About this case study. The matter described is a representative example. Specific facts, amounts, dates, and identifying details have been modified to protect client confidentiality consistent with California Rule of Professional Conduct 1.6. Every case is different and is decided on its own facts. The outcome in any particular matter depends on specific circumstances, applicable law, the conduct of opposing parties, and other variables that cannot be predicted in advance. No representation is made that the firm will achieve the same or similar results in your case. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.
A 34-year-old construction worker suffered a traumatic brain injury and multiple fractures after scaffolding collapsed at a commercial development site in Riverside County. The general contractor and subcontractor initially denied liability, claiming the worker had failed to follow safety procedures.
The client's employer carried workers' compensation insurance but the injuries far exceeded comp limits. The client was unable to return to work and faced over $380,000 in medical bills with no income.
The defense retained an engineering expert who opined the scaffolding met OSHA standards. The general contractor pointed to the subcontractor, the subcontractor pointed to the equipment manufacturer, and the employer argued comp was the exclusive remedy. Three separate insurance carriers were involved, each denying primary responsibility.
We retained our own structural engineering expert who identified that the scaffolding had been modified on-site without manufacturer authorization - a clear OSHA violation under 29 CFR 1926.451. We filed a third-party negligence claim against the general contractor and subcontractor (outside the workers' comp system) and served subpoenas on the equipment manufacturer for modification records.
During depositions, the site foreman admitted he had instructed workers to modify the scaffolding to save time.
After 14 months of litigation and three rounds of mediation, the case settled for $1.2 million. The general contractor's insurer contributed $750,000, the subcontractor's insurer paid $350,000, and the equipment manufacturer contributed $100,000 in a separate settlement.
After medical liens and fees, the client received over $680,000 - enough to cover his ongoing treatment and provide financial security while he retrained for a new career.
Construction site injuries often involve multiple liable parties. Identifying all responsible entities and their insurance coverage is critical to maximizing recovery. Workers' compensation is rarely the only avenue for relief when third-party negligence is involved.
Construction injuries are complex. The right legal strategy can mean the difference between workers' comp limits and full accountability from every responsible party.