This is a list of our firm's case results in Virginia (VA) and beyond. We can't guarantee you'll receive the same results, but we can guarantee we'll work tirelessly on your behalf and try to obtain the jury verdict or settlement you deserve.

DISCLAIMER: Please note that every case is different and these verdicts and settlements, while accurate, do not represent what we may obtain for you in your case.

Locomotive Engineer with Shoulder and Knee Injuries

COURT/DATE: Settled a few days before court-ordered mediation. HSCL STAFF: Richard N. Shapiro and other firm attorney, Charles Cunningham, Donald Case, Luther Yopp, Investigators Jackie Tilton, Paralegal Mary Wareing, Legal Assistant WHAT HAPPENED: The plaintiff, B.J., age 47, was a locomotive engineer mounting a locomotive on July 28, 2001. While B.J. was mounting the locomotive vertical stairwell, one of the vertical hand holds suddenly broke away from the locomotive, sending him sprawling backwards where he injured his knee and shoulder. Not only was one shoulder injured by impact with the ground, but the other shoulder was injured when B. J. suddenly was jerked, and had to free his hand hold. B.J. received emergency treatment and later underwent arthroscopic surgery on both his right shoulder and his left knee. Further, B.J.. had a long history of left shoulder problems, including previous hardware in his left shoulder, causing his orthopaedic surgeon, Dr. McKain, to provide the opinion that plaintiff would ultimately need a left shoulder arthroplasty (replacement). Later, the orthopaedist and the family physician, gave opinions that plaintiff could not return to work as a locomotive engineer, and could handle only occasional ten pounds pushing and pulling. B.J. had earned about $60,000.00 a year, exclusive of annual fringe benefits and had been employed with the railroad for over 25 years. B.J. asserted wage loss till age 65, or theoretically till age 70. Plaintiff retained a vocational expert who provided the opinion that in one vocational scenario, the plaintiff could not earn income, and in another potential scenario, the plaintiff might be able to earn $14,000 per year. B.J. obtained a consultative report from a former FRA official that the failure of the vertical hand hold to retain the plaintiff while mounting the engine constituted a violation of the federal Safety Appliance Act as well as the Locomotive Inspection Acts. Plaintiff conducted a corporate representative deposition of a railroad supervisor familiar with the repairs done to the locomotive post-incident. Admissions were obtained that a major part of the crack in the hand rail was rusty and likely pre-existing the injury incident.

Awarded: Several days before court-ordered mediation, the parties arrived at a settlement of $950,000.00.