January 21, 2004

 

By Shannon P. Duffy

A man who lost half of his right arm in an industrial accident will be paid $5 million in a settlement of his products liability suit against the manufacturer of a paper shredder.

Plaintiff's attorney Slade H. McLaughlin of the Beasley Firm said the settlement of Peter Miller's case was nearly double the amount ordinarily awarded in similar cases of below-the-elbow amputations of a dominant arm due to the compelling evidence of his pain and suffering. The case was Miller v. Endura-Max Inc.

According to court papers, Miller, a native of Jamaica, was working as a laborer at Secured Destruction Services, a document processing and recycling company in Norristown that operates a large warehouse with industrial machines that shred, destroy and package waste paper products.

On Aug. 28, 2000, Miller was working with an Ameri-Shred AMS 12500 shredding unit manufactured by Endura-Max, a machine that has a 3-foot-wide conveyor belt extended from the shredding machine to a baling machine, which then packages the materials that are shredded into rectangular bales, according to court papers.

Miller noticed debris caught in the conveyor belt and attempted to remove it by patting the belt's underside with his gloved hand. Miller's right hand was caught in the conveyor belt and pulled into the rollers, amputating the arm below the elbow, according to court papers.

McLaughlin said Miller never lost consciousness and was "fully awake and aware" as he remained trapped in the machine for 30 minutes. He then stayed awake as emergency medical technicians worked to free him.

Ultimately, McLaughlin said, the conveyor belt had to be cut to release tension and to gain access to Miller's arm.

Ambulance workers noted that Miller's right arm was still attached to his body "by dermis only," according to court papers, and that they were forced to cut the skin connecting the arm in order to free him from the machine's grip.

According to court papers, an engineering expert hired by the plaintiff concluded that the accident was caused by the shredding machine's faulty design.

Engineer Craig Clauser concluded in his report that the machine should have been designed with a guard to prevent workers from reaching the conveyor belt.

"The fact that guarding of this hazard was technically and economically feasible is demonstrated by the fact that Mr. Miller's employer installed a simple and effective guard after the incident," Clauser wrote in his report.

Clauser also noted that there were no warnings present on the machine specifically identifying the potential hazard or telling the operator to stop and de-energize the machine before placing his hands near the conveyor belt.

An economic expert calculated that Miller, who was 34 at the time of the accident, would lose more than $2 million in income as a result of his injury.

Although Miller's employer said it would hire him back at the same salary to work in a supervisory post, McLaughlin said that Miller could never return to work there due to the psychological trauma he suffered in the wake of the accident.

 

Print