- Home
- All Practice Areas
- Personal Injury
- What is Personal Injury?
- Personal Injury Statute of Limitations
- Can I Handle My Own Case?
- How Personal Injury Claims Work
- How Our Attorneys Can Help
- Denied Insurance Claims
- Personal Injury Damages
- Premises Liability
- San Antonio Personal Injury Attorney
- Types of Personal Injury
- Burn Injuries
- What is a Personal Injury Lawsuit?
- San Antonio Injury Attorney
- Can I File an Injury Claim?
- Mediating a Personal Injury Case
- The Victim's Duty to Mitigate Damages
- San Antonio Personal Injury Lawyers
- Preponderance of Evidence
- San Antonio Personal Injury Attorneys
- Proving Proximate Cause
- San Antonio Law Firms
- The Thin Skull Rule
- San Antonio Injury Lawyer
- Alternative Dispute Resolution
- San Antonio Injury Law Firm
- Vicarious Liability
- Personal Injury Attorneys in San Antonio
- Subrogation
- Personal Injury Lawyers in San Antonio
- San Antonio Injury Lawyers
- New Braunfels Personal Injury Attorney
- Wrongful Death
- Texas Wrongful Death Law Explained
- Wrongful Death Statute of Limitations
- The Benefits of a Wrongful Death Attorney
- Auto Accident Wrongful Death
- Semi Truck Accident Wrongful Death
- Wrongful Deaths on the Job
- Construction Accident Wrongful Death
- Loss of Future Earnings Compensation
- Texas Wrongful Death Lawyer
- New Braunfels Wrongful Death Lawyer
- Big Rig Accidents
- Texas Truck Accident Attorney
- Commercial Vehicle Accidents
- 18-Wheeler Accident Litigation
- Truck Accident Claims
- Insurance Company Tactics
- Fatal Big Rig Accidents
- Dump Truck Accidents
- Flatbed Trailer Accidents
- Falling Cargo Accidents
- Causes of 18-Wheeler Accidents
- San Antonio 18-Wheeler Accident Attorney
- San Antonio Truck Accident Lawyers
- San Antonio Truck Accident Attorney
- Unsafe Trucking Practices
- San Antonio Trucking Accident Attorney
- San Antonio Texas Trucking Accident Lawyer
- Tractor Trailer Accident Attorney
- Texas Truck Accident Lawyer
- San Antonio Truck Accident Firm
- New Braunfels 18-Wheeler Attorney
- New Braunfels Truck Accident Lawyer
- Automobile Accidents
- San Antonio Auto Accident Lawyer
- Common Car Accident Injuries
- How To File an Accident Injury Claim
- San Antonio Car Accident Lawyer
- Child Injuries in a Car Accident
- Passenger Injuries
- Fatal Car Accidents
- Personal Injury Protection (PIP) Insurance
- Proportionate Responsibility
- Tire Defect Accidents
- San Antonio Rollover Accident Attorney
- The Benefit of Hiring An Attorney
- Challenges Recovering Compensation
- Auto Accident Attorney in San Antonio
- San Antonio Accident Injury Lawyer
- San Antonio Auto Injury Attorney
- Uninsured Motorist Accidents
- San Antonio Accident Attorney
- What To Do After an Accident
- San Antonio Car Wreck Lawyer
- New Braunfels Car Accident Lawyer
- Work Related Accidents
- San Antonio Workers' Comp Lawyer
- Workers Comp Vs Non-Subscriber
- Fatal Workplace Accidents
- Gas & Oil Drilling Accidents
- Lifting Injuries While Working
- Non-Subscriber Injury Law
- What To Expect After a Work Injury
- Oilfield Worker Injury Accidents
- San Antonio Workers Compensation Attorney
- New Braunfels Work Injury Lawyer
- Construction Accidents
- Drunk Driver Accidents
- Other Vehicle Accidents
- Dangerous & Defective Products
- Drowning Accidents
- Day Care Abuse
- Medical Malpractice
- What is Medical Malpractice?
- Filing a Medical Malpractice Claim
- Malpractice Claims & Litigation Process
- Nursing Home Abuse & Neglect
- Misdiagnosis & Faulure to Diagnose
- Pharmacy & Prescription Errors
- Surgical Errors & Mistakes
- Nursing Malpractice
- Dental Malpractice
- Birth Injury
- San Antonio Nursing Home Abuse Attorney
- The Informed Consent Document
- Birth Injury Malpractice
- Drug & Pharmacy Injuries
- Personal Injury
- Our Attorneys
- Success Stories
- Information Center
- Contact
San Antonio Crane Accident Attorney
Texas Construction Attorney Michael Grossman Discusses Houston Crane Accidents and What to do if You've Been Injured

Crane accidents maim, injure or even cause the death of many construction workers and bystanders each year. Over 125,000 cranes are currently in operation on construction sites across the country. When something goes wrong with one of these heavy machines, it can result in catastrophe to the operator and anyone below. If a crane accident has shattered your life or the life of someone you love, you can turn to the San Antonio crane accident attorneys at Grossman Law Offices for help. We have years of experience recovering compensation for clients injured while simply doing their jobs.
Crane Injuries
Large, unwieldy cranes have the potential to inflict a horrific variety of injuries. A snapped line or dropped payload can crush anyone below it. A tipped crane can flatten a building or slam into other structures. The crane’s machinery can snatch people up and crush them. A crane that strikes power lines can electrocute operators, which could be avoided if employers simply provide an electricity-arresting device such as a non-conductive hook just behind the payload hook. Other injuries that result from crane accidents include burns, brain trauma, dismemberment and spinal chord injury.
Who is Responsible?
Several different parties may be responsible for the injuries you have sustained. If your employer failed to provide a safe working environment, then a worker’s compensation claim may provide an avenue to hold them accountable. However, someone else’s negligence often plays a role in crane injury cases. For example, a property owner may have left an object in the crane’s path, or the crane operator may have made an error while maneuvering the machine. With 20 years of experience, Grossman Law Offices can help you through this process so you can obtain the financial means necessary to rectify your life as much as possible.
Employers
The Occupational Safety and Health Administration has implemented rules to protect workers against employers that might try to get by with less than safe conditions. The guidelines for the operation of cranes on construction sites are as follows:
- The crane must be operated per the manufacturer’s instructions and limitations.
- The operator of the crane must be able to see load capacity warnings and other safety warnings while they are in operation of the crane.
- An employer bears the responsibility to ensure that a crane has been properly inspected by a safety inspector prior to the crane being used. If any part is noted as broken, defective, or faulty, the at-risk part must be replaced or repaired before the crane is used.
- An employer also bears a responsibility to ensure that the crane is stationed or used in an area that is not near overhead power lines. When a crane must be used in close proximity to overhead power lines, an employer must make sure the line is not live.
You have the right to seek compensation from any employer that failed to follow these rules regarding such a precarious machine as a crane. The way your employer should compensate you varies depending on whether they had purchased workman’s compensation (a subscriber), or not (a nonsubscriber).
Texas law encourages, but does not require, employers to purchase worker’s comp insurance. Most companies forego the insurance due to the high cost. It is important not to immediately trust what your employer says about whether they have worker’s compensation insurance. Many employers will mislead injured workers by saying they do have the insurance just to dodge a lawsuit. An experienced San Antonio construction injury lawyer can determine fact from fiction and help you understand your true legal options. After we determine what kind of case you have, we can begin pursuing justice.
When an Employer Is a Subscriber
One of the benefits to the employer for purchasing worker’s compensation insurance is that it also protects them from lawsuits. Injured workers or the families of workers that have been killed at work cannot sue a subscriber, unless the employer committed gross negligence that led to a wrongful death. Unfortunately, worker’s compensation does not necessarily pay what you deserve.

You may expect that an insurance provider will understand your plight and be moved to deliver ample compensation for your medical bills, lost wages and pain and suffering. However, that is actually the opposite of how insurance companies think. They look at every case through the lens of how they can save money or deny it to protect their bottom line. Every year, countless construction workers in the San Antonio area either receive no compensation or insufficient compensation for their injuries from employers and insurance companies that often care only about money.
Worker’s compensation laws were created to decrease the number of lawsuits, yet in some cases a lawsuit is the only path that will lead to fair compensation. It takes an experienced attorney to go up against these insurance companies to protect your rights. Big insurance companies hire specialized attorneys that are skilled in intimidating or misleading workers into accepting settlements well below what their claim is worth. The San Antonio crane accident attorneys at Grossman Law Offices have a thorough knowledge of complex work injury laws in Texas. We’re also familiar with the tactics these companies use to divert liability so that your claim is denied or lessened. However, these companies are often familiar with our law firm as well, meaning that they’re far less likely to attempt these tactics against us and our clients.
When Can You Sue a Subscriber?
You may file a San Antonio wrongful death lawsuit if the gross negligence of your family member’s employer led directly to the death of your loved one. In one case, we represented a family of a worker that died while working on a crane without a proper safety harness after being ordered to do so by his employer. This man fell to his death, and this employer immediately went to buy a safety harness to attach to the corpse. We discovered this wrongdoing and won a significant victory for the employee’s family in court.
Additionally, a personal injury lawsuit may be pursued when someone besides the employer commits negligence that led to a crane accident injury. A property owner that did not provide safe working conditions, a manufacturer that produced malfunctioning machinery, or an unsafe crane operator may all be sued if their negligence led to injury. However, establishing such liability, especially if multiple parties played varying roles in contributing to the same crane accident in San Antonio, can be a challenging issue for lesser experienced attorneys. Grossman Law Offices has prior experience in crane accident cases, so we know what questions to ask and what to look for at an accident site so that all liable parties can be discovered and brought to justice.
When the Employer Is a Non-subscriber
The non-subscribing employer is usually trying to save some money, such as construction companies that often face high insurance premiums due to the hazardous nature of working in the construction industry. A skilled attorney can help you win fair compensation against such an employer.
Worker’s compensation laws were created by the Texas Legislature as a punishment to non-subscribers for creating more litigation. Hence, you may likely pursue far greater compensation than if your employer subscribed to worker’s compensation. You also only have to prove standard negligence instead of gross negligence. However, the laws surrounding non-subscriber cases are more complex. A well-versed San Antonio crane accident attorney can help you navigate this maze toward a likely successful outcome.
The first step is for the victim to file a claim with the employer to explain the injury and request compensation for his injuries. An employer could then pay the amount owed or negotiate a fair settlement, resolving the case. However, it is far more likely that the employer will contest the victim’s claim, in which case the victim can file a lawsuit. The victim must also prove that their injuries resulted from the employer’s negligence and that the victim’s injury caused them to incur medical expenses, lost wages and pain and suffering from the accident. The good news is it is far easier to meet the standard of proof for standard negligence than gross negligence.
How Non-subscribers Try to Defend Themselves
Employers that try to save money by forgoing workers’ compensation insurance will usually try to save money by attempting to finagle out of compensating a victim for his or her injuries. Most employers will do this through one or more of the following defenses.
Sole Proximate Cause
After an injury has occurred, the only true recourse a non-subscribing employer has is the sole proximate cause defense. This means that they will try to blame you for your own injuries. Texas workers’ compensation laws are designed to keep litigation to a minimum, so they only offer one defense for employers. With sole proximate cause, they must prove that the victim was negligent and thus 100 percent responsible for his or her own injuries. Employers may actually sink to the level of portraying you as a chronically negligent or sloppy employee that would easily have caused his or her own injuries. Otherwise tight-fisted employers will spare no expense on attorneys that may be able to free them from having to compensate a worker injured in the unsafe conditions the company may have created or allowed to exist. It takes a San Antonio construction accident attorney with years of experience to defend a worker’s rights against such foes.
Employer-Employee Relationship
Many employers know that they only have the sole proximate cause to resort after an accident has taken place. Therefore, they attempt to prevent even getting to that point at all by obscuring the existence of the employee-employer relationship. In order to do this, many construction companies will hire their employees as contractors, who do not have the same protections as full-fledged employees, though the law may consider them as employees given certain circumstances. The employer will argue that they cannot be held responsible for an injury to someone that never actually worked for them, i.e. a contractor. The employer is usually aware that they and the plaintiff were engaged in a true employee-relationship and that there is still potential for the employee to obtain compensation if the law deems him an employee. By shirking the employer/employee relationship, an employer is also shirking their liability in the event of an injury crane accident or a fatal crane accident.
A San Antonio construction injury law firm will know how to prove that an employer-employee relationship existed if one or more of the following criteria are met:
- A worker’s taxes or social security were withheld in the paycheck.
- A worker was provided with tools by their employer in order to accomplish their job.
- A worker had a schedule set by an employer.
- A worker’s work was inspected or managed on an on-going basis (and not after the job was completed).
- A worker signed a work rights-limited document, like an agreement to be tested for drugs or a handbook for employees.
- A worker was hired for an unspecified length of time (and not just to complete a specific task or job).
- A worker received an hourly wage or a salary (and was not paid per project).
Contact San Antonio Crane Accident Lawyer Michael Grossman

To have hope of winning the fair compensation you deserve, you will need an attorney with just as much experience and sophisticated knowledge of crane injury law as those your employer will likely hire. A skilled and experienced San Antonio crane accident attorney can determine which parties caused your injuries and help to hold them accountable.
In our 20 years of service, Grossman Law Offices has helped numerous construction workers recover millions of dollars in damages. Our OSHA regulation knowledge, expert witnesses, experience and resources enable us to take on your crane accident case and litigate it to your satisfaction. We are ready to listen to the details of your case and present you your options. Contact us today for a free consultation toll-free at 1-855-393-0000.
Some of Our Most Recent Successful Cases
$125,000.00 Recovery - Workplace Accident (Closed-Head Injury)
Recovery for injured worker who suffered a closed head injury in a scaffolding accident.
Recovery for injured worker who suffered a closed head injury in a scaffolding accident.
Total Recovery:
$125,000.00
$125,000.00
Attorney Fees:
$30,000.00
$30,000.00
Litigation Expenses:
$2,135.00
$2,135.00
$1,450,000.00 Recovery - Commercial Vehicle Accident (Brain Injury)
Our firm was hired by a delivery driver who suffered a closed head injury resulting in the permanent loss of smell in a head-on accident. The incident occurred as the driver of an 18-wheeler lost control of his vehicle and veered into oncoming traffic. Our client's delivery vehicle was struck head-on, causing massive damage to both vehicles.
Our client was taken to an area hospital where he was treated for minor bodily injuries and a closed head injury which originally manifested itself as a concussion and temporary memory loss.
Suit was filed against the defendants following their failure to respond to our correspondence in a timely manner and litigation began. Included in the suit were both the defendant truck driver and his employer. The results of our investigation and the physical evidence from the accident scene made it apparent that the defendants had indeed caused the accident. Defense counsel soon conceded liability
Our firm was hired by a delivery driver who suffered a closed head injury resulting in the permanent loss of smell in a head-on accident. The incident occurred as the driver of an 18-wheeler lost control of his vehicle and veered into oncoming traffic. Our client's delivery vehicle was struck head-on, causing massive damage to both vehicles.
Our client was taken to an area hospital where he was treated for minor bodily injuries and a closed head injury which originally manifested itself as a concussion and temporary memory loss.
Suit was filed against the defendants following their failure to respond to our correspondence in a timely manner and litigation began. Included in the suit were both the defendant truck driver and his employer. The results of our investigation and the physical evidence from the accident scene made it apparent that the defendants had indeed caused the accident. Defense counsel soon conceded liability
Total Recovery:
$1,450,000.00
$1,450,000.00
Attorney Fees:
$560,000.00
$560,000.00
Litigation Expenses:
$31,410.00
$31,410.00
$162,500.00 Recovery - Workplace Accident (Shoulder Injury)
Recovered for worker who injured their shoulder while lifting a heavy object.
Recovered for worker who injured their shoulder while lifting a heavy object.
Total Recovery:
$162,500.00
$162,500.00
Attorney Fees:
$81,250.00
$81,250.00
Litigation Expenses:
$3,784.00
$3,784.00
$226,000.00 Recovery - Workplace Accident (Shoulder Injury Requiring Surgery)
Our attorneys were hired by a delivery driver who sustained a serious shoulder injury when a worker for a third party negligently operated a fork lift. The accident occurred as the plaintiff delivered a load of hay bails to a commercial farm.
An employee of said facility attempted to unload the trailer with a forklift. In doing so, he pushed several bales of hay off of the flatbed, over the side opposite the forklift. Consequently, several of the 400 lb (est.) bales of hay struck the plaintiff who was working to disconnect tie downs on the opposite side of the trailer. This resulted in serious injury to the plaintiff's shoulder.
The defendants took an aggressive stance and denied the claim, asserting that the plaintiff was the sole proximate cause of his own injuries by virtue of the fact that he was standing in a known dangerous area. Suit was filed soon thereafter. Our attorneys argued that the plaintiff's ordinary work duties, and indeed the normal protocol for all flatbed delivery drivers, consists of letting loose the materials to be unloaded. We maintained that the true cause of the plaintiff's injuries was that the forklift operator rushed into unloading the trailer.
Furthermore, the manner in which he unloaded the trailer was itself a contributing element of the defendant's negligence. The forks that were incorporated into the forklift in question were not compatible with stabbing hay bails; they were ordinary forks that were designed to be positioned below a heavy object that was to be lifted. The case was successfully resolved in mediation.
Our attorneys were hired by a delivery driver who sustained a serious shoulder injury when a worker for a third party negligently operated a fork lift. The accident occurred as the plaintiff delivered a load of hay bails to a commercial farm.
An employee of said facility attempted to unload the trailer with a forklift. In doing so, he pushed several bales of hay off of the flatbed, over the side opposite the forklift. Consequently, several of the 400 lb (est.) bales of hay struck the plaintiff who was working to disconnect tie downs on the opposite side of the trailer. This resulted in serious injury to the plaintiff's shoulder.
The defendants took an aggressive stance and denied the claim, asserting that the plaintiff was the sole proximate cause of his own injuries by virtue of the fact that he was standing in a known dangerous area. Suit was filed soon thereafter. Our attorneys argued that the plaintiff's ordinary work duties, and indeed the normal protocol for all flatbed delivery drivers, consists of letting loose the materials to be unloaded. We maintained that the true cause of the plaintiff's injuries was that the forklift operator rushed into unloading the trailer.
Furthermore, the manner in which he unloaded the trailer was itself a contributing element of the defendant's negligence. The forks that were incorporated into the forklift in question were not compatible with stabbing hay bails; they were ordinary forks that were designed to be positioned below a heavy object that was to be lifted. The case was successfully resolved in mediation.
Total Recovery:
$226,000.00
$226,000.00
Attorney Fees:
$84,000.00
$84,000.00
Litigation Expenses:
$5,500.00
$5,500.00
$300,000.00 Recovery - Commercial Vehicle Accident / Work Injury (Facial Fractures and Head Trauma)
A loading dock worker suffered serious including numerous facial fractures and minor brain trauma when an 18-wheeler back into him, crushing him against the loading dock. The plaintiff's employer was a subscriber to Texas Workers' Compensation coverage, thus a claim was rightly filed against the third party trucking company whom the truck driver operating the reversing 18-wheeler worked for.
The plaintiffs asserted the position that the trucking company in question was liable on the basis of respondeat superior and negligent retention. The defendants argued that the plaintiff was the sole proximate cause of his injuries by virtue of the plaintiff putting himself in harms way. They maintained that the plaintiff simply walked behind the reversing tractor trailer as it pushed back toward the loading dock.
It was later determined through deposition testimony that the truck driver had indeed instructed the plaintiff to stand behind the trailer in order to determine the vehicle's proximity to the dock. Once this fact came to light, the defendants agreed to mediate whereby the case was satisfactorily settled.
A loading dock worker suffered serious including numerous facial fractures and minor brain trauma when an 18-wheeler back into him, crushing him against the loading dock. The plaintiff's employer was a subscriber to Texas Workers' Compensation coverage, thus a claim was rightly filed against the third party trucking company whom the truck driver operating the reversing 18-wheeler worked for.
The plaintiffs asserted the position that the trucking company in question was liable on the basis of respondeat superior and negligent retention. The defendants argued that the plaintiff was the sole proximate cause of his injuries by virtue of the plaintiff putting himself in harms way. They maintained that the plaintiff simply walked behind the reversing tractor trailer as it pushed back toward the loading dock.
It was later determined through deposition testimony that the truck driver had indeed instructed the plaintiff to stand behind the trailer in order to determine the vehicle's proximity to the dock. Once this fact came to light, the defendants agreed to mediate whereby the case was satisfactorily settled.
Total Recovery:
$300,000.00
$300,000.00
Attorney Fees:
$120,000.00
$120,000.00
Litigation Expenses:
$9,807.00
$9,807.00
$150,000.00 Recovery - Wrongful Death / Workplace Accident
(policy limits) Recovery of a disputed life insurance policy for the family of a contractor who died on the job.
(policy limits) Recovery of a disputed life insurance policy for the family of a contractor who died on the job.
Total Recovery:
$150,000.00
$150,000.00
Attorney Fees:
$50,000.00
$50,000.00
Litigation Expenses:
$341.00
$341.00
$75,000.00 Recovery - Workplace Accident (Soft-Tissue Injuries)
Recovery for worker who suffered soft tissue injuries when his fork lift was struck by a delivery truck.
Recovery for worker who suffered soft tissue injuries when his fork lift was struck by a delivery truck.
Total Recovery:
$75,000.00
$75,000.00
Attorney Fees:
$25,000.00
$25,000.00
Litigation Expenses:
$350.00
$350.00
$335,000.00 Recovery - Wrongful Death/ Commercial Vehicle Accident
The mother of a young man hired our firm to investigate the death of her son following a fatal car accident. The incident occurred as one of the two vehicles involved ran a red light and drive into the path of the other. The defendant was driving a work vehicle for a construction company. The defendant survived the accident and stated to police that the decedent caused the accident. The police could not conclusively determine who was at fault, yet the police report strongly implied that the decedent was likely at fault based on the statement provided by the defendant.
The plaintiff's mother was not convinced. Through a thorough investigation, we ultimately determined that the stoplight that the defendant claimed that our client ran, in fact, worked on a timer whereby the light was always green between certain hours unless a vehicle traveling on the intersecting road had been stopped at the right light for more than 30 seconds. Based on an analysis of the vehicles and tire markings, it was conclusively determined that both vehicles were traveling at the speed limit, which clearly indicates that the defendant driver had not accelerated from stop, rather, he was traveling at the speed limit, which would not have triggered a green light for the defendant.
The logical implications of this information is that the light could not have been red for the plaintiff, and it certainly would have been red for the defendant. As a consequence of this information, the case was resolved through litigation.
The mother of a young man hired our firm to investigate the death of her son following a fatal car accident. The incident occurred as one of the two vehicles involved ran a red light and drive into the path of the other. The defendant was driving a work vehicle for a construction company. The defendant survived the accident and stated to police that the decedent caused the accident. The police could not conclusively determine who was at fault, yet the police report strongly implied that the decedent was likely at fault based on the statement provided by the defendant.
The plaintiff's mother was not convinced. Through a thorough investigation, we ultimately determined that the stoplight that the defendant claimed that our client ran, in fact, worked on a timer whereby the light was always green between certain hours unless a vehicle traveling on the intersecting road had been stopped at the right light for more than 30 seconds. Based on an analysis of the vehicles and tire markings, it was conclusively determined that both vehicles were traveling at the speed limit, which clearly indicates that the defendant driver had not accelerated from stop, rather, he was traveling at the speed limit, which would not have triggered a green light for the defendant.
The logical implications of this information is that the light could not have been red for the plaintiff, and it certainly would have been red for the defendant. As a consequence of this information, the case was resolved through litigation.
Total Recovery:
$335,000.00
$335,000.00
Attorney Fees:
$134,000.00
$134,000.00
Litigation Expenses:
$63,000.00
$63,000.00
Confidential Recovery - Wrongful Death / Commercial Vehicle Accident
(policy limits) Our attorneys secured a recovery against a major trucking company for the daughter of a man who was killed after his vehicle collided into an 18-wheeler which was blocking the roadway. Litigation is ongoing against additional defendants.
(policy limits) Our attorneys secured a recovery against a major trucking company for the daughter of a man who was killed after his vehicle collided into an 18-wheeler which was blocking the roadway. Litigation is ongoing against additional defendants.
Total Recovery:
Confidential
Confidential
Attorney Fees:
Confidential
Confidential
Litigation Expenses:
Confidential
Confidential
$550,000.00 Recovery - Wrongful Death / Workers' Compensation Gross Negligence
(policy limits) A father of two was killed on the job when he fell from a personnel platform atop an elevated piece of machinery. The defendant was initially afforded protection from a liability suit by virtue of their workers' comp policy. Upon thorough investigation, it became evident that gross negligence was at the root of the accident, and suit was filed accordingly. A successful outcome was obtained through litigation.
(policy limits) A father of two was killed on the job when he fell from a personnel platform atop an elevated piece of machinery. The defendant was initially afforded protection from a liability suit by virtue of their workers' comp policy. Upon thorough investigation, it became evident that gross negligence was at the root of the accident, and suit was filed accordingly. A successful outcome was obtained through litigation.
Total Recovery:
$550,000.00
$550,000.00
Attorney Fees:
$220,000.00
$220,000.00
Litigation Expenses:
$40,000.00
$40,000.00



