A Port-of-Spain City Corporation police officer, who received a $200,000 pay-out after falling from a defective chair in 2013, has been asked to justify another lawsuit seeking additional compensation.
High Court Judge Frank Seepersad yesterday asked PC Dillraj Ramkissoon’s attorneys to provide submissions on whether his new case could be considered an abuse of process during a virtual hearing.
Ramkissoon’s case centres around an incident at the Port-of-Spain Central Market on February 8, 2013. He was on sentry duty at the location when he fell after one of the wheels of the swivel chair he was sitting on broke. He fell backwards and his head struck a wall behind him. He claimed since the fall he has experienced prolonged dizziness, headaches and back pain.
In early 2017, Ramkissoon filed a negligence lawsuit against the corporation, alleging it failed to ensure the office furniture was defect-free.
The case did not go to trial, as the parties entered a consent order before former High Court Judge and current Court of Appeal Judge Ronnie Boodoosingh in 2019.
Earlier this year, Ramkissoon brought a second case over his loss of earnings, as he claimed the corporation stopped paying him six months after he filed the first case.
During the hearing, Justice Seepersad questioned why Ramkissoon’s lawyer, Kevin Ratiram, did not include his claims for loss of earnings in the first case, which was settled almost a year and a half after the corporation began withholding his client’s salary.
“Why should the claimant have several bites of the cherry?” Justice Seepersad asked.
Responding to the enquiry, Ratiram said the lawsuits were different, as the first was a negligence claim while the second is for breach of contract. He claimed his client was entitled to seek compensation for his loss of earnings, as although he has not returned to work since the incident due to medical issues from the fall, he is yet to be terminated by the corporation.
“He got no indication that his employment had come to an end,” Ratiram said.
In his response, attorney Ken Wright, who led the corporation’s legal team, said Ramkissoon should not be allowed to pursue the second case, as the corporation factored in his loss of earnings in settlement of the first case.
Wright also said while Ramkissoon was technically still employed by his client, the Statutory Authorities’ Service Commission (SASC) was currently in the process of medically boarding him based on his injuries.
Wright noted that Ramkissoon would likely receive additional compensation once the process to remove him as an employee is completed.
Despite hearing brief submissions from the two parties, Justice Seepersad still requested written submissions, as he said he was not satisfied with Ratiram’s initial justification for the case.
Justice Seepersad is expected to decide whether Ramkissoon’s case should continue in November.