Raleigh Personal Injury Lawyer

Experts Descend Upon ConAgra Plant in Garner, NC

Brent Adams — Wed, 10 Jun 2009 17:23:37 GMT

Industrial accidents are tragic. They are usually unnecessary and preventable. These tragedies are usually caused by defective products or negligence. They occur usually because the employers involved, and independent third party contractors and suppliers failed to take basic safety precautions to protect workers.

The most recent tragedy occurred yesterday in Garner, North Carolina when an explosion at the ConAgra Plant blew open the plant, killed at least 3 workers and sent 4 people to the Burn Center at Chapel Hill, North Carolina and hospitalized at least 38 others.

Experts from around the country have descended upon the little North Carolina town of Garner, North Carolina to investigate what happened.

Governmental agencies such as the US Chemical Safety Board, the agency charged with investigating industrial accidents are on the scene.

ConAgra Foods, Inc., the owner of the plant sent a team from Omaha, Nebraska to investigate.

Undoubtedly third party contractors and suppliers and their insurance company sent teams of experts in with a view towards finding evidence to extricate them from any potential liability for the tragedy.

The unfortunate workers, and the families of the 3 workers tragically killed will most likely not have a team of experts working for them. They are too much in shock to think clearly about how to protect their interest and keep incomes coming into the household to support their families.

You can be sure however, that the experts sent in by the insurance companies that insure ConAgra and any third party suppliers or contractors will be focused solely on how to protect themselves from claims which are sure to come from the victims and their families.

Of course, the injured employees and the families of the deceased employees are entitled to immediate workers’ compensation benefits. However, workers’ compensation benefits are extremely limited. Workers’ compensation insurance does not include payment for pain and suffering, punitive damages and other damages which have certainly been suffered by the employees and their families.

In order to recover more than basic workers compensation benefits, the employees will have to show that the conduct of the employer was substantially certain to cause injury or death. This is a heavy burden for these employees.

If the families can prove that third parties (individuals employed by entities other than ConAgra Foods) were responsible for the tragedy or that products supplied by third parties caused or contributed to the tragedy, the family would be entitled to full compensation for their losses.

It appears that 3 of the ConAgra employees died in the explosion: Barbara McLean Spears 43 of Dunn; Lewis Junior Watson 33 of Clayton; and Rachel Mae Poston-Pulley 67 of Clayton

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Brent Adams

North Carolina May Cap Workers' Compensation for Retirees

Margaret Embry — Thu, 28 May 2009 16:12:05 GMT

As of May 11, 2009, the North Carolina House Insurance Committee advanced a measure that would limit workers' compensation payments to injured workers about six years after they become eligible for Social Security. House Bill 1022, according to Insurance Journal

would curtail workers' compensation payments 300 weeks after a worker turns 65 or otherwise becomes eligible for Social Security retirement benefits, unless the worker wins an appeal before a state board.

While opponents argue that the bill would negatively impact senior citizens, supporters of the bill believe the measure would cut costs for employers and make North Carolina more competitive.

The bill has been sent to the House Judiciary Committee by the insurance panel for further review. A companion bill, Senate Bill 975, was filed on March 25, 2009 and is currently before the Senate Commerce Committee.

North Carolina is not the first state to debate this issue. The Utah Supreme Court recently declared a state law that limited workers' compensation payments for people over age 65 who can also collect Social Security retirement benefits unconstitutional.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Margaret Embry

North Carolina Takes Action To Reduce Teenage Deaths

Brent Adams — Sat, 18 Apr 2009 16:48:45 GMT

Over 550 teenagers were killed motor vehicle collisions in North Carolina during the past four years.

Motor vehicle collisions are the leading cause of deaths among 15 to 20 year olds.

If a teen driver has injured you, you may not be alone. In a recent operation done by the North Carolina Highway Patrol, some 8750 citations were issued to teen drives, all of which were in violation of the law. While many of these students will learn their lesson and become better drivers for them, others will not.

Many of these citations were small ones, like seat belts and speeding tickets. It is important to note, though, that most deaths caused by teen drivers are attributed to one of these two factors.

The North Carolina Highway Patrol launched Operation Drive to Live 2009, to reduce teen deaths. The effort was specifically to help reduce the number of teens killed during driving accidents. In the last four years, 554 teens were killed in car crashes. Still, this does not account for others killed due to the student's poor driving habits.

While it is important to crack down on teens to help prevent teen deaths, it is also important to provide restitution for every day drivers and passengers also killed by these accidents. Teenagers often take daring moves on the road, leaving other, unsuspecting drivers at risk.

If you have been injured in a motor vehicle collision, be careful not to make any of the common mistakes made by injured victims. To help you avoid these mistakes order a new free book for North Carolina car accident victims

North Carolina accidents can be reduced through improved education and discipline for teen drivers. While they do not cause all accidents on the roads, many lives can be saved and many injuries avoided, through improved measures.

The North Carolina Highway patrol has published safety tips for teenage drivers.

Perhaps someone you know was injured or killed due to the recklessness of a teen driver. If so, you may be able to take legal action against those responsible. Perhaps you feel that not enough is being done to promote safe teen driving. Through legal measures, people are making a difference in stopping teens and other uneducated drivers from being on the road.

Personal injury attorneys can help you with your own case.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Brent Adams

How Serious Is The Carpal Tunnel Syndrome Problem?

Brent Adams — Thu, 26 Feb 2009 12:52:00 GMT

In recent years, the U.S. Department of Labor has concluded that Carpal Tunnel Syndrome (CTS) is the “chief occupational hazard of the 90’s—disabling workers in epidemic proportions.

There are several statistics that provide some insight as to the devastating physical and financial affects of the Carpal Tunnel Syndrome epidemic on workers and their families.

Currently, Carpal Tunnel Syndrome affects well over and above 8 million Americans, male and female.

At this time, Carpal Tunnel Syndrome is the number one reported medical problem accounting for about 50% of all work-related injuries.

Presently, 25% of all computer operators have Carpal Tunnel Syndrome. According to these estimates, by the year 2000, 50% of the entire workforce may develop Carpal Tunnel Syndrome.

There are over 230,000 surgical procedures performed yearly on patients with Carpal Tunnel Syndrome. This makes Carpal Tunnel Syndrome surgery the second most common type of surgery.

Amazingly, only 23% of all Carpal Tunnel Syndrome patients were able to return to their previous professions following the surgery.

Up to 36% of all Carpal Tunnel Syndrome patients require extensive and unlimited medical treatment.

Women are twice as likely to develop Carpal Tunnel Syndrome as opposed to their male counterparts.

While women account for about 45% of all workers they experience nearly two-thirds of all work-related Repetitive Stress Injuries.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Brent Adams

Heating Oil Leak Results In $50,000 Personal Injury Settlement

Brent Adams — Wed, 25 Feb 2009 12:52:42 GMT

A Durham County furnace repair company has agreed to pay $50,000.00 to homeowners for personal injuries suffered when their home was contaminated by a heating oil leak. In addition to the $50,000.00 for personal injuries the defendant agreed to pay the lost market value of the house.

The $50,000.00 component of the settlement was because the homeowners had to smell the fumes.

The difficulty in this case from the claimant’s perspective was proving the harmful effects of bad odors. There was no documented physical impairment stemming from the exposure to the oil. The injury was the aggravation of having to breathe odors on a non-stop basis. The homeowners had the constant stench of fuel oil in their clothes.

North Carolina law imposes strict liability for oil spills. The unusual twist to this case is that it resulted in a substantial settlement for personal injuries resulting from the oil fumes in the home.

The homeowners claimed that approximately 40 gallons of heating oil leaked underneath their home in 1998 when the defendant, while working on their furnace, did not properly reattach a fuel line. The spill occurred just days after the plaintiff put the house up for sale. The plaintiffs’ claimed that because of the spill, the property was not marketable.

The homeowner sued the oil maintenance company for negligence and violation of a North Carolina statute in the North Carolina Oil Pollution and Hazardous Substances Control Act.

Under that provision of the statute any person having control over oil or other hazardous substances which enters the waters of this State in violation of the law shall be strictly liable for damages to persons or property caused by such injury.

The female claimant was particularly affected by the odors because she also suffered from inoperable brain cancer. This condition, along with her age and the fact that she was at home all the time made her particularly vulnerable to the oil smell.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Brent Adams

Government Pays Disability For Back Condition

Brent Adams — Mon, 23 Feb 2009 16:54:02 GMT

Disabling back conditions enable a citizen to recover disability income from the Federal Government.

Approximately 80% of all adults will have a serious back problem during their life. Fortunately, most of these back problems are not disabling. However, if the back condition is such that one can no longer work and earn a living, disability payments can be received from the Social Security Administration.

Many disabling back conditions are not apparent to the casual observer. Most people who are disabled from a back problem can move about, drive a car and live a relatively normal life. However, these people are unable to work and hold down a job.

In determining whether a person is disabled as a result of back condition the Social Security Administration takes into account the persons education, job skills, age and other vocational factors which impact upon a persons ability to work. A person who has little education or job training and who has worked all of their life in jobs which required heavy lifting and heavy use of the back and body will be determined totally disabled. The same back condition, however, in a person with more education and better job skills may not be determined to be disabling. For instance, if an individual has job skills which will allow him to work at a desk and not be required to lift heavy objects, that person will not need a good strong back to the same extent as someone without highly advanced job skills. This person could work with a “bad back” even though the same back condition would disable someone whose entire job history involved heavy lifting.

Each claimant is individually evaluated taking all relevant factors into consideration. Therefore, the issue of whether a person is disabled from a back condition is very complex. It is many times difficult to predict whether a person with a back condition will be determined to be disabled such that they would be entitled to social security disability income.

Our right as working Americans to social security disability income protection is valuable. At Brent Adams and Associates we have helped hundreds of individuals obtain full social security disability benefits as a result of back conditions. Many of these people have been repeatedly turned down for benefits before they came to us.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Brent Adams

Employer Fined For Cutting Off Workers’ Compensation Benefits

Brent Adams — Fri, 20 Feb 2009 15:05:00 GMT

The North Carolina Court of Appeals has upheld an Order imposing two thousand dollars ($2,000) in legal fees to an injured worker. The fee sanction was imposed because the employer arbitrarily cut off workers’ compensation benefits for the employee before a full hearing was conducted.

The employer filed a Form 24 Application to stop payment based upon the employer’s contention that the employee could do light duty work.

The facts of the case were that after his injury the employee had returned to work in a light duty position as a recreation room attendant. The claimant was terminated from this light duty position. This termination was ultimately held to be justified by the North Carolina Industrial Commission. The Industrial Commission also ultimately approved the termination of benefits.

Even though the plaintiff’s termination was justified, the employer drew an attorney fee penalty from the Industrial Commission because it terminated the worker’s benefits without permission from the Industrial Commission. The Industrial Commission held that the defendant-employer was obligated to reinstate the plaintiff’s full benefits and keep paying him after he was terminated until the Industrial Commission approved a suspension or termination after a full hearing. The Industrial Commission said that the penalty was not mooted just because the termination of benefits was eventually approved.

The defendant-employer argued to the Court of Appeals that the Industrial Commission had penalized the employer for not paying benefits which were never due. In response, the North Carolina Court of Appeals wrote: “To the contrary, the temporary total disability benefits were due pursuant to Rule 404 of the Workers’ Compensation Rules of the North Carolina Industrial Commission”. The court held that the plaintiff’s total disability payments which were previously paid in accordance with an agreement between the parties, could not be cut off without a finding that the worker’s disability no longer existed.

Under the terms of Rule 802 of the Workers’ Compensation Rule, non-compliance with a Workers’ Compensation Rule may subject the violator to sanctions including the imposition of attorney’s fees.

This Court of Appeals case, Thompson v. Triangle Communities is very important.

The employer has a right to ask the Industrial Commission to terminate benefits. However, the employer does not have a right to terminate benefits without permission from the Industrial Commission. This places an undue hardship upon the employee who is without income during the time that it takes for a hearing on the issue of whether benefits should be terminated. It usually takes many months for the Industrial Commission to set such a hearing. Even after the hearing the appeals process could take many more months or even years. If the employer terminates the employee’s benefits without having received permission from the Industrial Commission, the employee and his or her family suffers an enormous financial hardship. That is why the rule exist which forbids such termination without approval.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Brent Adams

Duke University Pays $500,000 For Sexual Harassment

Brent Adams — Thu, 19 Feb 2009 09:45:00 GMT

The North Carolina Supreme Court has upheld a $500,000 jury verdict against Duke University for ratifying a worker’s sexual harassment of another employee.

According to the evidence at trial the plaintiff began working at a division of Duke University’s medical center in 1991. She claimed that a co-worker embarked on an eight-month campaign of harassing behavior which included inappropriate sexual touching, graphic drawings, and obscene language.

Duke University never imposed any significant discipline on the sexual harasser even after the plaintiff reported the problem to her supervisor and personnel officials. A division head stepped in later and transferred the plaintiff to another department in March of 1992.

The plaintiff offered proof at trial that as a result of the harassment she suffered a variety of ailments including crying spells, vomiting, headaches, nightmares, and insomnia. She was diagnosed with depression and post traumatic stress disorder.

The jury found that Dixon, the harasser, committed a battery upon the plaintiff and that the plaintiff was entitled to recover $100 for that battery. In addition, the jury found that Dixon initially caused the plaintiff severe emotional distress and that Duke University ratified Dixon’s actions. The jury awarded the plaintiff $100,000 in compensatory damages for her emotional distress claim. On the plaintiff’s punitive damages claim the jury required the defendant Dixon to pay $5,000 and required Duke University to pay the plaintiff $500,000 in punitive damages. Both defendants appealed and the issue of the punitive damages claim against Duke University was recently decided by the North Carolina Supreme Court.

Duke University argued that the punitive damages liability against it, as an employer could not exceed the punitive damages awarded against Dixon, the employee. The Supreme Court disagreed, writing “The objective of compensatory damages is to restore the plaintiff to his original condition or to make the plaintiff whole.” The amount of damages required to restore the plaintiff to his original condition or to make the plaintiff whole is the same, not withstanding ratification by the employer.

Punitive damages, on the other hand, are not necessarily intended to restore the plaintiff to his original condition or to make the plaintiff whole. It may take a different amount of money to deter or punish an employer-defendant like Duke than it would to deter an employee-defendant like Dixon. “An employer who has ratified an employee’s tortious conduct should not be allowed to use it’s employee-limited financial resources as a shield against additional punitive damages.”

The facts in this case occurred in 1992. If those same facts occurred today, the punitive damages against Duke University would have been limited to $300,300. Under a new law enacted by the General Assembly, punitive damages cannot exceed three times actual or compensatory damages or $250,000 whichever is greater.

In this case, the victim’s compensatory damages were $100,100.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Brent Adams

Dad Liable For Son’s Negligence

Brent Adams — Wed, 18 Feb 2009 09:44:40 GMT

The North Carolina Court of Appeals has recently ruled that a father who held title to his teenage son’s car must go to trial on the issue of the dad’s liability for the son’s negligence in the operation of a motor vehicle.

The father’s potential liability is based upon the legal doctrine of “negligent entrustment”.

Under this doctrine, negligent entrustment occurs when the owner of an automobile “entrusts its operation to a person whom he knows, or by the exercise of due care should have known, to be an incompetent or reckless driver, . . . likely to cause injuries to others”. The negligent entrustment doctrine undertakes to impose liability on an owner of a car not otherwise responsible for the conduct of the driver of the car.

Direct liability for negligent entrustment may be imposed when there is evidence of the defendant’s record ownership of a vehicle.

In this case, Tart v. Martin, the defendant father’s nineteen-year-old son ran a stop sign injuring another motorist and killing himself. The injured motorist sued the teenage son’s father alleging that he was liable for the injury under the theory of negligent entrustment. The son’s Ford automobile was titled in the father’s name and the son lived at home with his parents. However, the parents said they never operated the car. They said they purchased it for the son because he was a minor when the car was purchased and therefore could not contract for the car. The evidence was that the son made regular payments to his dad for the car, paid all repair insurance and other cost. The son also kept all keys to the car.

Evidence was presented that the son had a speeding ticket and was involved in three motor vehicle collisions. In defense, the father signed an Affidavit alleging that none of the collisions were the son’s fault.

The Court of Appeals wrote that: “The key issue is whether evidence of the Martins’ son’s single 1993 moving violation and his three accidents in 1993 and 1994 creates a material issue of fact as to whether the Martins knew or should have known that their son was an unsafe driver. The Court of Appeals ruled that it does and reversed the Trial Court who dismissed the claim against the father. Therefore, the father will have to stand trial for the negligence of the son. At that trial the jury will determine whether or not the father knew or should have known that his son was an unsafe driver. If a jury rules against the father on that issue, the father will be liable for whatever damages the jury will assess for the injuries.

This case demonstrates the risk of having the record ownership of a motor vehicle. Simply having title to a motor vehicle in ones name creates a risk of liability.

There are other theories of liability which would hold a record titleholder liable for the negligence of a driver. Negligent entrustment is just one of those doctrines.

In the Tart v. Martin case described above, the claim against the mother was dismissed because the mother was not on the title to the motor vehicle.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Brent Adams

Mall Liable For Restaurant’s Spilled Grease

Brent Adams — Tue, 17 Feb 2009 09:02:00 GMT

The North Carolina Court of Appeals has ruled that a Salisbury shopping mall is liable for injuries suffered by a shopper who slipped on a greasy, slippery substance while walking toward the mall’s public restrooms. The Court based its ruling on the fact that the management of the mall had actual knowledge of prior greasy spills left on the floor a few weeks earlier by a restaurant in the mall.

The evidence showed that weeks prior to the shopper’s fall, the Defendant mall was notified of spills of greasy substances in the hallway leading from a restaurant in the mall to the mall exit. A trail of this greasy substance led from the inside of the restaurant’s kitchen, down the hallway and out the mall’s back door leading to a garbage dumpster.

The Court ruled that the mall had constructive notice of the greasy spill upon which the Plaintiff slipped and fell and that therefore the mall is negligent in failing to protect mall shoppers from this dangerous condition.

The injured shopper broke her leg in the fall. Her doctors testified that as a result of the fall the shopper would eventually require knee replacement surgery at an estimated cost of $25,000.00. The jury found the mall and the restaurant liable for their negligence and awarded the Plaintiff $175,000.00.

In affirming the Trial Court, the Court of Appeals wrote: “All owners and occupants of land have duty to exercise reasonable care in the maintenance of their premises for the protection of lawful visitors.”...“where the dangerous condition is created by a third party, a Plaintiff injured thereby cannot recover unless he can show that the dangerous condition had remained there for such a length of time that the owner or occupant knew, or by the exercise of reasonable care should have known of its existence. Evidence that the dangerous condition existed on the premises before the fall can reinforce a finding of constructive notice. If a Defendant has notice about a dangerous condition, it becomes foreseeable that a Plaintiff could be harmed by the condition. As such, the Defendant had a duty to exercise reasonable care to keep Plaintiff safe.”

The Court went on to explain that the mall should have known that the restaurant might leave greasy substance on the hallway since it had done so in recent weeks. The Court ruled that the mall breached its duty to the shopper when it allowed the greasy substance to remain on the hallway floor leading to the public restroom.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Brent Adams