PHILADELPHIA – A Maryland-based rehabilitation company denies that it is in any way liable for the injuries and allegedly-deficient care received by a New Jersey man, after he fell and suffered a severe injury after striking his head on a steel beam.
Thomas Acciavatti of Turnersville, N.J. initially filed suit in the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas on Sept. 23 versus Restore Rehabilitation, LLC of Owings Mill, Md., Key Risk Management Services, LLC of Greensboro, N.C., StarNet Insurance Company of Urbandale, Iowa and Paradigm Corp. of Walnut Creek, Calif.
“On Oct. 1, 2018, plaintiff was working for the Delaware River Waterfront Corporation when he suffered a workplace injury resulting in, among other symptoms, left drop foot, affecting his ability to walk and otherwise use his left foot,” the suit stated.
“As a result of plaintiff’s injuries, he went out of work and began collecting workers compensation medical and indemnity benefits through defendant StarNet Insurance Company and/or defendant Key Risk Management Services, LLC.”
The suit added Nurse Case Manager Paula Martin sent the plaintiff a text message prior to Dec. 23, 2018, advising him that he had been cleared to return to work by his doctor at the Rothman Institute, and plaintiff returned to work accordingly in reliance upon that message.
“On Dec. 23, 2018, while plaintiff was working, he attempted to step onto a platform, but was unable to lift his leg sufficiently and his foot caught on the platform’s edge. As a result, plaintiff fell forward, striking his head on a steel beam and losing consciousness before awakening some time later with a bleeding head wound. Plaintiff suffered a number of injuries as a result,” per the suit.
“In the days after plaintiff’s Dec. 23, 2018 accident, Martin sent plaintiff a text message that the note she had read regarding plaintiff’s ability to return to work had been from a prior date, and plaintiff was not in fact cleared to return to work prior to the accident described above. Plaintiff was in no way contributorily negligent with regard to this accident, which occurred solely due to the negligence of one or more of the defendants.”
Acciavatti claimed he suffered a concussion with post-concussive syndrome, headache and post-concussive syncope, closed head wound, open head wound resulting in facial scarring and convergence insufficiency, and double vision.
UPDATE
On Oct. 27, a mutual stipulation was reached by all parties that all of the defendants, minus Restore Rehabilitation would be dismissed.
Subsequently, Restore Rehabilitation filed an answer with affirmative defenses on Nov. 6, denying the plaintiff’s allegations as actual/legal conclusions to which no response is required and demanded strict proof thereof at the time of trial.
“Plaintiff’s complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Plaintiff’s claims are barred by the doctrine of immunity, including qualified immunity. Plaintiff’s claims are barred because of the doctrine of waiver and/or estoppel. Plaintiff’s claims are barred by the doctrine of unclean hands. If plaintiff’s allegations are proven true, though specifically denied, the acts and/or omissions, whether they be intentional, reckless or otherwise were not the proximate cause of any injuries or damages sustained by plaintiff,” the answer read, in part.
“If plaintiff’s allegations are proven true, though specifically denied, the incident and/or incidents which are the subject for this lawsuit, were caused solely by the plaintiff’s actions or inactions. If plaintiff’s allegations are proven true, though specifically denied, the incident and/or incidents which are the subject for this lawsuit, were caused by the conduct of a third party or parties, over whom answering defendant has no control or duty to control. Answering defendant avers that plaintiff has failed to mitigate his damages. Plaintiff’s claims are barred for failing to bring suit within the applicable two-year statute of limitations.”
For a count of negligence sounding in vicarious liability, the plaintiff is seeking compensatory damages in excess of $50,000, plus a trial by jury.
The plaintiff is represented by Benjamin J. Simmons of Defino Law Associates, in Philadelphia.
The defendants are represented by Mark G. Giannotti of Marks O’Neill O’Brien Doherty & Kelly, in Philadelphia.
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania case 2:20-cv-05068
Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas case 200901334
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com