Berman v NMG Management (North) Pty Ltd [1997] QSC 217

~ ~/; 'R ' ' 'l /. .~. o C) IN THE SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND Writ No. 240f129_6 CAIRNS DISTRICT REGISTRY [Before the Hon. Justice Jones] [Berman v NMG Management (North) Pty.Ltd. (In Liq.)] BETWEEN: AND: Catchwords: Counsel: Solicitors: Hearing Dates: PETERKENNEI~RMAN NMG MANAGEMENT (NORIHtP3:Y.LID. (In Liquidation) (A.C.N. 050 485 295) Defendant Judgment Delivered 25 November 1997 Negligence'" breach of statutory duty - plaintiff's thumb severed in hydraulic shears at work - contributory negligence - damages. Workpla.c.e.Health.arulSafety .Act 1989, s.9 Mr. B. Pack for the plaintiff Mr. B. Hoare for the defendant Pescott Reaston for the plaintiff MacDonnells as town agents for Thynne & Macartney for the defendant. 30,31 October 1997 .•_. __.~~._~.'_ -_~. ______~___Wil'""~IiilI!-·,,!I!1I ':', '~te study .,;thout j ,'" '". ) -- 1 of 18 -- ~J IN THE SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND Writ No. 24 of 1996 CAIRNS DISTRICT REGISTRY [Berman v NMG Management (North) Pty.Ltd. (In Liq.)] BETWEEN: Plaintiff o AND: NMG MANAGEMENT (NORTH) PTY.IJTD. (In Liquidatioo) (A.C.N. 050 485 295) o Defendant REASONS FOR .nlDGMEN1~ONES J Judgment Delivered 25 November 1997 o The plaintiff was born on 21 November, 1961 and is therefore almost 36 years of age. On 20 September, 1993 he was injured at his place of employment with the defendant, o when his right thumb was severed by an hydraulically operated cutter which has been variously described as a nipper, a snipping machine and shears. At the defendant's meatworks, the shears in question were used to cut through the bony remnants of a carcass which had completed its journey along the boning chain. The shears were employed to reduce the bones to a size so that they could be accommodated in a waste chute. This was the means by which waste was removed from the boning room to another part of the works. The waste in the chute was propelled by a screw or "worm" which the plaintiff in the course of his duties was required to inspect and clean to ensure it did not become jammed. -- 2 of 18 -- 2 The shears have been depicted in a number of photographic exhibits. Essentially they consist of a cylinder to which hydraulic lines are attached and at the end of which are two large blades which open and close in a scissor action under hydraulic pressure. Underneath the cylinder was a handgrip with an unprotected button-type trigger which controlled the operation of the blades. When the trigger was depressed the blades closed, and when the trigger was released the blades opened .. o Evidence was given by a number of persons who use this machine. Apart from Mr. Munday, the supervisor, each of them said that the blades operated with the application of o only slight pressure to the trigger and with a small amount of travel by the trigger. I accept this to be an accurate description. Pressure for the hydraulic system was derived from some electrically powered source. The machine could not be operated unless at least two switches were in the "on" position. The first of these was located near to where the machine operator worked. This was called o the "isolation switch". The second was located near the supervisor's position with three other switches which controlled other machinery - the boning chain, the drop chain and the chicken o chain. Approximately 60 workers were employed in the boning room. A boning room is a highly regimented environment which requires that all persons working on the chains stop for a smoko or lunch break at the same time and further, on resumption of the work that they all be in position when the boning chain starts again. For this reason the supervisor operated the switches which activated the machinery. It was not the practice for the operator of the shears to tum off the switch adjacent to that work station when leaving for a smoko break or indeed even at the end of the shift. Mr. Munday, the supervisor of the boning room on the day in --- -~ -- 3 of 18 -- 3 question, was aware of this practice and acknowledged that it was his responsibility to operate the switches, one of which supplied the power to the shears. No one else was authorised to operate the switches and there is no evidence that anyone did. On the day in question the plaintiff was employed as a floor boy. There were two such floor boys engaged in the boning room at the time, the other one being Mr. Payne. There is a demarcation between the duties of these floor boys. One was to look after and o keep clean the areas where edible products were being processed. This involved removing bins containing edible products (which bins were coloured white), cleaning the tops of tables C) and equipment which came into contact with edible products. The other floor boy was to remove and clean any of the waste bins (which were coloured red), to clean up the floors where fat, sinew and other waste products had fallen, and to clean in and around the waste chute. To highlight the demarcation of their duties, the edible products floor boy wore a white coat and the other floor boy, a red coat. This classification was described by reference o to the coat colour, that is, the white coat floor boy and the red coat floor boy. The plaintiff was at the time the red coat floor boy. o That colour demarcation applied also to other workers in the boning room so that all workers having contact with edible product wore a white coat. An anomalous situation existed at the point where the shears were located since effectively, once the shears cut the bones they became waste. Notwithstanding this the worker at this station wore a white coat. There was some evidence that the operator of the shears might change stations where he would deal with edible product. The busy time for the red coat floor boy was during the smoko and lunchtime breaks. He was expected in this half hour period to clean the floor, bins and chute whilst the boning -- 4 of 18 -- ------- ------------- 4 room workers were absent. It was in the course of carrying out these duties that the plaintiff was injured. The plaintiff says that this incident occurred during the morning smoko which is taken between 8.30 a.m. and 9.00 a.m. During the course of the smoko break he had cleaned the downstairs section of the boning room floor and proceeded up the stairs to clean the floor at the end of the boning chain. As he approached this area he saw hanging from the jaws of the C) shears some sinew or waste material. He took hold of the handgrip with his left hand in order to tum the machine slightly and to enable him to use his right hand to remove the sinew from COo"') the jaws. He took hold of the waste material with his right hand and was attempting to tug it '--~/ free when the jaws closed, causing an almost complete severing of his thumb. Because the boning room was not operating he believed that the electrical power to all the machines had been switched off and that it was quite safe for him to handle the machine. He did not consciously operate the trigger and had no need to do so. He was working quickly and it was C) his intention simpiy to remove the piece of sinew and throw it into the waste chute which was adjacent to this point on the boning chain. He believes that he was looking at the waste chute o checking to see what work he had to do in that area when the blades of the shears closed. The speed at which the blades closed has been described in different terms by the witnesses. Precise description is not important as I am satisfied that the speed of operation was such that there was no opportunity to remove a hand or a digit before the closing of the blades once they had been activated. The machine unless disconnected from its power sources, was in my opinion quite dangerous. It required only a slight touch on the trigger for the blades to be activated. The trigger mechanism was unguarded and in a position where it could be bumped accidentally. -- 5 of 18 -- 5 The machine was capable of doing considerable damage to anyone who could come into contact with the blades whilst it was in this state. The supervisor, Mr. Munday, believed he had turned off the switches at the commencement of the morning smoko break. That he had done so would have been obvious in respect of the boning chains. They would simply stop. But in respect of the shears there would be no obvious indication whether his attempt to switch the machine off was completed. It is common ground that the supervisor's switch had to be in the "on" position for the shears to operate. For this switch to be in the "on" position there seems to be only two o alternatives - the supervisor failed to turn it off at the smoko break or some person unknown has subsequently turned it on. It was not suggested to the plaintiff that he did so and in fact it was conceded that his work tasks did not take him in the vicinity of the switch panel. It is unlikely that anyone of the workers who had left the boning room for the break would return simply to turn on the switch. o The switches were located on a lower floor of the boning room at a point where anybody could walk past them. They were not protected against casual interference. o Mr. Munday was aware that the operators of the shears did not tum off the isolation switch at their work station. Consequently, the only practical control over the power supply to the shears was the switch at the supervisor's location in· the absence of a system which required the operators to switch off the machine. To allow the shears to be switched on when not under the control of an operator constituted a situation of considerable danger. The supervisor and, indeed, all the boning room staff were aware that the floor boys (particularly the red coat floor boy) would be cleaning up in the vicinity of the shears. In cleaning the floor, inspecting the waste chute and ---- j -- 6 of 18 -- 6 removing waste bins there was a likelihood of the floor boy coming into contact with the machine, accidentally or deliberately. No warning or instruction was given about this danger. In fact, the employees assumed that the power to the machine had been turned off and they were entitled to make this assumption. I find that the plaintiff believed the machine to be turned off. The plaintiff alleges negligence and breach of statutory duty on the part of the ':) defendant on a number of grounds which broadly stated were - a failure to switch off the '-----' machine thereby constituting a danger; a failure to warn the plaintiff that the machine was on; a failure to instruct the plaintiff about the performance of his work; and a failure to provide a safe system of work. The defendant denies that it was negligent or in breach of duty and alleges contributory negligence against the plaintiff. The grounds on which it does so may be collected under the following broad headings:- 1. The plaintiffs failure to ensure the switches were turned off (Further Amended Defence para. 4 (a». o 2. The switches were operated by the plaintiff or some person unknown (para. 4A(b) (c), (d». 3. The plaintiffs disobedience of instructions about handling the machine (paras. 4(b), (d); 4A(e». 4. Whilst handling the machine the plaintiffs failure to ensure that he did not activate the trigger (para. 4(c». I shall deal with these in turn. -- 7 of 18 -- 7 FailingJD_ensure switches were off It was not suggested that the plaintiff was instructed at any time to turn off the switches. The fact that the isolating switch was always left on would suggest that had he looked at the switch it would not have caused him to take any different course in his work tasks. He had previously operated the shears and followed the practice of other operators in not turning off that switch when going for a break. He had every right to expect that the r) supervisor's switch would be in the "off' position during the break. ". Switches operate.<lh~aintiff or P.ersoo.s....unknflWll o As I mentioned above it was not suggested in the course of evidence that the plaintiff operated the switch. Even if an unknown person had activated the switch in the supervisor's absence (and there was no direct evidence of this) the defendant is not thereby relieved of liability. The switch was poorly identified and it was open to interference by anyone who passed by. Furthermore the persons passing by were likely to be the defendant's employees. The most likely explanation is that the supervisor failed to turn the switch off. Disobeying instructions The defendant places particular emphasis on its allegation that the plaintiff disobeyed its instruction. However, there does not seem to be any clear statement of what those instructions were nor as to the identity of the person giving the instructions. At page 40 of the transcript the following passage appear in the cross-examination of the plaintiff:- "MR. HOARE: See I put this to you that in fact your job is to clean up the floor. That your instructions were not to touch the machines? .. I was never instructed not to clean the snipper machine. Alright, well I'm suggesting to you that in fact that those were your instructions, that you weren't to touch anything that was touched by the white coats?-- I was only \old not to touch -- 8 of 18 -- 8 edible meat or white tubs. Alright--?--and don't brush up against the beef." Later in his evidence (at p.43/22) the plaintiff was questioned as follows:- "I suggest to you that Mr. Munday had given you instructions in what you were to do in your capacity as a red coat labourer?- - He just told me "floor boy, do floor boy duties". I suggest to you that he said to you that your duties were as I outlined them before, to clean the floor and in effect, clean, as you've - I'll start that again. That your duties were to clean the floor, to clean the conveyor belts and the worm gear, that sort of thing, but that your activities were to be restricted to non- edible product and that in particular, you were not to touch any equipment that was used by the white coat workers whose activities were conversely restricted to edible product?-- When I very first started at the meatworks, I had the other foreman Paul - I forget his name, him and Steve Munday were both in the boning room and when I very first started, Paul showed me around and showed me what to do, and what 'not to do. At no· time at all, did Steve Munday state to me, "do not touch this", "do not touch that." All he said to me wa~ "you know how to do the floor boy duties you can be the floor boy". WITNESS: Steve Munday wasn't the foreman that showed me how to do floor boy duties. It was Paul that showed me floor boy duties and it was my understanding that the rib shears were for cutting up ribs and it was my understanding that the ribs were inedible." Mr. Munday's evidence about the instructions are somewhat equivocal. In his evidence in chief he claimed to have given oral instructions to the plaintiff himself (109/20). Later in his evidence (112110) is the following:- "Can you tell the Court whether there was any system in place with respect to the cleaning of the nippers? --The floor boy at the time would have been told that the nippers is for cutting edible product, and it's not an inedible product until it is thrown down the chute, once it is cut up. Q: Did you yourself say that to the plaintiff?-- No. I do remember saying "do not touch the nippers, clean the -- 9 of 18 -- 9 nippers". In cross examination Mr. Munday was questioned as follows (118/50):- "Well I want to suggest to you that neither the plaintiff or any other floor boy was actually given an instruction by you not to touch this machine?--I remember telling Peter and there are a couple of other floor boys. But when a floor boy becomes competent at his job, because the foreman was so busy in them days with the amount of people he had working under him we relied on that competent floor boy to pass on instructions. HIS HONOUR: You relied on floor boys that you'd already instructed to pass on to a new one?-- Yeah. MR. PACK: I see. And the situation is, isn't it that you would have expected having regard to the cleaning duties in and about the machine that at least some contact with the machine might have been expected if inadvertent during the cleaning process?--There was no need for him to touch it with his hands and that but he may have brushed past it or something like that. "(es, well you'd expect wouldn't you that some contact might be made just during the cleaning processes during a break?-- Not-not by hand. Alright. Alright, so there wasn't a strict prohibition against any· form of contact with the machine, it was more of a focus on the product, of the meat wasn't it?-- That's right. The plaintiffs position is supported by the evidence of other witnesses who worked at the defendant's premises. I refer particularly to the evidence of Mr. White who also worked as a red coat floor boy who responded in cross examination as follows (at 80/40):- Q: Would it be fair to say that the white coats weren't allowed to touch the floor or to touch any inedible product and that conversely, the red coats were not allowed to touch the tables or any edible product?--Yes, that's right, yeah. I suggest to you that the red coats were also not allowed to touch any machinery that was used by the white coated employees?--Yeah well I did not know that. I was never told that. -- 10 of 18 -- -----------_._------ 10 See I suggest to you that at or about the time the plaintiff was injured that the instructions that were given to the red coated floor boys were that they were to concentrate 'on the floors and the worm and basically the cleaning up of the inedible waste, but that specifically they weren't to touch the table, edible meats and machinery that was used by white coated employees?--Well that was something that I was never told." On balance I accept the evidence of the plaintiff and I find that he was not given specific instructions not to touch the shears. I accept his evidence that he had on previous occasions when working as a red coated floor boy in fact cleaned the shears of sinew or tissue hanging from the blades. He was not corrected in so doing though this would probably be a consequence of his working in the boning room when no other workers were present. Failing to ensut:e.mulidmrt_adiYa1e the trigger The plaintiff was familiar with the operation of the machine since he had used it on earlier occasions. His belief that the machine was switched 9ff (as it ought to have been) made unlikely his having a concern about taking hold of the handgrip. His evidence in cross- examination is as follows:- "I grabbed that (the handgrip) with my left hand and tried to point that...scissors around to this position .. back around so I could get it (the sinew and fat) with my right hand. And the whole time, the damn thing was trying to pull back. And that's when my attention was diverted to the fat screw and I felt a bang on my hand and it's --... (transcript 24122)" In the cross-examination the following exchange took place (41/45):- "See I suggest to you that for the shears to have been activated, it required an act of firm pressure on that trigger?-- I don't know anything about firm pressure triggers or whatever. All I know is, when I grabbed it and had my hand in there and looked down, I felt a big bang, I let go of the machine and I'd cut myself, that's all I know. If it took a big lot of pressure, I don't know that. I don't even recall hitting the trigger. It was as greasy as anything and the fat all over the handle. -- 11 of 18 -- 11 If it takes firm pressure or whatever, I don't recall. I don't know anything about that. All I know is the blooming thing hit me." I find that the plaintiff did not deliberately activate the trigger. In the circumstances it is quite likely that he touched the trigger through inadvertence, particularly, thinking the machine was safe he had no reason to be concerned about the way he handled the machine. On the whole of the evidence I am satisfied that the· defendant was negligent and in breach of s. 9 of the Workplace He.a1t~ct 1989 in failing to ensure that the power to the machine had been turned off when not under the control of an operator. The defendant was also in breach of its duty in not providing and enforcing a system of work which required the operator to switch off the machine at the isolating switch in circumstances where there was a possibility of persons unknown operating the switch in the absence of the supervisor. I find also that the defendant was in breach of its duty in not modifying the machine so that it would not give rise t.o a danger to any person having casual c~ntact with it. The danger referred to in the preceding remarks could have been avoided by ensuring that the power systems to the machine were turned off, by providing some protection to the '-'. trigger mechanism or, as the subsequent modification to the machine achieved, requiring two ~ separate trigger buttons to be engaged before the machine would operate. This modification was in fact undertaken a few weeks after this incident. I find that the plaintiff was not guilty of contributory negligence. Quantum Prior to this incident the plaintiff was in good health. He is a right hand dominant person. As a result of the incident his right thumb was almost severed. He was taken immediately to his general practitioner and then transferred to Cairns Base Hospital. He -- 12 of 18 -- 12 underwent surgery at the hands of Dr. Doyle, a reconstructive surgeon, to replant his thumb. He was an in-patient for 3 days. Following this procedure he was in severe pain and required pethidine injections. He required periodic injections to control pain until his re-admission to hospital during the next month for control of infection and pain management. Thereafter the plaintiff had a number of short hospital admissions for the same reasons until 23 February, 1994 when =:) an amputation of the right thumb was performed. Whilst that surgery was uncomplicated the plaintiff. has suffered chronic pain ever ~ since. He has undergone various surgical procedures for the removal of neuromas and for the "----) remodelling of his stump. The last such occasion being on the 28 May, 1996. The plaintiff has undergone a variety of treatments to reduce his pain, including 5 stellate ganglion blocks and the administration of narcotic drugs. He has become addicted to those drugs and in his attempt to overcome that addiction has experienced withdrawal symptoms. On medical advice he is presently changing his drug regime based on methadone to one based on morphine. He is required to visit his general practitioner each week to obtain r\ ,----j prescriptions and to visit his chemist 6 days each week to receive the drugs. The loss of his thumb has resulted in the plaintiff having to give up some of the amenities of life. He is unable to engage in sports to the same extent or to enjoy fishing. He is restricted in the activities that he can perform about his house. He claims also that as a result of the chronic pain he is easily angered, frustrated and suffers from depression. The plaintiff s partner also gave evidence about this change in his personality and distress and upset which he experiences. The extent to which his pain can be controlled in the future was the subject of -- 13 of 18 -- 13 evidence by Dr. Williams, the plaintiffs general practitioner. Dr. Williams stated that a third of the people on long term opiates give up altogether, a third stay on them for a long number of years and the remaining third use the drugs intermittently. As some form of balanced judgment Dr. Williams accepted that the plaintiff was likely to remain on the drugs for a further 10 years. These details not only indicate the level of inconvenience which the plaintiff faces r,) with having to take medication in the future but also the likely term during which he will,~_/ suffer chronic pain. When visited by severe pain the plaintiff cannot use for any purpose his r"') dominant arm. Accordingly, the allowance for pain and suffering has to take account of the ,---.j occasions when the plaintiffs disability in his arm is higher than the calculated percentages related to the loss of his thumb which, in any event, was equivalent to 30% permanent loss of use of the right limb as a whole. I assess the allowance for pain, suffering and loss of amenities in the sum of $55,000.00. No interest is sought in respect of past pain and suffering, the plaintiff making allowance for the lump sum payment received from the Workers' Compensation Board. At the time of the incident the plaintiff was in his third season of employment with the defendant as a meat worker. In his evidence he expressed an intention to continue working with the defendant and to eventually become a boner or a slicer. At the time of the incident whilst working for the defendant he earned approximately $350.00 per week. As a boner or slicer the net weekly earnings would be between $600-$800 per week. The plaintiff claims that he would have moved into a position of boner or slicer within a few years of the incident. In the off-season for the meatworks the plaintiff worked as a farm labourer or as a deckhand on a trawler. Specific detail of net income from these pursuits is not available. The plaintiff -- 14 of 18 -- 14 estimates he received approximately $300.00 per week. The defendant asserts that the plaintiff was unlikely to move quickly to the position of slicer or boner, that he did not show a particular interest in improving his position during the three seasons that he worked for the defendant and that there was no guarantee that he would have remained in this employment. The plaintiff sought employment after his injuries had healed notwithstanding the ~ considerable pain which he was suffering. His employment was with Norfoam Pty.Ltd., a '---~ manufacturer of insulated panels for cold rooms. The plaintiff was required to use machinery ~) to cut panels and then fabricate the panels for construction of kit form coldrooms. He was under the supervision of Mr. Van der Neut, who described the difficulties the plaintiff experienced in doing this work but also described his keenness in the workplace. In fact Mr. Vander Neut thought the plaintiff was over keen at times. In the circumstances I have come to the view that the plaintiff was likely to have continued work with the defendant during the meat processing season. I take the view also that he would have, by this time, reached the level of slicer or boner. For the 216 weeks that have elapsed since the accident the plaintiff, for most of that period, would have earned in excess of $350.00 nett per week and for some part of it as much as $700.00 nett per week. There would have been some periods of unemployment outside the meatworks season but allowing an average of $400.00 nett per week for the period takes into account the usual contingencies. The plaintiff has since the accident earned the sum of a little over $4,000.00. In all the circumstances I allow $80,000.00 for past economic loss. Of this sum the amount of $43,000.00 attracts interest at 4% adding a further component of$7,000.00. -- 15 of 18 -- ------~- 15 For the future period the plaintiff has a potential working life of between 25-30 years. In his working career he has had, as Mr. Hoare appearing for 'the defendants pointed out, very significant periods of unemployment. I take this into account when allowing future economic loss for a future period of 20 years (multiplier 666). Whilst the plaintiffs injuries, in particular the chronic pain have gravely interfered with his income earning capacity, I take the view that this capacity is not completely lost. If the plaintiff is able to overcome the pain ~ I expect there will opportunities for him to retrain and to gain some light or part-time employment notwithstanding his physical limitations. In broad terms I allow $350.00 per n week as the measure of his lost earning capacity over the 20 year period I suggested above, "-./ which represents a financial loss of$230,000.00. Employer superannuation contributions both past and future need to be allowed for in addition to this amount and I assess this allowance at $20,000.00. The plaintiff prepared a list of the hours of services he claimed under the Griffl~ Kerkem~ principle. These were provided by Theresa Darby with whom he lived for some time in a de facto relationship. This list totalled 2,034 hours. Mrs. Darby's list of services /--" J and the time taken by her exceeded that figure. It appears from the evidence that some of the tasks in respect of which the plaintiff s claim. is made are ·the usual incidents of a shared domestic relationship. To accommodate for this fact I assess the number of hours to which the GIiffiths -y- .Kerkemey.er principle applies at 1,500 hours. The parties have agreed that the allowance should be calculated on the basis of an hourly cost of$8.50. I allow $12,750.00 for past care which sum attracts interest in the amount of $1,000.00. The plaintiff has an ongoing need for the provisions of services. In particular, he -- 16 of 18 -- 16 cannot use vibrating machinery such as a lawnmower for any significant time. He cannot grip certain tools or domestic appliances and he cannot use others for a long period. This loss of capacity has altered the domestic arrangements in the household quite significantly but it will inevitably introduce some element of cost from time to time. The plaintiffs biomechanical capacity was assessed by Ms. Lynette Miles which shows that the plaintiff will be incapacitated with quite a wide variety of tasks. These difficulties are exacerbated of course by the presence of pain. I assess 7 hours a week as being the plaintiff s continuing need and this should be projected over a future period of 25 years (multiplier 753). The ') parties agree that the future cost of such services should be assessed at $10.00 per hour. I "-----" assess the allowance under this heading at $52,700.00. The plaintiff seeks an allowance for future medical treatment and medications. The likely expenses in both these areas are quite difficult to as.sess because of the uncertainty surrounding both the likely course and duration of the treatment. The present cost of .. medications on the combined methadone/morphine regime is $3.20 per week. If that expense continues at that rate for the rest of the plaintiffs life the allowance would be $3,000.00. If the morphine is reduced say in ten years time, and replaced with more usual but unsubsidised analgesics, the cost is likely to increase. On balance I shall allow $3,000.00 for the cost of medication and $2,000.00 for the travelling expenses for his daily visits to the chemist and his regular visits to the doctors. The cost of medical treatment can only be a rough estimate but I should include regular visits to a general practitioner, and an allowance for a multi-disciplined approach to pain management. Under this heading I allow the sum of$8,000.00. Special damages, including Fox -v- Wood component, are agreed in the sum of -- 17 of 18 -- 17 $28,003.35 and no interest is sought in respect of those items. The compilation of the plaintiffs damages take the following form:- Pain, Suffering, Loss of Amenities $ 55,000.00 Past Economic Loss $ 80,000.00 Interest on $43,000.00 thereof $ 7,000.00 Loss of Future Earning Capacity $230,000.00 Loss of Superannuation Contributions $ 20,000.00 Past Care $ 12,750.00 Interest on Past Care $ 1,000.00 Future Care $ 52,700.00 Future Medical Expenses and Medications $ 13,000.00 Special Damages (Including Eox--=Y- Wood) $ 28,OO~.15 $499,453.35 ~Workers' Compensation Refund Iota! ',":" ' .. I assess the plaintiffs damages in the sum of$442,408.55. I order that judgment be entered for the plaintiff against the defendants in the sum of $442,408.55. -- 18 of 18 --