The injury damaged his anterior cruciate ligament and meniscus. Three surgeries followed. Robert, who had spent 16 years in the offshore industry, could no longer return to offshore work.
Vuk Vujasinovic represented Robert in a Jones Act case that examined the deck hazard, the company’s knowledge of it and the long-term consequences of the knee injury. VB Attorneys secured a confidential settlement. Vuk holds Board Certification in Personal Injury Trial Law from the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, a distinction held by less than 1% of Texas lawyers.
A raised plate blended into the deck
The crew had begun relocating the basket before Robert joined the operation. Another crane operator and two roustabouts were already working on the move. Robert’s task required him to help guide the basket with a tagline.
The doubler plate created an uneven surface where he needed to work. The company had painted the plate the same gray color as the surrounding deck. That choice left the raised steel without a contrasting visual warning.
Robert had previously complained about the dangerous condition. His case therefore concerned an existing deck hazard that the company had an opportunity to address before he stepped on it during the lift.
Eight days after the injury, the company painted the doubler plates on the panel deck yellow and black. Its reports described the plates as trip hazards and hazard squares.
Two days aboard before medical care ashore
Robert reported the injury. The ship’s doctor initially gave him an ice pack and ibuprofen. He remained aboard for two days while the pain continued before a flight took him ashore for further medical care.
Doctors identified injuries to his left ACL and meniscus. Those findings marked the beginning of a prolonged course of treatment. Multiple specialists performed three operations, including procedures to repair the damaged ligament and meniscus.
The operations did not restore Robert’s ability to return to offshore work. His doctors also advised him that he would likely need a total knee replacement in the future. His case had to account for that future treatment as well as the procedures he had already endured.
An offshore career ended
Robert had built his working life around the offshore industry. He had 16 years of experience and earned his living as a crane operator. The knee injury took away his ability to continue that work.
He tried several jobs outside the maritime industry after the surgeries. None paid close to what he had earned offshore. Those efforts gave the lawyers more than a projection of what Robert might lose. His experience trying other work showed the difference between his former career and the jobs he could manage after the injury.
The medical and employment questions overlapped. Robert faced the prospect of more surgery while trying to replace an offshore income. Vuk’s work addressed the condition of Robert’s knee, the treatment he would need and the effect of his limitations on his working future.
Building the medical evidence
Vuk retained medical experts to evaluate Robert’s injuries, his surgeries and his future medical needs. That work gave the settlement negotiations a foundation in the treatment history and the anticipated course of care.
The case required a view beyond the first diagnosis. A torn ligament and meniscus led to repeated surgery, continuing limitations and a likely future knee replacement. Robert’s inability to resume offshore work added an economic consequence that treatment alone could not resolve.
Vuk used the medical evidence in negotiating the settlement. The team’s work connected the original deck injury with the consequences that continued after Robert left the vessel: further medical care, reduced work options and the loss of his offshore career.
Addressing living expenses during recovery
The case also required attention to Robert’s immediate circumstances while he could not work offshore. VB Attorneys prepared a motion seeking an increase in his daily maintenance payments, the support for food and lodging at issue in his maritime claim.
The motion examined ordinary household expenses rather than treating the daily payment as an abstract figure. The lawyers identified housing costs, electricity, water and food, and they referred to supporting bills, receipts and affidavit evidence.
That preparation addressed a practical problem separate from the eventual settlement. Robert still needed to meet daily expenses while his injury interrupted his career. The lawyers’ work on those expenses accompanied the larger effort to value his medical needs and lost earning capacity.
The confidential settlement
VB Attorneys resolved Robert’s Jones Act case through a confidential settlement. Vuk’s representation addressed a preventable deck hazard and the lasting effect of the injury on an experienced offshore worker.
If you have injuries from offshore work, a deck hazard or a lifting operation, contact Vuk Vujasinovic at VB Attorneys at (877) 724-7800 to discuss your circumstances.
Learn more about our maritime injury practice, or read about a separate maritime fall case involving a documented vessel hazard.
Related help
Questions about this case
Every case is different. Prior results depend on the facts of the individual case and do not guarantee a similar outcome.