On Dec. 9, 2008, the plaintiff, a 58-year-old pipefitter and welder, was working as a foreman for a contractor that had been hired to construct several new processing units at a refinery in the Bay Area. The contractor was responsible for all construction-related activity for the expansion of the refinery, including ensuring a safe work environment. During the graveyard shift, the plaintiff was helping two members of his crew place a large tank at an unpaved worksite. As a crane lifted the tank and positioned it toward the two crew members, the plaintiff began clearing the landing area of trip hazards when he noted a piece of plywood on the ground that appeared to be broken into a little more than half of a full sheet of plywood. However, as he lifted the edge of the plywood and took a step forward with his right leg so that he could perform the lift with his legs, he fell into an open manhole that the broken piece of plywood was covering. According to accident investigation reports, the plywood was inadequately marked to show that it was covering an open hole. It is unknown who employed the individual who laid the plywood over the hole and failed to properly mark it. The plaintiff sued the refinery owner. Plaintiff’s counsel asserted that despite the delegation of control to the contractor, the refinery retained control over safety at the worksite and that its negligence contributed to the plaintiff’s . Counsel contended that the refinery retained control by issuing “safe work” permits for work shifts performed by the contractor’s employees and that these permits involved worksite walk-throughs during which dangerous conditions were identified and remedied. Thus, counsel asserted that by issuing a permit to the plaintiff’s worksite, and by failing to identify and remedy the improperly marked hole, the refinery’s negligence contributed to the plaintiff’s accident. The refinery owner claimed that, both by contract and in practice, all work at the refinery for the construction of the new processing units had been delegated to the contractor, including delegating the maintenance of a safe work environment. The owner further claimed that the contractor had safety personnel “on the ground” to address all safety issues at the work site. Defense counsel contended that the contractor, or the employees of its subcontractors, was responsible for improperly marking the hole and that the plaintiff was at fault for removing the plywood in an unsafe manner. Counsel also contended that the plaintiff’s claims lay solely against the contractor and were, thus, precluded by the worker’s compensation exclusive remedy rule., First aid was rendered to the plaintiff on-site for back and knee . He claimed he continued to work through pain for several weeks, but in March 2009, he was diagnosed with tears of the medial meniscus and medial collateral ligament of the left knee. He also sustained a lumbar disc bulge at the L3-4 level, causing sciatic pain down his right leg. The plaintiff subsequently underwent two surgeries on his left knee to address the tears. One surgery was in May 2009 and the other was in October 2011. The plaintiff claimed that over the next two years, after taking assignments with five different contractors, he eventually could not continue working as a pipefitter and welder. Thus, the plaintiff had $35,000 in past medical costs paid by the worker’s compensation carrier. He also claimed $1.36 million in past and future loss of income.