Missouri Injury Lawyer Blog

One truism of my work as a Missouri injury lawyer is that most of the time, people injured at work may not sue their employers. Most workplaces are covered by workers’ compensation laws, which means the exclusive remedy for such people is to claim workers’ compensation payments. This can cause fights with insurance companies, but it may allow workers to get compensation without filing a lawsuit. However, when the workplace injury happened on the premises, or because of the actions, of a third party, workers may be able to sue instead of or in addition to claiming compensation. That was the situation in Howsden v. Roper’s Real Estate Co., in which Darlene Howsden was injured at her workplace. The premises were not owned by her employer, but a related entity, and the Nebraska Supreme Court ruled Howsden may sue that entity.

Howsden worked at a funeral home that was purchased by Roper & Sons Inc., another funeral home. For business and tax purposes, all real estate operated by Roper & Sons is owned by Roper’s Real Estate Company. Howsden’s workplace was in an older building, which had an old-fashioned elevator that connected two hallways on the same floor. The elevator was rarely used to travel between floors, but employees would use it to move between the two hallways. Howsden was seriously injured after she entered the elevator, expecting it to be on her floor, and fell through the empty shaft to the basement. She successfully claimed workers’ compensation benefits through the employer’s insurer, which covered her employer, Roper & Sons and Roper’s Real Estate. She then filed a lawsuit alleging that negligence by Roper’s Real Estate caused the injury. The trial court ultimately granted Roper’s motion for summary judgment, finding that Howsden’s exclusive remedy was workers’ compensation

On appeal, the Nebraska Supreme Court reversed that decision. Howsden’s cse presents an unusual situation because her employer was not Roper’s Real Estate, the defendant — it is Roper & Sons. Roper’s argued that the entities should be considered under the dual capacity or dual persona doctrines. Those doctrines are not applicable, the court said, because the two Roper entities are not the same company — they are separate legal entities that have the same board of directors. Indeed, it noted, courts in many other jurisdictions have declined to collapse this kind of separate legal entity format into one entity for workers’ compensation purposes. “One cannot claim the benefits of incorporation without the burdens,” the court noted. Furthermore, courts have generally declined to pierce the corporate veil except in cases of fraud, and the Nebraska Supreme Court agreed. Thus, it reversed the lower court and remanded the case.

As a St. Louis personal injury attorney, I appreciate that the high court declined to protect the company from litigation in a situation that would offer zero protection to another separate entity. As the court noted, the benefits of incorporating separately come at the price of the responsibilities and liabilities of the separate entity. This situation may be more common than employees think, since it’s not uncommon to have different legal entities operating different parts of what looks on the outside like the same business. This offers more opportunities for relief to people who are injured on the job, since workers’ compensation can be difficult to claim when the employer or its insurer won’t play fair. Workplace injury lawsuits like Howsden’s are simpler to pursue with the help of an experienced southern Illinois accident lawyer, even if they are more time-consuming by design.

Continue reading "High Court Finds Worker May Sue Company Related to Her Employer After Injury – Howsden v. Roper’s Real Estate Co." »

Part of my job as a Missouri injury attorney is to request fair compensation for “loss of consortium” to spouses, as well as the losses of the person who was directly injured. This can mean any practical loss, like the loss of someone to do yard work, as well as emotional losses. In Kingman v. Dillard’s Inc., the decision focused on a woman’s lost ability to care for her quadriplegic husband. Paula Kingman successfully sued a Dillard’s store in Missouri after a hanging clothes rack fell and permanently injured her shoulder. The injury meant she could no longer be the primary caregiver for her husband, Calvin Kingman, who needs daily help moving to avoid bedsores, bathing, dressing and more. Dillard’s challenged the award of money to Calvin for the loss of his wife’s services.

Paula was shopping when a clothes rack came loose from the wall and fell on her. She reacted in a way that twisted her shoulder, developing pain, a limited range of motion and a popping/catching sensation. Despite pain medication, immobilization, physical therapy and three surgeries, Paula never healed entirely. Three different doctors told her she could no longer lift or move her husband, who weighs 300 pounds, because of the injury. She also had a series of previous injuries, two from car wrecks that did not directly harm her shoulder, and one workplace injury that did harm her shoulder. She continued to be the primary caregiver for Calvin until her Dillard’s accident. After a bench trial on the Dillard’s incident, she was awarded $186,000 for her injuries and Calvin was awarded $1 million for professional care. Dillard’s appealed, objecting to the amount of Paula’s award and the loss of consortium award to Calvin.

The Eighth Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part. Dillard’s argued that Paula should have been awarded less because her shoulder injury was preexisting, but the court disagreed. An expert at trial testified that her previous injury was to shoulder nerves, not to the muscle, as the Dillard’s injury was, and another previous injury had healed. And even if she was predisposed to shoulder injuries, the court found that Dillard’s still had a responsibility to compensate her for aggravating her problems. However, the Eighth also found that Missouri law on loss of consortium claims does not allow awards for lifelong nursing care. It noted that no court in Missouri and most other places had addressed the issue, and declined to expand Missouri law. It also pointed out that loss of consortium awards are not generally larger than awards for the underlying injury. Thus, it upheld the award to Paula but remanded the award to Calvin for the district court to reconsider.

As a St. Louis personal injury lawyer, I would like to see Missouri courts take on this issue. The Eighth was not insensitive about the losses to the Kingmans caused by Paula’s inability to care for Calvin. Indeed, it suggested alternative theories of loss of consortium that might expand the award to Calvin without encompassing professional nursing services. However, it did not want to make new law in Missouri, correctly deferring that job to Missouri courts themselves. Thus, Missouri appellate courts may be able to expand loss of consortium claims for the thankfully rare occasions when the spouse of a very disabled person is injured through someone else’s negligence. It may sound like a small matter of law, but as a southern Illinois spinal injury attorney, I know it matters a lot to couples like the Kingmans.

Continue reading "Eighth Circuit Sends Jury Award Back in Case of Injury at Work – Kingman v. Dillard’s Inc." »

As a southern Illinois personal injury attorney, I was interested to see an article on unaddressed workplace hazards faced by domestic workers — people who work in other people’s homes. The paper by Washington University in St. Louis law professor Peggy Smith discusses hazards to workers including cleaners, childcare workers and home care workers for the disabled and elderly. As UPI reported March 11, Smith writes that workers in private homes are exposed to harmful chemicals, abusive employment practices and, in the case of home health aides, musculoskeletal injuries from lifting clients who need help with tasks like using the bathroom.

Smith, an employment law expert, makes her arguments in an upcoming paper for the Canadian Journal of Women & the Law. She cites a survey of California domestic workers in which two-thirds said they considered their jobs hazardous. Domestic workers who clean were more likely than industrial cleaners to report physical and respiratory reactions to cleaning chemicals, and were more likely to use cleaners that had irritants. Home health aides also reported more health problems than their counterparts in hospitals and nursing homes. In fact, Smith wrote, this category of worker reported more debilitating musculoskeletal problems than any other group of U.S. workers, including steel mill workers and coal miners. She called on the federal government to ensure workers are better trained, placement agencies to inspect homes and private employers to provide safety equipment like rubber gloves.

I might go even further, as a St. Louis personal injury lawyer, and suggest guidelines or even regulations from OSHA about basic safety for domestic workers. As the press release from the university notes, domestic workers are completely exempt from federal workplace safety laws — which accounts for much of the disparity in health outcomes between domestic workers and their industrial counterparts. Going through a placement agency alleviates only some of those concerns. Domestic workers who are injured or sickened on the job may be able to hold their employers responsible for creating hazardous conditions (sometimes through homeowners’ insurance), but a set of guidelines would provide clear safety standards, giving employers a guideline for compliance and workers more assurance that their basic safety is being protected.

Continue reading "Domestic Workers Unprotected From Workplace Hazards, Law Professor Argues" »

As a Missouri personal injury attorney, I was disturbed to see a report in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch about a nursing home closed because of health violations. According to the Jan. 13 article, the Whispering Oaks residential care home was evacuated Jan. 11 after its pipes froze, causing toilets to back up and flood human waste onto the floors. Twenty-nine residents had to be moved, mainly to other facilities in St. Louis and Ferguson. St. Louis County officials said the home could be reopened as soon as the sanitation problem is addressed and water is restored. However, a spokesperson for Missouri Attorney General Chris Koster said state law enforcement will investigate separately.

Whispering Oaks has 70 beds for patients with diagnoses including schizophrenia, depression, mental retardation and diabetes. At least one resident said he liked the facility because it gave him a relatively high degree of independence. However, it also has a long record of health and safety violations. Past violations include dirty restrooms and kitchen; improper handling and administration of medication; a drunken fight between residents; and a cat using a potted plant as a litterbox. In one incident, a resident fell from a ladder while trying to repair a roof gutter and needed stitches for a cut in his leg. The resident said owner Naren Chaganti asked him to do the job, but Chaganti denied this. The state is already investigating the facility because of a September report that its drinking water was not up to standards.

As a St. Louis personal injury lawyer, I hope the state is thorough in its investigation of this facility, because nursing home residents deserve all the protection we can give them. Many nursing homes are caring and well-run facilities, but a few each year are revealed as unsanitary, understaffed or even abusive. Nursing home residents aren’t always able to speak out against bad conditions or ask for help, often because of the same problems that landed them in a home in the first place. That means abuse and neglect can go unnoticed for months, until an accident like this one makes the problems impossible to hide. By then, residents may have suffered serious harm that requires hospitalization, including dehydration or bedsores; infections from unsanitary conditions; improper medication and more.

Continue reading "State Will Investigate St. Louis Nursing Home Closed for Violations" »

Attacks from at least one of the family’s three dogs killed a three-year-old Johnston City boy, The Southern reported June 29. Gabiral Mandrell was found about 200 feet from his home around 8 p.m. and taken to the hospital, where he was pronounced dead from blood loss at 8:50 p.m. All three of the mixed-breed dogs were taken to the Williamson County Animal Control Center, where they will be held during an investigation.

According to the newspaper, Mandrell’s family thought he was sleeping on Saturday evening, when he apparently opened the screen on his bedroom window and escaped into the yard. Three dogs were loose in the yard -- two pit bull mixes and a collie mix. Authorities aren’t sure how many of the dogs were involved in the attack. Mandrell was bitten numerous times, but the bite that killed him was to a major blood vessel. The Williamson County Coroner declined to be more specific. The Illinois Department of Children and Family Services is investigating the death.

Not every family realizes it, but dogs can be dangerous around young children. One study of fatal dog attacks by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found that 80% of dog bite fatalities were to children under 12 -- and three were babies less than a month old. As a Missouri dog attack lawyer, I have encountered multiple explanations for this. Young children who don’t have experience with dogs may not understand the difference between playing and provoking a dog. Their small size and short stature also places their heads and necks closer to the ground, where dogs can do a lot of harm. And because of children’s size and quick movements, dogs may instinctively see them as prey, or sometimes as pack members to be dominated.

Unfortunately, the consequences of this can be devastating. Because the head and neck are the most likely targets in dog attacks, children attacked by dogs can sustain very serious injuries, including severe blood loss, nerve damage, organ damage and serious infections. They also frequently come away with disfiguring facial scars, sometimes requiring years of reconstructive surgery. In addition to the physical consequences, this can be very difficult emotionally and socially for a child.

Dogs that attack in Missouri and Illinois frequently face impoundment and euthanasia as public threats. But for families traumatized by a dog attack and facing mounting medical bills, that may not be enough. When dogs that should have been leashed or controlled attack human beings, victims have the right to hold their owners legally liable with a St. Louis dog bite lawsuit. Generally speaking, these claims are covered by the dog owner’s homeowner’s insurance, or sometimes by a landlord’s insurance -- so victims are really suing an insurance company.

Continue reading "Dangerous Dog Attack Kills Three-Year-Old Southern Illinois Boy" »