Published on:

Respondent contested the brain injury’s classification as a grave injury. Montesdeoca v. 101-19 37th Ave. LLC 2018 N.Y. Slip Op. 30813 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2018)


In personal injury law, accidents on construction sites often lead to complex legal disputes involving multiple parties. In Montesdeoca v. 101-19 37th Ave. LLC 2018 N.Y. Slip Op. 30813 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2018), the court was faced with not only determining liability, but whether the plaintiff’s injuries were “grave” as defined by workers’ compensation law. Under Workers’ Compensation Law § 11, a “grave injury” is a severe, life-altering injury that significantly impacts a worker’s ability to function. It includes specific injuries such as death, permanent and total loss of use or amputation of an arm, leg, hand, or foot, total and permanent blindness or deafness, loss of nose, ear, index finger, permanent and severe facial disfigurement, or an acquired injury to the brain caused by an external physical force resulting in permanent total disability. This strict definition limits the circumstances under which an employer can be held liable for indemnification or contribution in third-party actions.

Background Facts
The accident occurred on October 23, 2013, when Jose Montesdeoca was involved in a motor vehicle accident while delivering sheetrock materials to a construction project on a property owned by 101-19 37th Avenue LLC. Montesdeoca, employed by SFLC, a construction materials supplier, fell through a hole on the property. He sought damages for his injuries, including a brain injury, alleging violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240(1), 240(2), 240(3), and 241(6), along with common-law negligence.

101-19 37th Avenue LLC initiated a third-party action against SFLC and Feldman Lumber for indemnification and contribution, claiming breach of contract and failure to procure liability insurance. Additionally, United Founders Ltd. and Fereydoun Pouratian, who also faced liability claims, commenced a second third-party action against SFLC and Feldman Lumber on similar grounds. SFLC and Feldman Lumber responded, denying any contractual obligations and arguing that no “grave injury” occurred under Workers’ Compensation Law § 11.

Whether Jose Montesdeoca’s injuries constituted a “grave injury” under Workers’ Compensation Law § 11, which would determine the liability for indemnification and contribution among the involved parties.

The court granted summary judgment to SFLC and Feldman Lumber, dismissing the third-party and second third-party complaints. The court found that Montesdeoca did not sustain a “grave injury” as defined by the law, and there were no contractual agreements between the parties for indemnification or contribution.

The court’s decision hinged on several key points. First, it was established that SFLC was Montesdeoca’s employer, and there was no employment relationship between Montesdeoca and Feldman Lumber, which ceased operations in the early 1990s. The court also noted that no contracts existed between SFLC or Feldman Lumber and any third-party plaintiffs at the time of the accident.

Further, the court reviewed medical evidence indicating that Montesdeoca did not suffer a “grave injury” under Workers’ Compensation Law § 11. Records showed that Montesdeoca returned to work within months of the accident, with only minor restrictions. This evidence contradicted claims that he was permanently disabled and unable to work.

Note that the requirement of a grave or serious injury applies to any type of personal injury case, not only for workers’ compensation cases. This means the injuries must be significant enough to affect their life, such as causing prolonged disability, substantial pain, or disfigurement. The severity of the injuries is important because it justifies the compensation sought for medical expenses, lost wages, and pain and suffering. Without proving serious injuries, it is challenging to establish the necessity for substantial damages. Legal standards, like those outlined in Workers’ Compensation Law, often specify what constitutes a serious injury to support a claim for significant compensation.

The court dismissed assertions by United Founders and Pouratian, and 101-19 37th Avenue LLC, that they had a good faith belief to commence third-party actions based on alleged traumatic brain injuries. The medical report by Dr. Daniel Kuhn, which indicated that Montesdeoca could work part-time in a sedentary job, further weakened their position.

If you or a loved one has sustained a serious brain injury on a construction site, navigating the legal complexities of your case requires experienced legal guidance. An experienced New York brain injury lawyer can provide the expertise needed to handle such intricate legal matters. They can help ensure that your rights are protected, and that you receive the compensation you deserve for your injuries. Whether dealing with workers’ compensation claims or pursuing a personal injury lawsuit, having a knowledgeable advocate on your side can make all the difference.

Contact Information