New York Injury Attorneys Blog

As a New York car accident lawyer, I am frustrated at having to turn away injured clients because they are not hurt enough to sue. The New York Legislature truly sold out its citizens to the insurance companies when it passed New York Insurance Laws 5102 and 5104.

These laws basically state that you cannot recover even a dollar for pain and suffering from a car accident unless you have sustained a "serious injury" as the law has defined it. Under NY Insurance Law 5102(d) a "Serious injury" means a personal injury which results in death; dismemberment; significant disfigurement; a fracture; loss of a fetus; permanent loss of use of a body organ, member, function or system; permanent consequential limitation of use of a body organ or member; significant limitation of use of a body function or system; or a medically determined injury or impairment of a non-permanent nature which prevents the injured person from performing substantially all of the material acts which constitute such person's usual and customary daily activities for not less than ninety days during the one hundred eighty days immediately following the occurrence of the injury or impairment.

This means that numerous injuries that are indeed serious and cause havoc to people's lives are not recognized to be serious under New York Law. The result has been that numerous people who have been injured, get their lawsuits dismissed because they were not "hurt enough" or their doctors did not properly diagnose and document their injuries and limitations.

The Courts have restrictively interpreted this law and have held that even injuries which the medical community considers serious are not serious unless it causes someone to loose 90 days of work or permanent loss of motion of the body part. For example,herniated discs, nerve injuries and even torn ligaments, torn rotator cuffs which require surgery have been held not to be serious injuries becuase they did not cause a loss of a range of motion or disaibility for 90 days.

The result is the person who suffers and works in pain, gets their case dismissed while the slacker who stays out of work gets to go to trial. Also, people who have been legitimately injured in car accidents get their case dismissed while the insurance companies walk away laughing. Even more egregious, the winner of a case, gets to have some of their costs paid by the adversary. Therefore, insurance company lawyers who win cases because a person was not "injured enough" are getting judgments against the people who were injured by the negligence of their insured.

This law was sold to the publis as providing "no fault" guarenteed medical benefits for their injuries and lower insurance premiums. The reality is that the insurance companies are cutting off injured people from medical treatment, the first chance they get. They send their insureds to hack doctors who are professional liars and who find that everyone has reached maximum medical improvement and does not need further care.

The result is that the doctors are no longer treating accident victims after the insurance companies cut them off, which in turn makes it more difficult for the accident victim to prove they have the consequential or significant permanent limitations that the Insurance Law requires to bring a lawsuit.

It is time for this terrible and archaic law to be changed. It is time that the New York car accident lawyers who represent accident victims and the Insurance Companies are on an even playing field. The definition of serious injury needs to be amended to include injuries that require surgery, herniated discs, nerve injuries, and other injuries that have long been considered serious. The insurance companies have gotten away with murder and it is time for this to stop.

This law has allowed the insurance companies to victimize those injured in car accidents and legislative reform is necessary.

As a New York construction accident lawyer, I have handled countless construction accident cases in New York and Westchester. I have handled construction accident cases in the Bronx, Brooklyn, Manhattan, Queens, White Plains, Yonkers, Ossining, New Rochelle, and Rockland County.

Accidents involving excavation equipment usually fall under Labor Law 241. Labor Law 241 requires that all workers performing excavation be provided proper protection. To establish a violation of the law, there must be a violation of a concrete provision of the New York Industrial Code. Excavation accidents often involve serious injuries and even death.

There are several sections of the New York Industrial Code which apply to construction accidents involving excavation equipment. One such provision requires the general contractor to keep workers at a distance from excavation equipment, such that they cannot be struck, although the New York Courts are split as to whether this provision is a "concrete" provision. Also the regulations require that only the pitman and excavation crew be in the vicinity of the excavation equipment's swing radius.

Other requirements require the blade or claw to remain on the ground or at grade when not in use. Another regulation requires that when the operator of the machine remain at the controls when a load is being handled. Another regulation requires that the operator of the excavation machine remain at the controls while the master clutch and engine is engaged.

A violation of any of these regulations creates liability under Labor Law 241. Michael Joseph handles construction accidents in New York, the Bronx, Brooklyn, Manhattan, Westchester, Rockland, White Plains, Yonkers, New Rochelle, Mamaroneck, Ossining and Queens.

As a New York Injury Attorney, Michael Joseph is thoroughly familiar with the Labor Laws which protect injured New York Window Washers. An injured window cleaner who falls from an elevated work surface can sue under Labor Law § 202 and Labor Law § 240 (1). The New York Court of Appeals has held that the injured window washer can bring both claims simultaneously.

Among other activities, Labor Law § 240 (1) applies to workers engaged in the "cleaning" of a building. Whether a window's exterior or interior is being cleaned is irrelevant, rather, liability turns on whether a particular window washing task creates an elevation-related risk of the kind that the safety devices listed in Labor Law § 240(1) protects against. The Courts have recognized that Labor Law § 240 applies to window washers who are injured while cleaning a 10-foot-high interior window. Swiderska v. New York University, 10 N.Y.3d 792, 856 N.Y.S.2d 533 (2008).

Labor Law § 240(1) imposes a non-delegable duty upon building owners to furnish proper safety devices and protection in order to ensure the safety of workers exposed to elevation-related risks. Jamil v. Concourse Enters., 740 N.Y.S.2d 308, 310 (N.Y.A.D. 1 Dept. 2002).

A building owner who fails to provide adequate safety devices required by Labor Law §240 is absolutely liable in damages for injuries which are proximately caused by the breach. Labor Law §240(1) liability is contingent upon the existence of a hazard contemplated in section 240(1) and the failure to use, or the inadequacy of, a safety device enumerated therein.

Where a ladder does not prevent plaintiff from falling and no safety devices, other than the ladder, are provided, defendants have violated Labor Law §240. Deng v. A.J. Contr. Co., 680 N.Y.S.2d 223 (N.Y.A.D. 1 Dep't. 1998).

A worker's contributory negligence is not a defense to a Labor Law §240 cause of action. It is irrelevant whether plaintiff's ladder tipped because plaintiff lost his balance or whether plaintiff fell off the ladder without it having tipped at all, because plaintiff's negligence irrelevant. In other words, if safety devices which would have prevented plaintiff's fall were not provided, plaintiff is entitled to summary judgement. The failure to provide a ladder which is secured against movement is a violation of Labor Law §240 per se.

Labor Law § 202 states that the owner of every public building and every contractor involved shall provide such safe means for the cleaning of the widows and of exterior surfaces of such building as may be required and approved by the Industrial Board of Appeals. Labor Law § 202 further states that the owners shall not permit or allow any window to be cleaned unless such means are provided to enable such work to be done in a safe manner for the prevention of accidents and for the protection of the public and of persons engaged in such work in conformity with the requirements of this chapter and the rules of the Industrial Board of Appeals. 12 N.Y.C.R.R. 21.3(B)(2) requires building owners to have structural features and anchors or other fixed devices for the worker's protection prior to allowing any person to clean a window.
Injured window washers in New York have powerful legal rights to force building owners to compensate them for their injuries.