- 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
Texas Non-Subscriber Injury Law
San Antonio Non Subscriber Attorney Michael Grossman Discusses Non Subscriber Injury Law

If your employer does not subscribe to Texas’ Workers’ Compensation insurance program, it might take an experienced San Antonio attorney if you are injured on the job in order to seek fair compensation.
You will find that in any court, work accident litigation issues are more complex cases than almost any other. If, in your case, your employer does not subscribe to the Texas workers’ comp program, there are a range of options open to you to seek compensation, but it will take serious litigation to ensure you get what you deserve.
Non subscriber injury law is a complex matter. If you bring an action against a non-subscriber, you can sue for full compensation. They will fight it, of course. You can also sue third parties that may have had a hand in your accident or injury. If you want to get all the proper compensation you're entitled to following your injury accident, you will want to talk to San Antonio work injury attorney Michael Grossman. He and his staff can discuss with you all the issues particular to your case. Once enlisted to help, we will protect your legal rights and ensure that you may be able to receive a fair, equitable settlement.
Let’s talk about non subscriber injury law as it relates to litigation in Texas, as well as workers’ comp. Workers’ comp in Texas is the result of the wide-ranging tort reform that was passed a few years back as the result of heavy business lobbying. It is designed to protect employers against expensive lawsuits filed when workers are injured while at work. Texas employers have the right to decide not to pay into the workers’ comp insurance. These companies are called non-subscribers.
Workers' compensation in Texas offers injured workers a small amount of limited benefits. The payment you get is often very limited. This does not usually cover the full cost of your real damages. Workers’ comp pays up to 70 percent of lost wages, but it is limited to $600 per week. Imagine being a senior tradesman in San Antonio and making $70,000 a year. When you are injured at work, you can expect a maximum of $600 a week to pay for lost wages when you are recovering and for as long as you cannot return to work. Even though you were making $1,400 a week, that $600 a week is all you get. Sure, you can also get a few other lump sum payments and coverage of your medical bills but that is often all you will receive. This paltry sum seldom covers an injured worker’s actual incurred financial losses following a San Antonio work injury.
My Employer Does Not Subscribe to Workers’ Comp
If your employer does not have workers’ comp coverage, you’re dealing with non subscriber injury law. In some ways, this can be beneficial to an injured worker. If your employer is a non-subscriber, you can submit a standard lawsuit for your injuries so you can go after compensation. Through a San Antonio work injury lawsuit, you may be able to recover all medical expenses, compensation for any physical pain and suffering, any emotional distress, and other financial losses incurred due to your work-related injury.
Non-subscribers to workers compensation in Texas only have one legal defense against such personal injury lawsuits and that is to prove that it is you who is solely responsible for the accident. Employers will try to build a case against the worker and they will hire a lawyer experienced in work injury litigation. Pretend you were hurt in a lifting accident. Your employer may say that since you were alone at the time, the injuries you sustained in this were your fault and yours alone, but an experienced work injury plaintiff’s lawyer will draw a connection between your injury and the fact that the employer did not give you proper training, equipment or assistance when they assigned the task to you. There may be dozens of different ways that employer negligence contributed to the accident, an accident which they say is only your fault. Finding a connection between the injury and a liable party is what we do. It takes a very deep knowledge of the different legal precedents and case law to prove a case in a court of law in favor of the plaintiff.
Are You An Employee?
Lawyers can use your employment status to argue that you do not have a proper employer-employee relationship. They will argue you are a contractor. Many employers think that by paying you as a contractor they get around liability for your injuries. Texas civil law is vague in the identification and designation of employee status with respect to civil liability, but it is very clear as regards whether someone is an employee – if you do work that an employee does, you are likely an employee.

Many different criteria are used to determine what kind of work relationship you have with your employer under the law. If you have a contract as a general employee, you are an employee, of course. Another criterion is fairly specific: if a worker does work services that are unique to a specific employer, you are an employee. For example, if you're at Home Depot, wearing a Home Depot apron, giving advice about Home Depot to customers, then you are an employee of Home Depot, even in the absence of any employment contract. However, in many cases it is more questionable when dealing with non subscriber injury law. In such situations, Grossman Law Offices uses other factors to adequately support the determination of the real and effective relationship with the employer. According to the law:
- You work for many different clients. For instance, if a carpenter works for many different clients on several different projects, that carpenter is a contractor. If the carpenter works for a furniture store and only that company, the carpenter is an employee.
- When you as a worker determine exactly how much time you spend on a given project. For instance, if you can devote as much time or as little time along the way as you want to a particular project, then you as a worker are a contractor, but if the amount of the time you devote to a given project is determined by a boss, then you are an employee.
- When your particular project is examined and critiqued at different steps of completion. For instance, when your firm examines your project at various stages of completion along the line, then you are an employee, but if the company person only looks at your own finished product, then you as a worker are a contractor.
- When you as the worker are paid upon the completion of a given project. For instance, if, as the worker, you are only paid upon the completion of a project, then are a contractor, but if you as the worker are paid on an hourly or salary basis, then you are an employee.
- When you must provide your own tools. For instance, if you as a worker are responsible for providing your own tools and equipment, you are a contractor, but when the employer provides you the tools and equipment to do your job, then you are an employee.
When you as a worker are borrowed from another outside agency, be aware that the rules for determining your working relationship are similar, but there exist some key differences. The relevant conditions include:
- • When the agency that is lending the worker is free to substitute another worker that they want at any time. For example, when the lending agency is free to substitute the borrowed agent for another agent at will, then that agent is a contractor, but if the lending agency does not have any such right or power, then the worker in question is a general employee.
- • When the borrowing employment firm is borrowing a worker for any unspecified or indeterminate period of time. When you as the worker are borrowed for an unspecified time, then you as the worker are a general employee, but if you as the worker get borrowed for a set, specific project with a finite date of completion, then you as the worker are a contractor.
- • When the borrowed worker is responsible for using his own tools to do a job. For instance, when the worker has to provide his or her own equipment or tools then the worker is indeed a contractor, but when the employer is the one who provides the tools, the worker is a general employee.
- • When the borrowing agency assumes the overall responsibility for payment of the worker’s specific income taxes and his liabilities for social security. For instance, when the borrowing agency must cover the worker’s withholding, social security payments and income tax withholdings, then that worker is a general employee. If the borrowing agency, however, does not take on this responsibility, then that worker is after all a contractor.
- • When a borrowed worker’s employer has the power to hire or fire that work. For instance, if the borrowing employer has the ability to hire or to fire you as the borrowed worker at any time they want, then you as the worker are an employee.
- • When the borrowing employer has the rightful power to pick a particular worker. For instance, if the borrowing employer company can select a particular person for a job, then that worker is a general employee. If the agency who lends the worker can send any particular worker that they want, then the worker is a contractor.
- • When you as the borrowed worker are borrowed because you have a particular skill set. For instance, when a surfboard manufacturing firm borrows a composite graphite materials consultant from boat manufacturer, then that consultant is a contractor, but when an employer borrows some kind of worker to cover a general position that pretty much any person could fill, then that worker is a general employee.
If you’re dealing with an injury that involves non subscriber injury law, our lawyers can help you find just compensation. If the employer is a subscriber to state workers’ comp insurance – or even if the employer does not - we can help you obtain full compensation from third parties, who may also bear liability for your work injury accident in San Antonio, TX.
Even when these third parties are liable only on the basis of unclear legal theories, we can help. If the employer does not have accident insurance, we can help build a strong and complete case against non-subscribers, and we can fight the defense lawyers who want to avoid liability. We also thoroughly investigate your employer to determine whether or not they are part of the workers’ comp insurance program – sometimes they lie and say they are and pay you out of pocket so that they can escape a lawsuit. Before talking to the insurance company or anyone else, you need to get legal consultation. Non subscriber injury law is challenging, but the San Antonio work injury law firm of Grossman Law Offices has helped hundreds of injured workers seek fair compensation from non-subscribing companies and negligent third parties.
Our law firm has been able to obtain compensation for injured workers who less experienced law firms have rejected. We recently handled a case where a worker was injured at work, but he signed on to work as a contractor at first. More than half a dozen different lawyers told him he had no case because the company responsible always used contract workers. However, Grossman Law Offices established that there was an employer-employee relationship, and finally reached an agreement to the tune of seven figures.
Do You Need the Help of an Experienced San Antonio Work-Related Injury Attorney?

Twenty years of work experience is what San Antonio work accident lawyer Michael Grossman brings to the table. We have successfully handled hundreds of such cases involving non subscriber injury law. We have gone against almost every major insurance carrier throughout the United States. Defense attorneys are often afraid to confront our lawyers in court. We may be able to get fair compensation via a settlement instead of having to go to court. However, we are willing and ready to fight aggressively in the court rooms when it is necessary.
If you or a loved one has been injured at work and you’re dealing with the complexities of non subscriber injury law, call San Antonio lawyer Michael Grossman toll free at 1-855-393-0000. We can help you get the compensation you deserve. We can help bring those responsible for your injury to your justice.
Some of Our Most Recent Successful Cases
$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
$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
$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
$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
$1,010,000.00 Recovery - Workplace Accident (Hand Lacerations)
A young worker was negligently trained to operate a piece of machinery. During a routine cleaning procedure, he suffered a serious hand injury consisting of numerous deep lacerations across his palm. The defendants claimed that he was a contract laborer and therefore owed no legal duty. Through litigation, our attorneys showed evidence to establish an employer-employee relationship thereby creating a non-subscriber work injury cause of action.
A young worker was negligently trained to operate a piece of machinery. During a routine cleaning procedure, he suffered a serious hand injury consisting of numerous deep lacerations across his palm. The defendants claimed that he was a contract laborer and therefore owed no legal duty. Through litigation, our attorneys showed evidence to establish an employer-employee relationship thereby creating a non-subscriber work injury cause of action.
Total Recovery:
$1,010,000.00
$1,010,000.00
Attorney Fees:
$333,300.00
$333,300.00
Litigation Expenses:
$50,000.00
$50,000.00
$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
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
$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
$700,000.00 Recovery - Commercial Vehicle Accident / Work Injury (Fractured Pelvis, Other Internal Injuries)
A loading dock employee suffered a fractured and damage to internal organs as the result of a crushing injury sustained when an 18-wheeler backed into him and crushed him between the trailer and loading dock.
A loading dock employee suffered a fractured and damage to internal organs as the result of a crushing injury sustained when an 18-wheeler backed into him and crushed him between the trailer and loading dock.
Total Recovery:
$700,000.00
$700,000.00
Attorney Fees:
$175,000.00
$175,000.00
Litigation Expenses:
$1,084.00
$1,084.00



