$2M Labor Law / Construction, Brooklyn School
Incident
The client was working for a contractor hired to replace windows at a New York City Department of Education school in Brooklyn. His job that day was to unload window guards from his company's truck.
The window guards weighed a couple hundred pounds each. Two or three hundred pounds apiece. They were stacked on the truck but not fastened down. Two workers, the client and one other, were unloading them when the stack started to tip. The guards fell, pushed the client off the truck, and landed on top of him.
Injuries: severe damage to the knee. Surgery was required shortly after. His treating doctor has recommended a full knee replacement, which he has not yet had.
The client was referred to Nick by another attorney.
Legal theory
A workplace fall involving heavy construction materials that were not properly secured on an elevation (a truck bed) fits the fact pattern for New York Labor Law protection.
The case was framed as a labor-law case. Nick describes it plainly: "a labor law case, which pretty much is a construction accident case." The specific statute is not confirmed in the call transcript; Labor Law §240(1) covers falls and falling objects on construction sites, and §241(6) covers related safety-regulation violations. Confirm with Nick before publishing.
Procedural arc
Nick moved for summary judgment on liability. The argument: as a matter of law, the defendants were negligent. A jury shouldn't have to decide this.
The defense filed a cross-motion to dismiss, arguing the case didn't fit labor-law parameters.
Both motions took time. The judge denied both of them.
With both motions denied, the judge pushed to settle. The case stayed in front of the judge assigned to it (in-court mediation) before later moving to private mediation.
Depositions were still pending when the case settled. If the case had run to completion, it could have gone another five or six years, and if the appellate division had ruled for the defense on appeal, the case would have been over entirely. Settling early cut off that downside.
Damages framework
Two components drove the value:
- Life care plan. A doctor developed a lifelong care plan documenting the medical needs going forward, including the pending knee replacement.
- Lost earnings. The client never returned to work. An economist calculated the present value of the earnings he would have made over his working life. The argument: he could no longer do what he did before the injury.
Special damages like life care plans and economist-calculated earnings do not typically get reduced on appeal. Non-economic damages (pain and suffering) do. Building the case on special damages made the number more defensible.
Settlement arc
| Stage | Offer / Demand |
|---|---|
| Initial defense offer | ~$150,000 |
| After in-court mediation with the judge | ~$900,000 (on the table when the case left court) |
| Nick's demand range | $3M-$5M |
| Private mediation final | $2,000,000 |
Nick's summary of the math: "You came out of four and met in the middle at two. Kind of." The landing number was more than the defense wanted to pay, less than Nick would have taken at trial, and both sides ended a little unhappy. That's the mediation outcome.
Client psychology + education
The client was frustrated throughout. His worker's compensation carrier made the process difficult: not approving procedures his doctors recommended, not paying lost earnings, generally dragging things out. Nick describes the typical worker's comp carrier posture as "looking to make life so difficult that the person gives up."
Nick's job during this was constant education. Explaining what the insurance industry does, why it does it, and why the process was unfolding the way it was. The client got frustrated and wanted to bail several times. Nick kept him in the fight.
When the settlement landed, everything changed.
Public FAQs
Q: What is a "labor law" case in New York? A: New York has specific statutes that protect construction workers who are hurt on the job. Labor Law §240(1) (the "scaffold law") and §241(6) create special protections for falls and falling-object injuries on construction sites. These cases have different rules than ordinary negligence, in many situations, liability is effectively absolute once the facts are proven.
Q: Why did the defense try to dismiss the case? A: When a plaintiff files a summary-judgment motion asking the court to rule on liability as a matter of law, defendants often file their own cross-motion arguing the case doesn't belong in labor law at all. If they win that motion, the case is over. If they lose, the case moves forward, usually toward settlement.
Q: What is a life care plan and why did it matter here? A: A life care plan is a medical document, prepared by a qualified doctor, that forecasts every medical and assistive need the client will have for the rest of their life. It puts a dollar figure on ongoing care, future surgery, therapy, medication, mobility aids. Insurance companies and appellate courts don't dismiss these numbers the way they do pain-and-suffering estimates.
Q: Why did you use an economist? A: To calculate the present value of the wages the client would have earned over his working life if he hadn't been hurt. His injury ended his ability to do the physical work he was trained for. The economist's number quantifies that loss.
Q: Could this case have gotten dismissed on appeal? A: Yes. Even after both sides' motions were denied, the defense could have appealed to the appellate division. If the appellate court had ruled that the case didn't belong in labor law, the case would have been over. That risk is why settling made sense here, even at a number below what a jury might have awarded.
Q: How long does a case like this usually take? A: If it runs all the way through trial and appeals, five to six years is normal. This one settled before depositions were complete, which shaved years off the timeline for the client.
Q: What happens if I have a worker's compensation claim at the same time? A: They are separate systems. Worker's comp is run by your employer's insurance carrier and typically moves slowly. A third-party personal injury case against a different defendant, like the contractor who failed to secure the load, or the truck owner, is separate and can produce a much larger recovery.
Each case is decided on its own facts.
Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.
Case results referenced represent gross recovery before deduction of attorney fees and expenses. Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. The information on this website is for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Contacting this firm does not create an attorney-client relationship; no such relationship exists until a written retainer agreement is signed. Case results referenced represent gross recovery before deduction of attorney fees and expenses. Nicholas Rose is admitted to practice in the State of New York. Principal office: 102-11 Metropolitan Avenue, Forest Hills, NY 11375. Phone: 718-261-0546.