The work and the disputed report
Our client worked as a deckhand moving barges on a river. The job involved handling steel wires used to hold vessels and barges together.
The initial incident report described back pain while he was laying fore-and-aft wires. In his deposition, he described a barge breaking loose and an instruction to jump a gap with a wire to help secure it. Other crew members disputed that account.
The difference mattered. The initial description also appeared in medical records, and the defense questioned his account of how he had been hurt.
We examined both versions. Under our client’s account, the questions concerned how the barge had been secured and the instructions for retrieving it. Under the initial report, the questions concerned the weight of the wires and whether the equipment was reasonably safe for the work.
What the equipment records showed
The company’s safety department had recommended lighter line for this vessel three months before the injury. The replacement had not yet occurred when our client reported his back pain.
That evidence gave us a separate basis to pursue the case. If a jury accepted the initial report’s description of routine wire work, it would still need to consider the physical demands of handling the heavy steel wires and the earlier recommendation to replace them.
We developed that argument through the company’s records, depositions of its representatives, and a marine safety expert’s assessment. The expert evaluated both accounts of the work. Our neurosurgical expert also testified that either handling the wire or jumping could cause the types of injuries our client sustained.
The disagreement over how the injury happened remained. The equipment evidence and medical testimony allowed us to address it directly while presenting a basis for responsibility under either account.
Two operations and continuing limitations
Our client underwent two lower-back operations. He continued to experience back and leg pain, received pain-management treatment, and used a cane or wheelchair when pain or distance made walking difficult. A neurosurgeon later recommended a lumbar fusion.
The defense disputed whether his continuing limitations were caused by the work injury. We developed medical testimony addressing the imaging, the reasons for the operations, and the relationship between the original injury and his later condition.
His ability to earn a living required its own examination. He had planned to advance in maritime work. His physical restrictions prevented a return to deckhand duties. We obtained a functional capacity evaluation and vocational evidence, including an analysis of future earnings that considered whether he might be able to perform sedentary work.
The effects also reached into his life at home. He sold a car he had planned to restore with his son. He could no longer pick his son up and carry him to bed after he fell asleep in the car. Those details helped explain what the injury meant beyond an operation or a medical bill.
A confidential resolution
An earlier mediation ended without an agreement. We continued developing the case through medical, vocational, and marine safety testimony before returning to mediation in 2026. The parties then reached a confidential resolution.
Vuk Vujasinovic and Job Tennant handled the case for VB Attorneys.
The preparation addressed the questions a jury would have faced: how the work was performed, what equipment was available, what caused the injuries, and how those injuries affected our client’s ability to work and live. The financial terms remain private.
What the evidence showed
- The incident report and deposition testimony. We examined the differences between the accounts and developed the evidence relevant to each.
- The earlier equipment recommendation. The safety department’s recommendation to replace heavy steel wires with lighter line predated the injury.
- Medical evidence addressing both accounts. Neurosurgical testimony supported our position that either described activity could cause the injuries at issue.
- The ability to work after the injury. Functional testing and vocational analysis addressed the loss of deckhand work and the possibility of sedentary employment.
- The client’s daily limitations. His account of mobility, pain, and activities with his son helped document the effects of the injury outside the workplace.
More from the record
Frequently Asked Questions
Every case is different. Prior results depend on the facts of the individual case and do not guarantee a similar outcome.