Little v. VDM Metals USA: OSHA Issues Don’t Defeat Workers’ Comp Exclusivity

Jonathan Little worked as a material handler at a steel manufacturing facility operated by VDM Metals USA, LLC in Florham Park, New Jersey. His job primarily involved packaging steel into bundles and preparing materials for shipment. On April 20, 2020, during the COVID-19 pandemic, staffing shortages required employees to assist with tasks outside their usual assignments.

On the day of the incident, Little’s supervisor asked him to help unload steel from a flatrack trailer. After the steel plates were removed using an overhead crane, Little assisted in clearing packing materials and debris from the trailer. While exiting the trailer, which sat approximately five to six feet above the ground, Little fell and suffered a serious head injury despite wearing a helmet.

Little was unable to recall the accident due to the severity of his injuries. His supervisor later testified regarding the circumstances surrounding the unloading process and Little’s role at the time of the fall.

Safety Measures and OSHA Findings

The record showed that a Rollastep mobile platform, designed to prevent falls when employees accessed elevated surfaces, was positioned near the trailer on the day of the incident. The platform was not used while Little was working on the trailer. The supervisor responsible for ensuring its use did not recall why it was not deployed.

An Occupational Safety and Health Administration investigation concluded that the rollastep was generally not used when only a small number of steel plates were being unloaded. The OSHA report identified complacency as a contributing factor to the incident. The investigation did not identify prior similar accidents involving employees falling from flatrack trailers at the facility.

A forensic expert retained by Little reviewed training records and concluded that the records did not specifically reflect training related to unloading flatrack trailers. The expert also noted that the rollastep was available but not used at the time of the incident.

Claims and Trial Court Proceedings

Little filed a civil action in the Superior Court of New Jersey asserting claims for negligence and gross negligence. He alleged that VDM Metals failed to provide adequate training, failed to require the use of available safety equipment, and operated with insufficient staffing. He asserted that these actions constituted intentional conduct sufficient to bypass the exclusivity provisions of the New Jersey Workers’ Compensation Act.

VDM Metals moved for summary judgment after discovery concluded. The company asserted that Little’s exclusive remedy was under the Workers’ Compensation Act and that the evidence did not support a finding of an intentional wrong by the employer.

The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of VDM Metals. Applying the two-part test established by the New Jersey Supreme Court, the court concluded that Little failed to establish that VDM Metals acted with substantial certainty that injury would occur. The court also concluded that the circumstances did not fall outside the ordinary risks associated with industrial employment.

Appellate Review and Legal Framework

The Appellate Division reviewed the summary judgment ruling de novo. The court examined whether the record contained evidence sufficient to satisfy both the conduct and context prongs required to overcome the Workers’ Compensation Act’s exclusivity provision.

The appellate court emphasized that an intentional wrong requires more than knowledge of a dangerous condition or failure to follow safety protocols. The standard requires proof that the employer knew injury was virtually certain to occur. The court noted that OSHA violations, standing alone, do not establish intentional wrongdoing.

Application of the Intentional Wrong Standard

The appellate court concluded that the evidence did not demonstrate that VDM Metals knowingly exposed Little to a virtual certainty of harm. The record did not show prior falls from flatrack trailers, deliberate removal of safety devices, or deception regarding workplace conditions. Although the rollastep was not used and staffing shortages existed, the court determined that these circumstances reflected potential negligence rather than intentional conduct.

The court also observed that Little was exiting the trailer after unloading was complete, not actively removing steel at the time of the fall. The court concluded that the circumstances fell within the type of workplace risks the Workers’ Compensation Act was designed to address.

The Court’s Decision

The Appellate Division affirmed the grant of summary judgment in favor of VDM Metals. It held that Little failed to establish an intentional wrong sufficient to overcome the exclusive remedy provisions of the Workers’ Compensation Act.

Assistance With OSHA Safety Matters

If you’re dealing with workplace safety issues or OSHA-related compliance concerns, Whitcomb Selinsky PC handles OSHA safety matters. Reach out to our team to schedule a consultation and learn how our team can assist with your situation.