Know Before You Decide: You May Have More Options than You Think to Seek Recovery for Your Construction Injury in New York

An old maxim opines that “what you don’t know won’t hurt you.” While there might be certain areas of life in which ignorance really is bliss, legal matters and your legal rights are not one of them. When it comes to the law, what you don’t know can hurt a great deal. It can hurt when you’re injured at work and you don’t know your rights and don’t know that you have a legal opportunity to sue and collect an award of damages. It hurts when you fail to act and lose out on the compensation you deserve. Don’t let that happen to you. Instead, if you’ve been hurt at your construction job, reach out to an experienced New York City construction accident attorney about your case.An example of this truth was illustrated in the case of J.R. J.R. was a New York ironworker who was supervising a crew who was hoisting a steel beam with the aid of a mechanical device. The crew member who controlled the device’s switch erred and started the hoist too soon, which caused the beam to strike J.R. The impact caused J.R. to suffer a torn biceps tendon.

J.R. sued for the injuries he suffered. One of the bases that he used for his claim for compensation was a Labor Law statute called Section 240(1). Section 240(1) is sometimes nicknamed the “Scaffold Law.” The statute covers more than just scaffold-related injuries. The statute can be a valid basis for any “elevation-related” risk of harm.

Sometimes, this risk of harm is also known as “gravity-related.” That can potentially lead one to believe that the statute only provides for potential awards of compensation in cases of falling workers or workers falling on objects. J.R.’s case established that this is not correct and that the “Scaffold Law” can possibly cover even more workers than one might think.

The Appellate Division court, in its opinion deciding J.R.’s matter, explained that, even though J.R. and the hoist device were on the same level, and the beam did not fall down onto J.R. from above, J.R.’s injured arm was still a “gravity-related” injury. The force of gravity, acting on the beam, caused the device to swing, which is what led to J.R.’s accident. The mere fact that the beam neither fell downward nor swung upward did not necessarily mean that the injury wasn’t gravity-related.

The biggest thing, then, that you should take away from this court decision is that you should never assume. Don’t assume you have no case and no opportunity to recover compensation. The law sometimes may have rules and standards that go against what even an intuitive layperson might think. Rather than risk losing out on the compensation you deserve, reach out to the New York City construction accident attorneys at Arcia & Associates instead. Our team has many years of experience helping injured workers. We can take the facts of your accident and help you choose a proper path to pursue the results you need.

More Blog Posts:

Proof of a Lack of Fall Protection Allows an Injured Demolition Man to Win His New York Construction Injury Case, Blog de Abogado en la Ciudad de Nueva York, 9 de Julio de 2018

New York Court Says a Worker Hurt While Cutting Down a Tree Was Permitted to Pursue His Construction Injury Case, Blog de Abogado en la Ciudad de Nueva York, 20 de Abril de 2018