Settlement News

PRESS RELEASE

VANATUS CHARLES, et al. v. Atwood Corp:

Can you please provide the court of filing, the case docket number, and the date of the settlement?
Answer – Broward County, Case No. 06–1925–CA, and the date of settlement was 2/4/09.
Can you please explain what Mr. Charles was doing with the machine at the time of the incident and how his hand came in contact with the blade? Also, the letter mentioned that the interlock could be unintentionally deactivated by inadvertent contact with a sensor device on the machine’s cover. Did that occur here?
Answer – Yes, he was removing dough with the lid raised as instructed.
As a related question, can you please explain the basis for defendant’s comparative negligence claim?
Answer – Wiring repair, lack of training regarding lockout tag out program.
The letter refers to a "scalomatic." Was this the official model name of the machine? (If not, can you please provide the official model name and/or number?)
Answer – The model name is "Scalomatic".
Was the injury to plaintiff’s dominant hand?
Answer – Yes.
Can you please briefly describe the residual effects of his injuries? E.g., does he continue to have pain in the fingers and hand? Does he have diminished grip strength?
Answer – Pain and motion with phantom shooting pains to his shoulder and neck.
The letter mentions that plaintiff has between a 14 and 26 percent disability rating. Is it accurate assume plaintiff’s expert estimated he has a 26-percent whole body rating, while the defense estimated he has a 14-percent rating?
Answer – Yes.
For purposes of the wage loss claim, can you please provide (a) plaintiff’s approximate annual earnings as a baker at the time of the incident, (b) whether he has returned to work, (c) if so, whether he returned to the same job at the same earnings or to a different job, (d) if a different jo b, his new title and approximate annual earnings, and (e) how long he was out of work.
Answer – He was earning $28,000/year, he attempted to return to work given a position in cooler, but this only aggravated his pain, his treating physicians opined him to be totally disabled.
As to plaintiff’s liability theory, did plaintiff claim there was an alternative feasible design for the guard? If so, please explain what that was.
Answer – Yes, subsequent model, by same manufacturer, did not expose operator to blade while removing dough.
Is there any lien on the recovery? If so, please provide the approximate amount and the amount of any waiver.
Answer – Yes, a worker’s compensation lien approximately for the amount of $220,000.00, resolved for $35,000.00.
Can you please provide a location and specific field of engineering (e.g. mechanical?) for plaintiff’s expert James Blundell? As to plaintiff’s treating physicians Eastlick, Gelman, and Wachsman, would it be accurate to include them in the report’s listing of experts? If so, can you please confirm that Dr. Wachsman and Dr. Eastlick are based in Ft. Lauderdale, and Dr. Gelman is based in Coral Springs?
Answer – James Blundell, P.E., located in Kansas City, Missouri. As to the physicians, yes, they are based in Fort Lauderdale and Coral Springs.
Finally, can you please provide cities for defense experts Wilhelmina Korevaar and Ken Garrod, and a specific field of engineering and location for defense expert James Bakshis
Answer – Korevaar is located in Bala Cynwyd, PA and Garrod is located in Boca Raton, Florida. As to Bakshis, he is a mechanical engineer and is located in Chicago.

<< back