Who was responsible for developing the work site safety plan played a role in determining liability. (Photo: Thinkstock)
The verdict's in: Jury awards $8.2M for workplace injury
A look at some of the legal decisions of interest to the insurance industry
Aug 10, 2016 | By Patricia L. Harman, PropertyCasualty360.com
Eric Austin was a laborer employed by Danco General Contracting in Morganville, New Jersey.
On May 3, 2013, he was helping with the removal of copper and brass piping at a building demolition site. While on a catwalk at the site, he went over the rails and fell 18 feet to the concrete below.
He was taken by ambulance to the hospital where he was put into an induced coma and intubated for a month. Austin suffered five skull fractures and was diagnosed with a severe traumatic brain injury. Nerve damage from the skull fractures prevented him from closing his left eye. A monitor was surgically placed inside his skull to measure the pressure on the brain and it was determined that further surgery was not viable.
Following his transfer to a rehabilitation facility, he underwent subacute rehabilitation before being transferred to a second facility for further rehab. This was followed by a year of out-patient rehab and physical therapy.
Austin sustained a severe hearing loss in both ears, which requires hearing aids. He also has impaired vision, which requires the use of prism glasses. The brain injury has impaired his cognitive abilities such as decision-making, memory and the ability to focus. Despite his ability to perform many daily living activities, his diminished capacity means he still requires supervision. He has not returned to work and is believed to be permanently disabled.
The case
Austin claimed he suffered traumatic brain injuries because of the fall. With his wife, he sued French & Parrello Associates, the engineering and environmental services firm, alleging it was the company's responsibility to create and follow a fall-protection plan. The Austins claim the company was negligent and had violated Occupational Safety and Health Administration requirements in this area.
Mary Austin says her husband's condition has brought challenges and changes to their marriage relationship. She sued for loss of consortium and services.
Initially, M&M at Morris Plains LLC, the property owner; the general contractor, Morris Plains Contracting LLC; and Pyramid Contracting Corp., the asbestos subcontractor, were all named as defendants to the suit. Each of the companies reached a confidential settlement with the Austins prior to the trial, but M&M and Morris Plains Contracting remained on the verdict sheet. Pyramid Contracting was not included because the company had previously reached a successful directed verdict.
The plaintiffs’ experts testified that he sustained a severe brain injury, has reached his maximum medical improvement, and will require supervision and counseling, as well as a home health care aid. The defense's expert testified that Austin had only suffered a mild brain injury and that his cognitive impairments were mild. Counsel argued that Austin's previous drug and alcohol abuse, as well as his ADHD and history of depression contributed to his impairments. Despite these issues, Austin is able to drive a car and function on his own, and counsel said he was still capable of working in other fields.
The verdict
The initial demand was $4 million and the offer was $400,000. The Austins were awarded $8.29 million in damages, which were reduced to $7,296,137 because of Eric Austin's comparative negligence. Eric Austin received $475,064 for past medical costs; $3,242,000 for future medical costs; $1,074,000 for future lost earnings; and $3 million for past pain and suffering. Maria Austin received $500,000 for past loss of consortium.