC, WV, DC, KY, who handle car, truck, railroad, and medical negligence cases and more.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by John Cooper

2 Million Dollar FELA Verdict For Railroad Engineer Against CSX: Improperly Mounted Seats/Seatbacks and Repetitive Rough Couplings

Rick Shapiro — Fri, 21 Nov 2008 08:41:42 GMT

Pennsylvania FELA attorneys Mike Olley and David Lockard reported an important FELA personal injury verdict in favor of railroad engineer that was returned May 2008, in Philadelphia state court in a case called Lockley v. CSX.

Lockley, age 53, had been a yard railroad engineer for about 33 years and complained that he had been subjected to multiple rough couplings of train cars, which caused stress on his cervical spine. He was later diagnosed with carpal tunnel syndrome, but ultimately a neck MRI revealed multi-level cervical disc damage. Eventually this forced the engineer to stop working at his job for CSX. In 2007 he underwent a cervical fusion/neck surgery and even after surgery he continued to suffer pain and will need injections in his neck in the future. His future medical expenses were estimated at close to $50,000 and his past lost income was $100,000 and his estimated future wage losses were $850,000.

Interestingly, Lockley sued CSX alleging that the locomotive's seats were low back style seats and were improperly mounted and braced in violation of the federal Locomotive Inspection Act, and in violation of the Federal Employers Liability Act. Ultimately, the plaintiff Lockley claimed the seat designs, combined with years of rough coupling, led to his cumulative spinal injuries.

CSX contended that the plaintiff's injuries were all existing before he worked with the railroad and were age-related and the plaintiff had violated various railroad rules by coupling during railroad movements at speeds greater than the 4 mph set forth under CSX rules. One of CSX's defenses was that the plaintiff had not reported seat problems nor his ongoing physical problems while he worked, arguing that this was negligence on his part.

The Philadelphia jury awarded plaintiff two million dollars, determining that CSX violated the FELA negligence standard, as well as violated the Locomotive Inspection Act (LIA). However, because the jury found CSX violated the Locomotive Inspection Act, a federal statute, this meant that no contributory or comparative negligence of the plaintiff would reduce the verdict even though the jury in another finding found the plaintiff was 22% comparatively negligent.

The plaintiff's lawyers did a thorough job in determining that the seats were improperly mounted and that alone could be considered a violation of the Locomotive Inspection Act. This allegation coupled with the others obviously convinced the jury of the overall fault of CSX. In any FELA case alleging repetitive or cumulative tasks that cause injuries, our law firm's personal injury lawyers usually also obtain expert testimony from an expert in ergonomics called an ergonomist Ergonomics is essentially the study of work tasks of a repetitive nature, and how to avoid such repetitive or cumulative trauma injuries in the workplace.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Rick Shapiro