Trial to determine if rebar company liable for one or two accidents involving plaintiff. $10.7 million gross. Alameda County.

Facts and Background

• Facts and Background:

  On October 20, 2011, plaintiff, a union carpenter working for Ghilotti Construction (General Contractor) suffered a back injury while working on a bridge in Napa County. At the time of his injury, plaintiff was performing detail work to ensure the upcoming concrete pour would create a level-driving surface.

  At that time, defendant Harris Salinas Rebar had not completed the rebar mat that would become the infrastructure of the concrete road surface. The rebar mat was constructed of horizontal and transverse rebar into which the concrete would be poured. Precast concrete girders created the base of the roadway bridge. The girder contained pre-installed vertical rebar dowels.

  Defendant Harris Salinas Rebar did not install the vertical dowels but used them to tie the rebar mat down. Harris Salinas’ foreman admitted that the rebar should have been capped, but that capping the rebar would have slowed their work down. Defendant also claimed that the general contractor Ghilotti Construction was responsible for capping the rebar.

  A vertical, uncapped rebar dowel rising out of a girder penetrated plaintiff’s pant leg, causing him to fall and injure his back. As he fell, his foot remained about two feet above the rebar mat. He wore a 50-pound. utility belt that added weight to his fall.

  He sustained serious back injury with bulging and protruding discs at L4-5 and L5-S1. Plaintiff’s foreman saw him fall and commented that it looked like it hurt, but denied such comment at trial. Plaintiff initially told his foreman he was “OK.”

  Defendant claimed that plaintiff was not hurt that day. Plaintiff and his foreman testified that construction workers do not usually complain about injuries and that foremen do not want to report injuries that occur on the job. The foreman also testified that plaintiff told him he had been injured over the subsequent weekend and was not injured at work. A neighbor and friend, who testified that the foreman told her that he knew plaintiff was injured at work but he was afraid he would be fired or reprimanded if he reported an injury that occurred on his watch, severely impeached the foreman on the issue of whether plaintiff was injured at work.

  Plaintiff returned to work the day after his fall, and realized when he tried to lift a 20-pound pipe that he could not perform even minimal physical work.

  Defendant claimed that it was lifting the pipe the day after subject fall that caused the back injury. Plaintiff first sought medical treatment about 10 days after the fall. Over the following months, he reported pain at a level of 9/10, took narcotic pain medication and attended physical therapy.

  In February 2012, plaintiff underwent a back surgery involving an L4-L5 disc replacement and L4-S1 fusion, with decompression. The outcome was “less than optimal,” as the surgeon testified and plaintiff continued suffering severe pain. Narcotic and non-narcotic pain medication failed to relieve his 7-8/10 pain. Plaintiff resorted to drinking alcohol to assist in addressing his pain and depression.

  In September 2012, in anticipation of a second back surgery, plaintiff discontinued his narcotic pain medication and compensated for the lack of pain relief with alcohol. The weekend before the scheduled surgery, plaintiff checked himself into an Emergency Room with severe back pain and narcotic/alcohol withdrawal. The ER doctor testified that the withdrawal was mostly likely due to discontinuing Norco.

  Defendant falsely claimed in opening statements that plaintiff voluntarily left the hospital against medical advice, although the ER physician called by defendant testified that plaintiff stayed until he was formally discharged.

  Two days after discharge, plaintiff suffered a catastrophic solo-vehicle accident in which he suffered a subdural hematoma resulting in a 3-week coma and moderate brain injury. The car accident occurred on a quiet road with a “sweeping” or gradual left turn. The accident reconstruction showed plaintiff made a sharp left U-turn resulting in the passenger side of his vehicle slamming up against a tree.

  Plaintiff’s experts testified the accident was consistent with a seizure that was more likely than not caused by his (failed) medical treatment for his back injury. There were no witnesses to the accident except plaintiff. Bystanders who came to the scene afterwards noted plaintiff was seizing and not restrained by a seatbelt.

  After plaintiff awoke from the coma, he was a "different person." Treating doctors testified that meeting him again after the car crash was like meeting someone who looked like plaintiff but was not him. Plaintiff’s second back surgery ultimately occurred in April 2014. Doctors performed a decompression at L5-S1 on the left side. The surgery helped remove left side back radicular pain, but plaintiff is awaiting a similar surgery on the right side.

  Currently, plaintiff lives in Southern California in a small studio apartment, living on disability and workers compensation payments, with the help of his mother and his ex-wife.

• Plaintiff's Contentions:

  Plaintiff contended that defendant Harris Salinas Rebar was negligent in failing to cap the rebar in their work areas. That plaintiff's fall was caused by uncapped rebar penetrating his pant leg and causing him to fall.

  Plaintiff also contended that defendant Harris Salinas Rebar was responsible for head injuries plaintiff sustained in a solo motor vehicle accident approximately 11 months later. A seizure caused by the medication / withdrawal from medication plaintiff was taking to treat the original back injury caused the car crash. Plaintiff claimed past and future wage loss, medical expenses, and loss of household services. Plaintiff also claimed past and future non-economic damages.

• Defendant's Contentions:

  Defendant contended that it had no duty to cap rebar, that rebar only needed to be capped to prevent "impalement" and plaintiff was not impaled.

  Defendant claimed plaintiff was not injured on the job site, but at some other location and time. Defendant disputed there was any connection between the auto collision and the back injury.

  Defendant also contended that the medical treatment, including a fusion back surgery was not reasonable or necessary.