Case at a glance
- Recovery: Confidential Settlement
- Injury: Shoulder injury requiring multiple surgeries
- Practice: Workplace injuries
- Representation: Vuk Vujasinovic and the VB Attorneys team
The load blocked the view ahead
The worker had spent 23 years with his employer. His job involved moving milk from a refrigerated warehouse into enclosed trailers.
That day, he saw a raised metal plate in the trailer and tried to work around it. The company instructed employees to work around such plates as best they could. With his usual clamp truck unavailable, he used a powered pallet truck that lacked the clamp truck’s stabilizing arms and lights.
The stacked load was about six feet high. He could not see over it and had to look around its side while moving into the unlit trailer. He loaded the first pallet successfully. On the next trip, part of the equipment hit the metal plate, twisting the load and injuring his shoulder.
Three surgeries, with another expected
The shoulder injury required three surgeries. By the time the case was resolved, he was expected to need at least one more operation.
Vuk Vujasinovic and the VB Attorneys team represented him in the workplace injury case. Their work addressed the loading conditions, the equipment available to him and the consequences of the injury.
Questioning the defense safety expert
Vuk questioned the company’s safety expert about the facts supporting his opinions. The expert had never visited the facility or inspected the actual pallet truck. He had not seen a photograph of that truck or received operating data from it.
Vuk then worked through the conditions the employee faced. The expert agreed that the truck had no lights, the trailer had no interior lighting and the worker could not see over the load. He also agreed that raised metal plates were a workplace hazard.
The questioning separated general familiarity with warehouse work from knowledge of this particular incident. It established what the expert had reviewed, what he had not inspected and which physical conditions he accepted.
Examining the training behind the work
Vuk also questioned the expert about operator training and the hazards specific to the loading dock. The expert acknowledged that he had not received the worker’s training materials, tests or certification records.
The expert relied in part on the worker’s statement that he was certified. He did not say the worker had received no training. Vuk’s questioning instead exposed the limits of the records the expert had reviewed before offering his opinions.
Those distinctions mattered to the case: the condition of the trailer, visibility around the load, the equipment available and the information underlying the defense’s safety opinions all required examination.
A confidential settlement
The matter was resolved by agreement of the parties.
Questions about the case
Related legal help
Learn about injury claims, or read about another case involving injuries from work equipment.
To speak with VB Attorneys about an injury at work, call 877-724-7800 for a free consultation.
Every case is different. Prior results depend on the facts of the individual case and do not guarantee a similar outcome.