PHILADELPHIA – A local man alleges he suffered permanent and horrific injuries to his right eye nearly two years ago, when a drill bit unexpectedly dislodged and struck him in that eye – and further, that the defendants had failed to provide eye protection for their workers at the construction site in question.
Fabio Goncalves filed suit in the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas on Sept. 26 versus Streamline Commercial Construction, LLC, Streamline Construction Management, LLC, Spanish Capital Investments 5, LLC and ABC Contracting Companies 1-5. All parties are of Philadelphia.
According to the suit, Goncalves was working at a large-scale, multi-unit condominium construction project known as “Liberty Triangle”, located at 1102-48 North 2nd Street in Philadelphia – and that the defendants knew or should have known about the hazardous conditions then and there existing on the construction project, namely missing and/or inadequate personal protective equipment, including eye protection.
“Plaintiff Goncalves was employed by Plumb-Tech LLC [not a party to this lawsuit], as a construction worker and was working alongside others at the construction project. On or about Dec. 1, 2021, construction workers at the construction project, including plaintiff, were performing construction work without any form of eye protection,” the suit states.
“On or about Dec. 1, 2021, defendants Streamline Construction and/or Streamline Const. Mgmt. and/or Spanish Capital and/or ABC Contracting Companies 1-5, were aware, or should have been aware, that construction workers at the construction project, including plaintiff, were performing construction work without any form of eye protection. On or about Dec. 1, 2021, plaintiff was properly and lawfully working on the construction project using a drill when the drill bit dislodged into, and ruptured, the globe of his right eyeball.”
The suit continues that the plaintiff suffered grievous and permanent injuries.
“As a direct and proximate result of defendants’ carelessness and negligence, plaintiff Goncalves, suffered serious, permanent and debilitating injuries, including: Ruptured right eyeball globe with full thickness laceration and right ocular lesion with prolapse of intraocular tissue necessitating right eyeball surgery, in the form of exploration and repair of the ruptured right eyeball globe; Corneal wound leak; Significantly reduced vision; Visual disturbances; impaired ability to track moving objects; Impaired ability to judge distance; Impaired ability to perceive depth; Irritation, itching and drainage; Headaches; Mental and emotional pain and suffering; Chronic physical pain; suffering and loss of life’s pleasures, past, present and future; Hospital, medical and rehabilitation expenses past, present and future, including medical equipment, supplies and other medical care and treatment to pay for the treatment of the severe injuries and other psychological, psychiatric, and ophthalmic injuries, the full extent of which is yet to be determined, and some or all of which may be permanent in nature,” the suit says.
“As a direct and proximate result of the conduct of defendants, the plaintiff has in the past required, continues to require and may in the future require costs relating to medical care, medications, treatment, rehabilitation and testing to alleviate and/or cure his continuing pain and suffering. As a direct and proximate result of the conduct of defendants, the plaintiff has in the past, continues to, and will in the future, suffer painful and permanent bodily injuries, loss of independence, mental anguish, humiliation, embarrassment, fear, loss of wellbeing, lost ability to engage in the same or similar physical activities that he took part in before the accident, restrictions on his ability to participate in normal activities and pleasures of life, and other intangible losses. As a direct and proximate result of the conduct of the defendants, the plaintiff has been prevented, and will be prevented in the future, from performing his usual duties, activities, and avocations and has suffered a loss of earnings and a loss of earning capacity.”
For multiple counts of negligence, the plaintiff is seeking damages, jointly and severally, for sums in excess in excess of the jurisdictional amount requiring submission to arbitration, in compensatory damages, interest, and cost and delay damages pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 238 and brings this action recover same.
The plaintiff is represented by Kevin M. Durkan and Brian E. Fritz of Fritz & Bianculli, in Philadelphia.
The defendants have not yet secured legal counsel.
Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas case 230902693
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com