ARTICLE ID 169437
$________ - HOSPITAL NEGLIGENCE - DEFENDANT LINEN SERVICE'S EMPLOYEE NEGLIGENTLY MANEUVERS TWO ________ POUND BINS DOWN NARROW HALLWAY - BIN PINS PLAINTIFF HOSPITAL EMPLOYEE AGAINST WALL - SEVERE AGGRAVATION OF ________ LUMBAR HERNIATION - SUBJECT INCIDENT NECESSITATES THREE- LEVEL LUMBAR FUSION - NERVE DAMAGE CAUSES URINARY CONTROL DEFICITS - INABILITY TO WORK.
Essex County, NJ
In this action, the plaintiff, in his mid 50s, a
hospital Environmental Services Department employee whose duties
were primarily in the maintenance field, contended that the
defendant employee of the hospitals linen service negligently
attempted to wheel two unwieldy, ________ pound bins down a narrow
hallway, misjudging the space available and knocking into the
plaintiff, pinning him against the hospital wall. The plaintiff
contended that as a result, he suffered a severe aggravation of a
lumbar herniation that was initially sustained in a ________ motor
vehicle accident. The defendant denied that the incident was the
cause of the claimed injuries and contended that they stemmed
from the prior herniation and motor vehicle accident that
occurred some weeks earlier.
The plaintiff maintained that the incident caused severely
heightened pain and limitations, and that after conservative care
and epidural injections proved to be inadequate, he required the
fusion of the L4-S1 vertebrae. The plaintiff pointed out that
despite approximately four prior flare-ups that caused symptoms
that ranged from mild to severe, he had been able to continue
working and live a reasonably active lifestyle. The plaintiff
contended that he now has continuing severe pain and limitations,
can no longer work that because of partial urinary incontinence,
he has difficulties controlling voiding and must wear an adult
diaper if he is in a car or otherwise unable to reach a bathroom
in a short period after urinary urges begin.
The plaintiff related that as he was standing in the narrow
hallway, the defendant began wheeling two of the carts at the
same time. The plaintiff maintained that there was insufficient
room and that as the defendant passed by, he was struck by one of
the bins and pinned against the wall with force. The plaintiff
maintained that the defendant clearly should not have attempted
to move both bins at once.
The defendant denied that he was negligent. The plaintiff pointed
to the defendants deposition in which he indicated that his view
was obstructed and that after wheeling the carts approximately
six feet, he stopped, looked around the bins and saw the
plaintiff, believing that he had ample room to maneuver the carts
around him. The plaintiff contended that because the defendant
was incorrect, he was struck. The plaintiff also pointed out that
in his deposition, the defendant testified that although he had
been instructed to only move one bin at a time, he believed that
he had to take two bins at once in order to complete his duties
on time.
The evidence disclosed that the plaintiff suffered a lumbar
herniation in ________. The plaintiff contended that although he had
four flare-ups that ranged in severity from severe to mild, the
episodes resolved with conservative care and no loss of time from
work. The plaintiff also related that he was involved in a motor
vehicle accident approximately six weeks earlier that caused
increased back pain. The plaintiff contended that he underwent a
course of physical therapy shortly thereafter, missed no time
from work, and maintained the increased pain had substantially
resolved as of the time the subject incident occurred.
The plaintiff contended that that he developed severely
heightened and continuing pain and limitations after being pinned
against the wall. The plaintiff maintained that the symptoms
continued despite conservative care and epidural injections and
that he then underwent fusion surgery. The plaintiff contended
that the severe pain and limitations continued despite the
surgery and that he suffered nerve damage that caused
intermittent urinary incontinence. The plaintiff contended that
he can no longer work and that he must lead a much more sedentary
lifestyle.
The plaintiff is the owner of a triplex building, rents out two
of the units, and contended that although he formerly did most of
his own maintenance, he can no longer do so. The plaintiff
related that must wear a smaller back brace on a daily basis and
wears a much larger brace when he travels by car more than a
short distance. The plaintiff also contended that the urinary
difficulties are permanent in nature.
The plaintiff had been hired by this hospital some months after
the motor vehicle accident and was still undergoing training. The
plaintiff presented his foreman, who had been employed by the
hospital for 12 years. The witness related that he had been with
the plaintiff almost every day, that he was a good worker, and
that the foreman was not even aware of the recent motor vehicle
accident.
The case settled during trial for $________, including $________
for lost wages and $________ for pain and suffering.
5 ways to win with JVRA
JVRA gives you jurisdiction-specific, year-round insight into the strategies, arguments and tactics that win. Successful attorneys come to the table prepared and use JVRA to:
- Determine if a case is winnable and recovery amounts.
- Determine reasonable demand for a case early on.
- Support a settlement demand by establishing precedent.
- Research trial strategies, tactics and arguments.
- Defeat or support post-trial motions through past case histories.
Try JVRA for a day or a month, or sign up for our deluxe Litigation Support Plan and put the intelligence of JVRA to work for all of your clients. See our subscription plans.