This case takes place in Kentucky and involves a railroad conductor who was injured by machinery at a railway offloading premise. The conductor was performing his everyday duties of directing the movement of railroad cars loaded with coal into their respective offloading areas- where the cars are emptied by use of an external machine. In the course of performing these duties, he was struck from behind by one of the offloading machines, which crushed his body against the railroad car. As a result, he suffered severe and permanent injuries to his body, which have permanently and totally disabled him from his occupation as a conductor. It is alleged that there was insufficient visual devices (mirrors and digital cameras) for the operator of the offloading machine to safely make a backup move, and that no backup warning devices were installed.

I am very familiar with various safety procedures involving the spotting, unloading, and loading of ore cars. Each railroad has their own set of rules. I have access to former and current employees who work on the CN Railway at ore docks in both MN, as well as the BNSF operations in WI, so I can certainly obtain up-to-date information if asked about particulars. I have worked as a Switchman, Conductor and Locomotive Engineer with BNSF Railway in transporting, loading and unloading, and switching operations. I have also worked on ore docks where there was use of the portable ore handler machines (car dumpers) that open and close cars into the ore pockets, which empty into the ore boats traversing the Great Lakes. Currently, there are two railway ore docks in my general location that still use these machines on the ore docks, one location at Two Harbors, MN and the other at Duluth, MN. BNSF still uses their ore docks but instead of using train crews to spot the cars on the docks, they converted to a conveyor belt system in the early 80's. BNSF spots their loaded trains at a "Dumper House," in which the train crew releases their loaded train to the facility employee, who then unloads the car train using a mechanical arm that pushes the train and unloads three cars at a time, generally taking 6-8 hours. The cargo is then conveyor belted to either a stock pile or directly to the ore dock if a ship is waiting to be loaded. I also worked as a Switchman in 1970 for the DMIR Railway (now CN) on the ore docks and am familiar with these car dump machines.

1. Are you familiar with the instruments and devices required on trains to ensure the conductors safety? 2. What is your experience in setting safety policies/procedures for trains? 3. Are you familiar with protocols and cross checks a railroad company should take to ensure rider safety?

Location: Minnesota Member, National Association of Railroad Safety Consultants and Investigators Former R*** a** Y*** T**** C******** a** L********* E******* B*** R****** Former S***** C********** B*** R****** Former U**** L********** R************* U***** T************* U**** Current R****** S***** a** O******** R**** E***** i********** c**********

Southeast

Kentucky

This expert has been working with locomotives for over 35 years. His background includes 32 years as a switchman, conductor, and locomotive engineer for BNSF Railway. He also spent 7 years as a division-wide, full time carrier and labor Safety Coordinator for BNSF, covering 5 states as a facilitator, educator, and mediator in safety training. In addition to his positions with BNSF, he also served as a Union Legislative Representative with the United Transportation Union for 18 years, liaising with the Minnesota State Legislative Board and working with labor members with respect to rail safety and legislative matters important to rail labor. Throughout his tenure, he earned multiple awards and recognitions such as the BNSF Hill-Holliday Award for best Work Practices Team Project and the United Transportation Union Brass Lantern Award for service in safety to fellow rail workers. He is highly familiar with the General Code of Operating Rules and has undergone continuing education in areas such as Critical Incident Response. Currently, this expert is a Railway Safety and Operating Rules Expert at his own independent consultancy.

Train Conductor is Severely Injured by Railroad Car

This case involves a plaintiff who was a conveyor belt splicing technician at an industrial packaging factory. While the plaintiff was working, the sleeve of his shirt became stuck in the roller of the conveyor belt. The plaintiff attempted to un-jam the shirt from the roller but got his arm stuck in the roller. He lost his forearm as a result of the incident and was left permanently unable to work. The plaintiff alleged that there was no sufficient form of e-stop of the conveyor belt to prevent incidents such as this from happening.

My experience with conveyor belts extends to over 26 years of various applications from food and automotive packaging to handling palletizing robotic automation belts, rollers, blue steel powered, and free gravity types. My expertise in most cases involves some sort of forensic engineering in one way or another. My initial thought is that this type of telescopic conveying system is in no way certified to be safe. There are no safety features that run length wise of the conveyor that leaves anyone walking by on either side, vulnerable or unable to e-stop the conveyor. The acceptable form of e-stop would be a cable that runs from one end to the other, both sides, that allows anyone to pull/ activate, the e-stop in the event of an emergency.

1. Please briefly describe your experience with conveyor belts. 2. Have you ever consulted on a products liability matter?

Technician Loses Arm In Conveyor Belt Accident

Steiner v. Workers’ Comp. Appeal Bd. (Automatic Brewers & Coffee)

The claimant, an assembly line employee working on cups and pods for espresso machines, filed a claim alleging that, due to the repetitive nature of his work, he developed bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome. His complaint charged that his employer had violated Section 406.1 of the Workers’ Compensation Act by failing to file the documents recognizing his injury on time. His employer denied the allegations, and the matter was referred to a workers’ compensation court. The claimant claimed that he worked exclusively with a machine that required the twisting and repetitive movements of both hands and he started to feel tingling, discomfort, and swelling of his palms. He claims that he told his superiors, but they did not change his tasks.

Despite the discomfort, the claimant did not seek medical treatment because he did not know what was going on. Eventually, he went to a doctor who wrote him a prescription and gave him a note to avoid repetitive gripping, twisting, or lifting his hands. The claimant gave this medical documentation to his supervisor and the company’s owner, but his employer did not accommodate his limitations. He testified that he sought physical therapy twice a week, had to wear a brace, and that the sensations of his hands affected his day-to-day operations, such as pulling on a shirt and buttons. The claimant alleged that the employer wanted him to take a medical leave on unemployment and not to apply for workers’ compensation.

The defendant employer retained an expert to carry out an independent medical examination of the claimant. The expert was a board-certified orthopedic surgeon with an additional qualification in hand surgery. After his examination, the expert reported the claimant shared his work, accident, and medical history. The claimant also assured the expert that he had no previous problems in his arms or hands and that he was going to seek physical therapy and see a chiropractor three days a week. The expert noted, however, that the claimant had a history of diabetes and dizziness. He ultimately testified that the claimant’s MRI imaging had shown insufficient evidence of work-related trauma.

The expert explained that the claimant had left work due to dizziness, vertigo, and passing out. He also noted that the claimant’s blood glucose level was 313 in the emergency room, and even after six months, the claimant’s blood glucose level was still over 300. The expert testified that his physical examination of the claimant revealed that all the muscles in his wrists, thumbs, forearms, and fingers were working correctly. He stated that only heavy and vibratory repetitive work could be a contributing factor to carpal tunnel syndrome and not simple repetitive work. Based on the claimant’s blood glucose level, the expert determined that the apparent explanation behind the carpal tunnel syndrome was uncontrolled diabetes, which is a well-documented cause of peripheral neuropathy, including carpal tunnel syndrome. Based on this evidence, the workers’ compensation judge denied the claim, which resulted in the present appeal.

The claimant alleged that, as the expert opined outside his area of expertise, the workers’ compensation judge’s ruling was not backed by substantial evidence. However, the court noted that “[a]n expert medical witness in a workers’ compensation proceeding is qualified to testify outside of his medical specialty, and any objection to that testimony goes to the weight of the evidence, not its competency,” citing 

Williams v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (USX Corporation-Fairless Works)

The claimant also argued that the workers’ compensation judge capriciously dismissed the facts, but the appeals court noted that the judge provided thorough summaries of each witness’s evidence. This indicated that the judge did not ignore this evidence, but instead found and dismissed it as inaccurate. Finally, the claimant argued that the judge’s decision was not reasoned, as mandated by Section422(a) of the Act since the expert was not an expert in the field of diabetes. The appeals court observed that the judge had cited the expert’s credentials, his clinical assessment, and his review of medical records and tests, and while the testimony was outside of his medical specialty, this only impacts the weight of the testimony. The appeals court also noted the judge credited the employer’s witnesses and discredited the claimant’s testimony regarding his supposed work injury, thus giving a reasoned judgment.

Orthopedic Surgeon is Deemed Qualified to Opine as Diabetes Expert in Workers’ Compensation Dispute

Location: NYC BEng, Mechanical Engineering, University of Cassino (Italy) MEng, Mechanical Engineering, University of Cassino Member, Society of Automotive Engineering Member, American Society of Mechanical Engineers Member, International Fluid Power Society Former, Mechanical Drafter, an Italian Heavy Mining Firm Former, Junior Mechanical Engineer, Orics Industries (USA) Former, Senior Mechanical Engineer, Rotapack Former, Assistant Chief Engineer, American Conveyor Former, Chief Engineer, American Conveyor Current, Tool Design Engineer, a New York Tools Design Firm

Conveyor Belt Expert Witnesses

Find an expert witness near you

Conveyor Belt Expert Witness Case Studies

Train Conductor is Severely Injured by Railroad Car

Technician Loses Arm In Conveyor Belt Accident

Orthopedic Surgeon is Deemed Qualified to Opine as Diabetes Expert in Workers’ Compensation Dispute

Connect with the Conveyor Belt expert witness you need to win your case