Case details

Man struck by falling tree branch claimed shoulder injuries

SUMMARY

$397571.63

Amount

Verdict-Plaintiff

Result type

Not present

Ruling
KEYWORDS
glenoid labrum, shoulder, tear
FACTS
On July 6, 2007, plaintiff Douglas Lehmer, 50, a welder, was in the common area of a condo development in Lake Arrowhead, where he owned a condo, when a branch approximately 6 feet long fell and struck his right dominant shoulder. Lehmer sued the homeowner’s association, Arrowhead Lakes Homeowner’s Association; the management company it hired, Common Interest Community Management; and the tree trimming company, Cumorah Tree Service Inc. He alleged that Cumorah Tree Service trimmed the trees the previous day and left a branch approximately 6 feet long suspended in the tree canopy, which later fell and struck him as he walked through the area. He also alleged that Arrowhead Lakes and Common Interest were liable for Cumorah Tree Service’s actions and for failing to make sure the area where the work was performed was left in a safe condition. Cumorah Tree Service settled out of the case prior to trial for $25,000 each to Lehmer and his wife. Plaintiff’s counsel contended that Arrowhead Lakes and Common Interest were liable for the accident due to the peculiar risk doctrine, as it was the owner’s duty to recognize the risks of the work and take precautions against them. The plaintiff’s expert tree trimmer testified that large falling branches were a well-known risk and that special care had to be taken to clear “widow makers,” as they were known in the trade, from the tree canopy. Arrowhead Lakes and Common Interest denied having any liability for the accident. The defense’s expert arborist testified that it could not be shown where the branch came from and that it was too large to hang up in the tree canopy., About a week after the subject incident, Lehmer presented to his treating pain management expert, who referred him to the plaintiff’s non-retained orthopedic surgeon. He was subsequently diagnosed with a torn glenoid labrum, partial tear of the mid-Glenohumeral ligament, a Hill-Sachs lesion and dislodged screws that had been placed in the shoulder as result of previous shoulder area . Lehmer was previously prescribed strong pain medication for numerous back problems since about 2000. He later sustained a work-related injury in 2002, which included a fractured collarbone and injury to the same shoulder. He also took strong pain medication for the shoulder problems related to the 2002 work accident and another work accident in 2003, during which further injury was done to the shoulder and which caused him to be out of work since that accident. At the time of the 2007 tree branch accident, Lehmer claimed that his shoulder was functional, but fragile. He alleged that as a result, he had been seeing his treating expert in pain medicine bimonthly since 2002. Two months after the 2007 tree branch incident, the non-retained orthopedic surgeon performed a SLAPP surgery to repair the labral tear. The surgeon opined that Lehmer’s labral injury was new and that the Hill-Sachs lesion was the result of trauma to the condyle. He also confirmed that the mid-Glenohumeral ligament was partially severed and that screws from Lehmer’s earlier repair were pulled out. After the surgery, Lehmer claimed that his shoulder was no longer functional and that it was severely compromised. He alleged he tried unsuccessfully to return to work in 2009 and 2010, and is still currently out of work. Lehmer further claimed that he has difficulty shaking hands and opening doors. In addition, he claimed that he and his wife, Deborah, rarely sleep together because of fear that his shoulder, which remains very tender, will be struck. Thus, Lehmer’s wife presented a derivative claim seeking recovery for loss of consortium. Defense counsel argued that Lehmer’s shoulder was already severely compromised and the defense’s expert orthopedic surgeon opined that Lehmer’s shoulder was no worse off than it was before. The expert also testified that there was no labral tear, that there was nothing wrong with the ligaments in Lehmer’s shoulder and that there was no trauma to the condyle. Defense counsel argued that Lehmer should not be entitled to recovery for loss of earnings, as he was already out of work since 2003.
COURT
Superior Court of San Bernardino County, San Bernardino, CA

Recommended Experts

NEED HELP? TALK WITH AN EXPERT

Get a FREE consultation for your case