Central New York Injury Lawyer Blog

My last blog was about ADR (Alternative Dispute Resolution), such as mediation and arbitration, which is, to a certain extent, replacing jury trials as a way to resolve personal injury lawsuits in Syracuse, Central New York, and, in fact, just about everywhere else. Here's a recent example of how ADR works from my own case load.

I am scheduled to try a Syracuse fall-from-scaffold lawsuit in about 3 weeks. Meanwhile, the defendant's insurance carrier has invited me to try to settle the case through "mediation" first. After I explained how this works, my client agreed to it, and we will be at the mediation table in about a week. If we don't settle at the mediation, I will have only a few weeks to prepare my trial, which is not enough time. I really need 6 weeks! So I am already preparing my exhibits, my direct examinations, my cross-examinations, etc., in case I need to try this Syracuse construction accident lawsuit.

The case may or may not settle at mediation. Much of that depends on how reasonable the insurance carrier will be. If the case settles in mediation, I won't feel bad about having spent so much time preparing for trial. I always learn by preparing for trial. It makes me a better lawyer.

In preparing to try this case, I have become a kind of "expert" on lumbar (lower back) injuries, which is what my client suffered when he fell from a scaffold at work and landed on his feet. I have even ordered large "blowups" of my client's x-rays and MRI's so his doctors can vividly explain his injuries to the jury. I have also hired a medical illustrator to create illustrations of the surgery my client endured as a result of his accident.

Even if I don't try this case, the medical knowledge I gained in preparing for trial will help me in other cases, since lumbar spine injuries are very common injuries in falls from scaffolds cases, car accident cases, and other types of traumatic injury cases.

My father always said, "there is no such thing as useless knowledge". As usual, he was right.

My hometown newspaper, the Geneva Finger Lakes Times, reports today that a Florida man working for a subcontractor on the Wal-Mart "Super Center" expansion in the Town of Geneva, New York, fell from a scaffold, suffered shoulder and wrist injuries, and was then Merrcy Flight-flown to Strong Memorial Hospital in Rochester. The worker had been working at the ceiling level when he and the scaffold both fell over. OSHA is investigating.

No matter what OSHA decides, though, I can tell you with almost absolute certainty, from my years of handling New York falling scaffold injury cases, that the injured worker has a "slam dunk" New York worksite accident case against the owner of the building where he fell, Wal-Mart, as well as against whoever the general contractor on the job was. This is because of a special New York law, called the "scaffold law" (Labor Law 240[1]), specifically designed to help victims of unsecure scaffolds and ladders get full compensation for their injuries from both the owner of the building and the general contractor on the job. You can read my prior posts on this topic by clicking here and here.

I blogged just the other day about the Syracuse construction workers, employed by Apple Roofing, who were injured when a scaffold collapsed, bringing them down with it, at Binghamton University dormitory under construction. I talked about how New York's special "Scaffold Law" (Labor Law 240) makes the Owner of the construction site (New York State and perhaps the New York Dormitory Authority) and the general contractor (LeChase Construction)on the job automatically liable for the fall and injuries.

Here I want to talk about how a smart New York construction accident lawyer would handle this case. He or she would get this case to a judge ASAP to rule that the Scaffold Law applies, and that the defendants are therefore automatically liable for the injuries! (You can do this through a procedure known as a "summary judgment motion"). Why the rush? Because once you establish, under New York law, that these guys are liable, 9% annual interest starts running on the money the injured construction workers are owed for their injuries. Now that's a lot of interest in today's weak economy. Try getting that on Wall Street today!

After "liability" is established on "summary judgment", which is a no-brainer in this case, and interest starts running, getting the case to a jury on the remaining issues of medical expenses, lost income, and pain and suffering compensation, will take some time. In fact, you have to wait to see how well the injured worker heals before you even know how much to ask a jury for. But now at least you have interest running. The money is in the bank, and is cooking up 9% interest a year!

I have seen too many lawyers wait too long before getting a ruling on liability. They thus give up all that interest. They think they have to wait for a lot of "depositions" to be taken before they can get the ruling. But in a case like this one, with such clear liability, there should be no need for that. Get that liability ruling, and get it fast. Get that interest running! Then, when you eventually get your money verdict, the judge will tag onto it all that interest that has been running at 9% annually since the date liability was granted. Believe me; all that interest tagged on can make a huge difference in the ultimate money verdict for the injured construction worker!

Scaffolding has only one purpose: To hold workers up safely while they work. And when it doesn't do that, very bad things happen. I'm talking big injuries, or even death. That's why, for generations, New York State has recognized the importance of having an iron-tight law to protect construction workers from the severe injuries, or death, caused by falls from scaffolds.

The Binghamton New York scaffold collapse, which injured six construction workers yesterday, is a prime example of how important New York's "scaffold law" (Labor Law 240) is. The scaffolding had been erected at Binghamton University on the side of a dormitory under construction. It had not been up even 24 hours when it collapsed, taking six construction workers down with it. I can guaranty you that workers' compensation will never be enough to fully compensate these injured construction workers. That's why Labor Law 240, the "Scaffold Law", is so handy for New York construction and scaffolding accident lawyers like me. This Statute makes it easy to get full and fair compensation for the victims of collapsing scaffolds.

The "Scaffold Law" says that the owner and general contractor (and sometimes others) of the construction project are AUTOMATICALLY liable (New York scaffold lawyers say "strictly liable") to injured construction workers who fall from scaffolds. If the scaffold failed to do its job of holding the workers up safely, then they are liable, period. No excuses. No stories. No shifting the blame to others. (Well, there are a few exceptions, but I can't see any that would be applicable on the facts of this case).

No explanation for the collapse has been given. But, to a New York construction accident lawyer, it doesn't really matter. The owner and general contractor are liable to the injured construction workers regardless of why the scaffold fell.

So the State of New York, the owner, and LeChase Construction, the general contractor, are probably already setting aside money to pay these construction workers when the inevitable Binghamton work place accident lawsuit gets filed. And that's a good thing. The injured construction workers and their families will need it.

Construction season is in high gear again, and that, of course, means more construction accidents. Yesterday the Syracuse Post Standard reported that a construction worker fell into a 12-foot hole, which was to be the foundation for a new single-family home, on a construction site job on Seymour Street. The worker apparently suffered some kind of head injury.

I wish this worker a speedy recovery. But when I read cases like this one, and after I feel sorry for the victim, I can't help but "think like a lawyer". As a Syracuse New York construction lawyer, I see this accident as proof of why, many dozens of years ago, New York State's wise legislature passed a law known as Labor Law section 240. This statute may help this unfortunate worker today to get the financial compensation he may need.

Under Labor Law 240 a construction worker who falls from a height, including from ground level into a hole, generally has a New York personal injury claim against the owner of the property, the general contractor, and perhaps others as well, for failure to, among other things, cover or guard the hole to prevent the fall. The worker does not even have to prove that anyone was "at fault" or careless or negligent. The only thing he has to prove, generally, is that he fell because a "safety device" (such as a barricade or other means of preventing the fall) was not provided. Even if the worker himself was largely to blame for his own fall, he still wins his New York construction accident lawsuit if the proper safety devices were not provided or failed. The law was designed to give extra protection to construction workers who risk their life and health everyday by working from heights or in areas where they can fall and be seriously injured or killed.

There may be a problem with this particular construction accident case, though. It involves the construction of a single-family home. Labor Law 240 generally exempts from liability owners of one or two-family homes, as long as they are really going to use the home as a home and not for commercial purposes.

Also, the construction worker cannot sue his own employer because the Workers' Compensation Law bars him from doing that. But if the general contractor was some other company different from his own employer, then he can bring a Labor Law 240 claim against the general contractor.

Why would this worker want to bring a New York personal injury claim at all? Won't workers' compensation cover all his injuries? No. Workers' Compensation will pay him for only 60% of his lost wages, as well as all his medical bills, but that's all. If he's out of work for a long while, what does he do about that 40% reduction in pay? How will he pay his bills? Unless he brings a construction accident claim against someone, such as the general contractor under Labor Law 240, then he just has to "suck it up". But if he brings his Syracuse construction accident case and wins, the liability insurance will end up paying not only ALL his wages, but will also compensate him for his pain and suffering.

I was pleased to read in the Geneva Finger Lakes Times today that a regional representative of OSHA (federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration), Jennifer Lawless, speaking at Geneva's Ramada Inn, announced that, under the Obama administration, OSHA is stepping up compliance enforcement in the Syracuse and Central New York area, especially at outdoor work sites, such as construction sites.

We at Michaels & Smolak have consistently, year after year, brought Syracuse area construction accident lawsuits where compliance with OSHA and other safety regulations would have prevented devastating fall-related injuries. We know firsthand that Construction employers in Central New York often ignore OSHA and other safety regulations.

The OSHA regulations, if followed, would help prevent many of the devastating injuries, and deaths, that result from workers falling off ladders, scaffolds, buildings, roofs and other structures. For example, just this week, OSHA fined a construction company $539,000 for a roofer's 40-foot fall to his death at a Washington, Pennsylvania construction site. According to OSHA's website, the construction company "failed to provide any fall protection to its employees working on a pitched roof 40 feet off the ground". A spokesman from OSHA said the employer "knowingly and willfully failed to protect his workers from falling to their death" and that OSHA "will not tolerate this type of blatant and egregious disregard for the health and safety of workers." The very same day, OSHA fined a Pittsburgh construction company $70,000 for failing to provide fall protection to a construction worker who fell 225 feet to his death on a construction site. The same company had already been fined in 2007 for the same violations, but apparently did not "learn its lesson".

OSHA's increased safety enforcement in Syracuse and Central New York, while welcome, is probably not enough. Unfortunately, OSHA's fines are not a significant enough deterrent for many employers. They still find it cheaper to skirt safety compliance and pay the occasional fines. What really catches the construction employers' attention, though, is not an OSHA fine, but rather a construction accident lawsuit. In New York, special construction accident laws (especially Labor Law sections 200, 240, 241[6]) help injured construction workers and their families get compensation in court for their medical expenses, lost wages, pain and suffering, and loved one's wrongful death. I have posted blogs about these New York Labor Laws before. To read prior blogs on this subject, click here, here, and here.

Michaels & Smolak will continue to do its job of bringing lawsuits on behalf of injured construction workers when construction companies fail to abide by safety regulations, and OSHA will continue to do its job of fining construction companies for such violations. Perhaps this one-two punch will one-day finally deliver the following important message to the construction industry: "Safety pays, and if you don't believe it, you will pay, and pay dearly."

The Geneva Finger Lakes Times reports today that a construction worker fell 12 feet through an unfinished stairway of a house under construction in Yates County, New York yesterday, and landed on the gravel basement floor below. The worker, of Geneva, was brought by Mercy Flight to Strong Memorial Hospital with head and internal injuries.

We wish the best for the injured worker and his family. Twelve feet does not sound like a lot, but I know from representing construction workers in similar falls that, when you are caught off-guard by it, a 12-foot fall is huge.

In these blogs, I try to apply New York Accident law to facts gleamed from local news reports. The question I want to address here is, does the injured worker have a New York construction injury case? The answer is: It depends.

New York State has a very special law that protects construction workers from falls from heights. The law is called Labor law 240, also known as "the scaffold law". I blogged about New York's Labor Law 240 recently. Labor Law 240 is a "strict liability" law, meaning that the injured construction worker does not have to prove that anyone was NEGLIGENT; all he has to prove, generally, is that he fell because he was not provided with proper equipment to protect him from falling, or that the scaffold or ladder he was on failed to support him. If he can prove that, he wins, even if he himself was partly, or even mostly, to blame for the fall. In fact, the only way he can lose, generally, is if he is 100% to blame.

In this case the injured construction worker fell through an unfinished stairway, which is usually a slam-dunk construction accident case. The owner, general contractor, and perhaps others are going to be liable because there was no barrier or other safety device to prevent the worker from falling through the unfinished stairway. Either the opening should have been barricaded off, or the worker should have been somehow tied up to prevent the fall.

But there's a hitch. He was building a HOME. There is an exception to Labor Law 240 liability for one or two-family homes. The automatic liability of Labor Law 240 does not apply as to homeowners, except if the home is being used, or was going to be used, for a commercial purpose, or if the homeowner was directing and controling the work. The one or two-family home exception is meant to protect ordinary homeowners from the harsh, strict liability of the scaffold law (Labor law 240).

On the other hand, the general contractor, and perhaps others, can be held liable under Labor Law 240 even if the worker fell while building a home. The law cuts a break only to the homeowner, not to anyone else.

Bottom line: the construction worker probably has a "scaffold law" (Labor Law 240) strict liability case against the general contractor and others, but not against the homeowner, unless the homeowner was intending to use the "home" for a commercial purpose.

From our perspective as lawyers representing Central New York's injured construction workers in lawsuits against employers and construction site owners, it seems that there are a whole lot of OSHA scaffold, ladder and height-work violations in Syracuse and the surrounding areas. Every year without fail we file new lawsuits on behalf of injured construction workers who were caused to fall from scaffolds or ladders by safety violations. But apparently there may be more OSHA violations going on than even we could have imagined. A significant number of "hidden" accidents are never reported! Let me explain.

A little over a month ago, the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO), the auditing agency for Congress, reported that employers and workers routinely underreport work-related injuries and illnesses to OSHA. This means that the number of OSHA violations causing injuries is actually higher than OSHA reports.

Why are so many EMPLOYERS failing to report workplace accidents? The GAO believes it is because they fear workers' compensation premium increases and scaring off prospective and lucrative clients from contracting with them.

Ok, but why do EMPLOYEES fail to report their injuries? The GOA says it is because they fear getting "the ax", or getting reprimanded, or undermining their chances of getting safety-based rewards and bonuses.

OSHA registered 4 million workplace injuries in 2007, including 5,600 fatalities. But if in fact employers and employees are hiding workplace injuries and illnesses from OSHA, then these figures are understated. The GOA report found that OSHA may have failed to include up to 2/3 of U.S. workplace injuries and illnesses.

The solution to the under-reporting? OSHA says it will accept the GOA's recommendation that it require its inspectors to more thoroughly interview employees during routine audits so as to cross-check the accuracy of the accident reports (or lack thereof) they are getting from employers.

Will it work? Not if employers are encouraging employees to maintain a good safety-record at all costs, including by sweeping accidents and injuries under the rug. Employers can do this by wielding the "big stick" of dismissals and reprimands for reporting accidents, or by offering enticing under-reporting "carrots" to their employees in the form of rewards and bonuses for "good safety records."

OSHA had better think harder about how to avoid this pervasive under-reporting.

The U.S. Department of Occupational Safety and Health Administration, commonly known as "OSHA", has released its "Top 10 Most Frequently Cited" violations for 2009. This list not only exposes the most frequently violated safety regulations in 2009, but also, in my experience, represents a pretty accurate list of the top 10 violations that, year after year, cause the most serious injuries in the workplace in New York. Here's OSHA's top ten list (with my editorial notes tagged on):

1. SCAFFOLDING, CONSTRUCTION (29 CFR 1926.451)
Note: The NUMBER ONE safety violation. Scaffold accidents are frequently caused when the planks or support boards collapse or slip off the scaffold frame, or when the scaffold worker slips and falls from the scaffold or is struck by a falling object that causes him to fall off the scaffold. In a previous blog post, I wrote about how injured New York scaffold workers benefit from a special Statute, Labor Law 240, which allows them to sue for compensation for such scaffold violations. We have represented many construction workers in scaffold accident cases.

2. FALL PROTECTION, CONSTRUCTION (29 CFR 1926.501)
NOTE: Any time a worker is at a height, OSHA rules require that he be protected from falling by use of lanyards, safety nets, and other fall-protectors. New York's special Statute, Labor Law 240, which I previously blogged about, allows New York's injured construction workers not properly protected from such falls to bring claims for compensation for their pain, suffering, lost income, medical expenses and other damages. We have represented many construction workers injured in such falls.

3. HAZARD COMMUNICATION, GENERAL INDUSTRY (29 CFR 1910.1200)
NOTE: Chemical manufacturers, importers and others are OSHA-required to evaluate the dangers and hazards of the chemicals they put on the market, and are further required to create warning labels and safety data sheets to communicate these hazards to the downstream users. Apparently, they fail to comply with high frequency.

4. RESPIRATORY PROTECTION (29 CFR 1910.134)
NOTE: Respirators protect workers from the dangers of hazardous dusts, smokes, gases and vapors. Exposure to such air-borne materials can lead to cancer, asthma, lung impairment, other diseases or even death. I recently blogged about a large settlement we had for the victim of occupational lung disease. As the large number of OSHA respiratory protection violations in 2009 shows, our client was far from the only victim of needless workplace lung injury.

5. CONTROL OF HAZARDOUS ENERGY (a/k/a Lockout/Tag out) (29 CFR 1910.147).
NOTE: "Lockout/Tag out" refers to practices and procedures to protect employees from the unintended startup of dangerous machinery and equipment, or unexpected release of hazardous energy during service or maintenance of machinery. Unfortunately, failure to follow required lockout/tag out procedures often results in devastating injuries, including mangled or burned limbs, or even death. We have handled many cases of "lockout/tag out" violations.

6. LADDERS, CONSTRUCTION (29 CFR 1926.1053)
NOTE: Ladders that are improperly placed, positioned, operated or used often cause workers to fall, resulting in horrendous injuries or death. New York's special statute, Labor Law 240, which I have blogged about, also protects New York construction workers who are injured on ladders. We have handled many such claims.

7. POWERED INDUSTRIAL TRUCKS (29 CFR 1910.178)
NOTE: Many workers are injured every year by powered industrial trucks, or forklifts. For example, we are currently representing a worker who was driving a loaded forklift from the back of a truck onto a loading dock when the truck, which was not secured with "blocks" under its wheels, as required, rolled away from the dock, causing the forklift, and the driver, to fall between the dock and the truck.

8. ELECTRICAL, WIRING METHODS, COMPONENTS and EQUIPMENT, general industry (29 CFR 1910.305)

9. ELECTRICAL SYSTEMS DESIGN, general requirements, general industry (29 CFR 1910.303)

10. Fall protection, training requirements (29 CFR 1926.503).

So there you have it: This year's "top ten" OSHA violation list. When will employers and others in charge of workplace and construction site safety finally get it? When will these frequent, serious, and life-altering safety violations end? I don't know, but I do know this: As long as they continue, we at Michaels & Smolak will continue to fight for the victims of those violations.

New York's Labor Law section 240 is a special New York statute aimed at compensating construction workers, and their families, who are injured or killed when they fall or when objects fall on them during construction work (and in some other circumstances as well). This law allows all New York workers, which obviously includes our local construction workers in Syracuse and in the surrounding central New York area, to sue for their lost wages, medical expenses, pain and suffering, and wrongful death, where the construction site did not provide required protection from workers falling or from objects falling on workers.

In what is perhaps a watershed case, New York's highest Court, the New York State Court of Appeals, has ruled that this statute protects construction workers not only when they "fall" and when something "falls" on them, but also in other circumstances where the "effects of gravity" injure or kill a construction worker, and a safety device could have been used to prevent the injury.

In Runner v. New York Stock Exchange, the injured worker was seriously and permanently maimed in both of his hands when he and some co-workers attempted to move an 800-pound reel of wire down a set of about four stairs. To prevent the reel from rolling out-of-control down the stairs, the workers had tied a rope to the reel and then held onto the rope as the reel descended the stairs. This method proved disastrous; as the reel descended, it pulled the worker toward a metal bar to which one end of the rope was tied. The injured worker's hands were severely injured as they jammed against the metal bar. Experts testified at trial that a pulley or hoist could have been used to safely roll the reel down the stairs. The jury found against the injured worker, but his construction accident lawyer appealed to the Court of Appeals, which found that this was the wrong result. Even though nothing fell on the worker, and he did not "fall" from a height, his injuries were caused by a violation of Labor Law section 240 because that statute is meant to protect workers against the effects of gravity generally on a construction site, not just "falls".

What does this mean for New York construction workers? It means more protection. It means that construction workers will be able to sue the owners of construction sites, the general contractors, and others, not only when objects fall on them, or they fall from a height, but also in other circumstance where the "effects of gravity" cause the injury, and some safety device could have been used to prevent the injury. It means general contractors, owners of construction sites, and others responsible for worker safety on construction sites, must make their worksites even safer for New York's construction workers.

Several injured construction workers have walked into my office this year in Auburn, Cayuga County, New York, as they do every year, with a typical central New York construction-site injury story that goes something like this: "Mr. Bersani, I fell from a ladder and suffered bad injuries while I was working on a construction project. I guess I didn't set the ladder up right, because when I got halfway up, it just slid out from under me and down I came. Can you help me?" Sometimes it's a fall from a ladder, sometimes a fall from a scaffold, sometimes they were just fixing a leak in a roof, and sometimes they were involved in a full construction project. But one thing almost all these clients have in common: They have a nearly perfect case.

Why? After all, didn't that guy just say he set the ladder up wrong? Wasn't it his fault? How is that a perfect case?

Well, to understand why, you have to understand New York's Labor Law 240. (I am going to simplify it for the purpose of this blog - it's really more complicated. Call me and I'll be glad to explain in detail).

New York Labor Law 240, known as "the Scaffold Law", offers special protection for workers involved in construction work (and sometimes other non-construction work) who have to work at heights. What it says, basically, is that if you fall when you are doing construction (or similar) work, the owner of the property where you fell, and the general contractor of the project, and maybe others, too, are all almost AUTOMATICALLY liable to you for your injuries, even if you yourself are partly, and even mostly, to blame.

Why does New York have such a law on its books? Well, you have to look back to when all those really tall skyscrapers were going up in New York. Back then, workers were falling like rain from buildings under construction. Serious injury and death were par for the course. Sure, there were rules on the books requiring construction companies to secure their workers with ropes, lanyards, and other devices, to ensure they did not fall, but those rules were almost universally ignored. Why? Because it was cheaper to pay workers' compensation death benefits to the family of the fallen worker than it was ensure that all the property safety rules were followed.

The New York State legislature (with a little push from the unions) finally had enough, and said, "you know, we are tired of your excuses. We are tired of all these dead and seriously injured men. From now on, if a worker falls from a height on a construction site, you guys are liable, not just the general contractor, but also the owner of the property. So you guys had better make sure all the safety rules are followed, because if anyone falls, that proves that the rules weren't followed, and you are all liable."

New York has been a safer place for construction workers ever since. And insurance and construction companies haven't stopped complaining about Labor Law 240 ever since. They try every year to wipe it off the books, but so far they have failed.

And that, in a nut shell, is the story of New York's Labor Law 240, the Scaffold Law, the New York construction worker's best friend.

In a recent post, I wrote about a multi-million dollar settlement Michaels & Smolak recently achieved for a Syracuse area victim of occupational lung disease. I attached to that post a video-clip about one of the most common types of occupational lung disease, silicosis, an incurable, potentially deadly, and progressive disease. Silicosis is caused by the inhalation of silica, which is found naturally in sand and many rocks, and which, when blasted or sanded, becomes airborne. Silicosis and other work-related lung diseases are all too common in Syracuse, Auburn, Buffalo and other aging industrial cities.

Today the Clarion Ledger (a Mississippi Newspaper) reports that a victim of silicosis was awarded 7.6 million dollars in the first silicosis case to go to a jury in Mississippi. The injured worker developed silicosis from 25 years of sandblasting without proper protection from the dangerous dust that engulfed him on a daily basis.

So what did the defendant, Mississippi Valley Silica Co., do wrong? Apparently just about everything. The jury heard substantial proof that the company knew that the abrasive-blasting of sand without proper protection was likely to cause silicosis. They knew, or should have known, that proper protection would not have been complicated or costly. Yet they did nothing or next to nothing about it.

In fact, Silicosis and other occupational lung diseases can be quite easily avoided. Here are some steps employers and others can take to protect their workers from silicosis:

• Minimize dust production around work areas.
• Install exhaust ventilation.
• Install blast-cleaning machines to prevent dust from being released into the air.
• Train and teach workers about silica dust, silicosis and good work practices to reduce dust and the inhalation of dust.
• Wet down surfaces to avoid producing dust.
• Use vacuums with high-efficiency particle filters.
• Have workers wear respirators in dust-prone areas.
• Wet-sweep for clean-up.
• Avoid dry sweeping or blowing dust with compressed air.

Silicosis, and the ways of preventing it, have been well known for many years, as this 1936 U.S. Department of Labor film shows:

Sure, these safety measures have a cost. And yes, employers and others too often cut such costs to make way for fatter profit margins. But trial lawyers, such as the ones who won this lawsuit in Mississippi, make employers realize that NOT implementing such safety measures may, in the end, cost more than implementing them. So let's hear it for us trial lawyers!

Michaels & Smolak recently negotiated a large (several million-dollar) settlement for a Central New York worker who suffered an occupational lung disease. This is the second multi-million dollar settlement we have had with occupational lung disease cases. Most occupational lung diseases lead to difficulty breathing, and sometimes to death.

In this Syracuse area work injury case, the worker was a mason whose job included cutting through bricks and mortar with a powered high-speed demolition saw and grinding the mortar from between the bricks with a powered hand-grinder. Of course he knew this created a lot of dust (he would go home every day covered in the stuff), but what he did not know was that there were harmful particles in the brick dust that were slowing scarring and damaging his lungs. He ended up with a serious lung disease called "mixed dust Pneumoconiosis".

I once heard it said that if you can't breathe, nothing else matters. Any one of the millions of Americans who suffers from asthma can attest to that.

The most common occupational lung diseases are:

• Hypersensitivity pneumonitis
• Asbestosis
• Silicosis
• Byssinosis
• Mesothelioma
• Pneumoconiosis (black lung disease)
• Occupational asthma
• Occupationnal lung cancer

To learn about Silicosis, one of the common occupational lung diseases listed above, watch this excellent video:

Occupational lung diseases are, according to the New York State Department of Health, the most common work-related illness in the United States. Just like our client the mason, workers generally don't realize their lungs are being destroyed until it is too late.

The sad part is that occupational lung disease is preventable. Employers and others need only improve ventilation, require protective equipment, change some work procedures and properly train and educate their workers.

Employers and others need to be convinced to spend the money necessary to prevent occupational lung disease. The problem is that cuttinng corners cuts costs and increases profits. That's why lawsuits are GOOD, yes, you heard me, GOOD! Only through expensive lawsuits do employers and others who are in charge of work place safety learn that the cost of NOT controlling dangerous dust at the worksite is more expensive than controlling it. That's one reason we at Michaels & Smolak are proud to be trial lawyers: We help make the workplace safer!