Plaintiff designates each of these treating physicians as non-retained testifying experts in her Expert Disclosures, providing the following designation: “Defendants may use the following nonretained testifying experts at trial to present evidence under Federal Rule of Evidence 702, 703, or 705.” Id. MacMaster, Craig Lankford, M.D., Ashfaq Tabia, M.D., as well as James Wortham, PA-C, Chris Kirby, PT, and Tatesha Pruitt, PA-C. Keith Preston, Norberto Vargas, M.D., John Paul Benavides, D.O., David J. In support of her alleged damages, Plaintiff designates numerous treating physicians including Drs. Importantly, the record reflects that Plaintiff suffers from pre-existing back conditions. and medical bills and expenses for reasonable and necessary care”. Plaintiff alleges she now suffers from “severe and disabling injuries in her back and body” sustained from moving the pallet of floor tiles on April 12, 2013,, and seeks past and future “damages for physical pain and anguish. Subsequently, on June 10, 2015, Plaintiff pursued further medical treatment, undergoing surgery for back injuries and complications. Nevertheless, Defendant’s Texas Employee Accident Plan paid for all medical treatment related to the alleged incident up until February 3, 2014, when Plaintiff was placed at “maximum medical improvement,” according to Defendant. *2 At the time, Defendant employed Plaintiff as a “flooring department supervisor” and did not subscribe to Texas Workers’ Compensation insurance. Plaintiff reported her injuries to Defendant on that same day. that day, after she had returned home from work. Plaintiff did not notice any pain from operating the pallet jack until around 5:00 p.m. Plaintiff had previously used a pallet jack to move product pallets of similar weight before, and upon being deposed explained that operating the pallet jack required her to roll the pallet jack underneath the desired product, crank the pallet jack manually, and then pull the pallet jack from the product’s location to its final in-store destination. Plaintiff did not call for help or seek any assistance from her fellow employees after she elected to proceed in using the pallet jack. Plaintiff testified that she intended to use a machine called a “reach truck” to assist the customers but, when no other employees responded to her call for assistance, she chose instead to use a “pallet jack” to move the tiles for the customers.
More specifically, Plaintiff alleges that, while working at Defendant Home Depot U.S.A., Inc.’s store number 6566 on April 12, 2013, she became injured moving a pallet of tiles for two customers from one part of the store to another (“April 12 Incident”). Plaintiff further alleges she was injured because Defendant (i) acted in reckless disregard for the safety and welfare of its employees, (ii) failed to maintain a safe work environment, (iii) failed to provide proper equipment, (iv) failed to use due care to avoid injury, (v) failed to provide adequate supervision, (vi) failed to provide proper training, (vii) failed to provide protective equipment, (viii) failed to warn Plaintiff of a dangerous condition, and (ix) failed to act as a reasonably prudent person under the circumstances. Plaintiff claims that Defendant proximately caused her an injury in “fail to provide her with a safe work environment” namely by requiring her and its other employees to move heavy product without proper tools, equipment, or assistance. as required by Section 5(a)(1) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970.” Id.
#BENZEL MACMASTER MD FREE#
On July 24, 2015, Plaintiff filed her Amended Complaint, which generally alleges negligence, as well as negligent activity on the part of Defendant, for its failure “to furnish to each of its employees, including Plaintiff, free from recognized hazards. This case originated in the 62nd Judicial District Court, Lamar County, Texas, and was removed to this Court on J. After reviewing the Motion and all other relevant pleadings and evidence, the Court recommends that Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment be GRANTED. Defendant’s Motion alternatively requests partial summary judgment on Plaintiff’s claims for medical expenses. *1 Pending before the Court is Defendant Home Depot U.S.A., Inc.’s (“Defendant”) Motion for Summary Judgment (“Motion”) seeking judgment as a matter of law on Plaintiff Della McCranie’s (“Plaintiff”) negligence claims. REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGEĬhristine A. Scott Forrester Courtney, Jr., Peter Andrew Nolan, Winstead PC, Austin, TX, for Defendant. Texas, Sherman Division.Įdward David Ellis, Attorney at Law, Ronald Wesley Tidwell, Ellis & Tidwell, Paris, TX, Thomas Wayne Fee, Fee Smith Sharp & Vitullo, LLP, Dallas, TX, for Plaintiff. He accepts Medicare payments and is listed with States District Court, E.D.
He attended University of Texas Southwestern Medical School. Benzel MacMaster works in the field of Orthopaedic Surgery.
0 kommentar(er)
