- 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 Workers' Comp Lawyer
Michael Grossman, San Antonio Work Accident Injury Lawyer, Explains Workers' Compensation When Injured On The Job

Being hurt on the job is never an easy experience. Unfortunately, employers often make the process even more complicated for victims of work-related injuries. Workers’ compensation laws are complex, and filing a work injury lawsuit is a highly technical process.
Work injury lawsuits in Texas often involve workers’ compensation, which may provide your employer with immunity to lawsuits. Injured workers often have a number of misconceptions about work injury law (along with many inexperienced work injury attorneys). Unscrupulous employers will take advantage of this, and countless injured workers have been taken advantage of, simply due to the complexities of the system.
Fortunately for you, San Antonio workers' comp lawyer Michael Grossman at Grossman Law Offices has extensive experience with work injury cases, and he understands Texas workers’ compensation law inside and out. He is here to clear up some of the common misconceptions surround workers’ compensation and work injury law in Texas, and he can advise you on how best to handle your specific case. At Grossman Law Offices, we are dedicated to helping you receive the compensation you deserve for your workplace injuries.
What Exactly is Workers’ Compensation?
This question is possibly the greatest source of confusion for injured workers. If you are hurt on the job, there are two possibilities: your employer has workers’ compensation insurance (we call these employers “subscribers”) or your employer does not (we call these “non-subscribers”). Whether your employer is a subscriber or a non-subscriber will play a huge part in how your case needs to be handled, but unfortunately, determining what type of case you have is not as easy as asking your employer. Many employers will try to obscure whether they have workers’ compensation insurance or not, which can allow them to escape legal liability in some situations. It is extremely important that you determine whether your employer has workers’ compensation insurance, as this will ultimately decide how much compensation you are entitled to receive. Our firm can help you investigate your employer’s situation, and determine exactly which options are available to you.
It is important to realize that, although workers’ compensation is a form of insurance, it is not like a typical insurance policy. Workers’ compensation coverage is just one part of a large bureaucratic tort reform policy. This policy establishes a fund (paid for by our tax dollars) that is regulated by the state, but administered by private insurance companies. The entire process is surrounding by red tape and obscure legal technicalities. Employers can choose whether they wish to participate in the coverage (which is expensive), but it provides employers with a large amount of legal protection that is not present in a typical insurance policy. Do not treat workers’ compensation as just another insurance policy.
Workers’ compensation insurance provides two main benefits to employers: it provides compensation for an injured employee, and it makes employers completely immune to work injury lawsuits in almost all cases (the only exception is when an employee is killed and the employer was grossly negligent, in which case, a wrongful death lawsuit may be filed). Despite common parlance, there is no workers’ compensation lawsuit. If you are injured while working for an employer who subscribes to workers’ compensation insurance, you do not have the option of filing a work injury lawsuit.

But keep in mind that, even if your employer claims to have workers’ compensation insurance, he or she may be misleading you. Furthermore, you may need an experienced lawyer to help you through the administrative process of seeking compensation through workers’ compensation insurance. This process does not culminate in a lawsuit, but it is complex nonetheless, and injured workers often do not receive the full amount they deserve due to the technical nature of the coverage. An experienced attorney can make sure that this does not happen to you. Additionally, even if your employer has workers’ compensation insurance, there are often other parties responsible for your accident. For instance, if you are hurt doing construction work, the property owner, another worker, or a product manufacturer may be partially liable. Even if you cannot bring a lawsuit against your employer, you may be able to bring a lawsuit against a third party. Our San Antonio workers' comp lawyers can help you identify and pursue claims against any additional liable parties.
What Compensation can I Expect to Receive if my Employer has Workers’ Compensation Insurance?
Without considering any lawsuits filed against third parties, you may be eligible to receive compensation from your employer’s workers’ comp coverage. You will typically receive 70% of your lost income, up to a maximum of approximately $600 per week. You may also receive compensation for your medical expenses, and a lump sum at the end of your recovery process. In many situations, this level of compensation is not adequate. For example, if you are an electrical who previously made $75,000 a year and you are eligible to receive compensation from workers’ compensation coverage, you will only receive roughly $600 per week for your lost wages – despite making approximately $1500 a week prior to your injuries.
If you are severely injured in an accident and you can no longer work, you will continue to receive compensation for the rest of your life – but only up to the $600 per week maximum. In other words, the compensation you might receive from workers’ comp benefits can be very small, and unfortunately, these payments cannot be negotiated. This is why it is imperative that, even if your employer truly has workers’ compensation insurance, you seek the help of an experienced work injury attorney. At Grossman Law Offices, we conduct a thorough investigation of our client’s cases, even when a lawsuit cannot be brought against our client’s employer. We are dedicated to finding every party responsible for your injuries so that you can receive the compensation you need to get on with your life.
Furthermore, as mentioned previously, injured workers are often lead to believe that their employers have workers compensation insurance, when in fact they do not. Particularly devious employers will even go so far as to pay for an injured worker’s medical bills and even offer the $600 per week consistent with workers’ compensation benefits. They are simply attempting to further the illusion that they are immune to lawsuits. Unfortunately, many injured workers fall for these tricks. They may research “workers’ compensation lawsuits,” realize that no such thing technically exists, and then give up. But many of these workers actually have non-subscriber cases, or have parties liable for their injuries in addition to their employers (or both). This is where an experienced lawyer can help you.
Non-Subscriber Lawsuits
Our firm can help you determine whether you have a workers’ comp case or a non-subscriber case. If the latter, you can seek compensation for many different types of damages. You can receive payments for your medical bills (both past and future), any lost wages or lost earning capacity, and even your pain and mental/emotional suffering. There is no limit to how much money you may receive if your employer does not have workers’ compensation insurance. Since they do not have the same protection as subscribers, non-subscribers only have one legal defense: they will try to prove that you were the sole cause of your own injuries.
Many employers mistakenly believe that this is an easy task. For instance, let us say that you were hurt in a lifting injury. You were probably working on your own, so your employer might think that he or she can easily prove that your injuries were your fault. An experienced work injury attorney, however, can link your employer’s negligent actions back to your injury. For example, if your employer did not provide proper training, necessary safety equipment, machinery to help lift the object safely, or another worker to help you, then your employer may be legally responsible for your injuries. Our attorneys know how to investigate situations of this sort of complexity.
Are You a General Employee or a Contract Laborer?

While you may believe that you know the answer to this question, from a legal liability standpoint, case law decides. According to Texas work injury statutes, only general employees are eligible to file work injury lawsuits. Employers who are aware of this fact hire almost exclusively contractors, thinking that this protects them from lawsuits without the fees associated with workers’ compensation insurance. This is particularly common in dangerous workplaces, such as factories and construction companies. They think that they have beaten the system: make your workers sign a contract that essentially states “I am a contractor” and then you are safe.
However, Texas statutes do not explicitly state what constitutes an employer-employee relationship. In situations like this, case law determines the relationship. Our lawyers bring up previous cases in which the worker-employer relationship was not clear. In many of these cases, judges ruled in favor of the injured worker, and these cases serve as guidelines that our attorneys can use to establish an employer-employee relationship, even where none explicitly exists on paper. In other words, you are not legally considered a contractor just because your employer says you are. The following conditions can serve to establish an employer-employee relationship, and thereby allow you to file a work injury claim.
Establishing Proof of an Employer-Employee Relationship
If a contract exists that explicitly states that the worker is an employee, then this is all the proof the worker would need. There is little an employer can do against a proof this straightforward, and the worker will (in all probability) be eligible to file a non-subscriber work injury lawsuit.
However, even if a contract exists that explicitly states that the worker is a contractor, the employer’s or the worker’s conduct can serve to establish an employer-employee relationship, regardless of any previous or current contracts. Furthermore, the worker is considered to be an employee if that worker was performing services particular to the employer’s business. For instance, if you are standing in a McDonald’s restaurant, wearing a McDonald’s shirt, serving customers their McDonald’s food, then you are a McDonald’s employee, regardless of what any contract might say (or even if there is no contract whatsoever).
But when this relationship is not so straightforward, the following actions can establish an employer-employee relationship for the purposes of legal liability. General employees (i.e. workers who are not borrowed from another agency) are considered employees if any of the following conditions are met:
- The laborer’s work is independently done: if the worker is a plumber who performs services for a number of individuals and companies, then he or she is probably a legitimate contractor. However, if the plumber works for a local utility company and only that company, then he or she is an employee.
- The injured laborer provides his or her own tools and equipment: if the worker provides his or her own tools, then he or she is probably a contractor. If the employer provides the tools, however, then the worker is likely an employee.
- The employer only examines the finished product: if the progress of a particular project is determined entirely by the worker, then the worker is probably a contractor. But if the employer regulates and manages the project at various stages of completion, then the worker is likely an employee.
- The worker determines how long the working relationship exists: if the worker is allowed to determine how long he or she works on any particular project, then he or she is probably a contractor. If, on the other hand, the worker has been hired for an indefinite period of time, then an employer-employee is probably established.
- The worker is paid per project: if the worker is paid upon completion of a project, then the worker is probably a contractor. But if the worker is paid by the hour, then he or she is probably an employee.
In cases where an employer borrows a worker from another agency or employer, then the conditions for establishing an employer-employee relationship are similar, but have some key variations. The relevant conditions are as follows:
- The borrowing employer has the right to hire or fire: if the employer borrowing the worker can hire or fire the worker at will, then the worker is probably an employee.
- The borrowing employer was allowed to select a particular worker: if the employer selected the specific worker, then the worker is likely an employee. If the lending agency could send any worker they wanted, then the worker is probably a contractor.
- The borrowed worker brings his or her own tools: if the worker owns the tools, then the worker is probably a contractor, but if the borrowing employer provides the tools, then an employer-employee relationship is likely established.
- The agency lending the worker can substitute another worker at any time: if the agency doing the lending can switch the worker whenever they like, then the worker is probably a contractor. If the lending agency does not have this right, then the worker is probably an employee.
- The borrowing employer is using the worker’s services for an unspecified length of time: if the worker is working for the borrowed employer for an indefinite amount of time, then an employer-employee relationship is probably established.
- The borrowed worker has special skills: if a boat manufacturer borrows a composite materials specialist from a company that makes surfboards, then the worker is a contractor. If, on the other hand, a company borrows a worker to fill a position that almost anyone could fill, then the worker is an employee.
- Social security and income tax: if the borrowing employer takes responsibility for paying the worker’s income tax and social security benefits, then an employer-employee relationship is established.

This may seem like a lot to take in, but the truth is that determining whether or not you have a non-subscriber case is a technical process, and it can be completely overwhelming for those without extensive experience with work injury cases. The process is particularly complex when your employer does not play along and tries to obscure whether he or she has workers’ compensation coverage. This is why you must seek help from an experienced San Antonio workers' comp lawyer as soon as possible if you are injured, and you must not sign any documents, make any statements, or accept any sort of payment until you seek legal representation.
The San Antonio work injury and workers comp lawyers of Grossman Law Offices have been helping injured workers seek compensation for twenty years. We have experience with both subscriber and non-subscriber cases, including both employees and contractors. We know how to identify whether you are eligible to file a work injury lawsuit, and we know how to identify additional potential defendants in your case so that you may receive the largest settlement possible. We have successfully investigated and resolved hundreds of high-profile work injury cases, and we have seen every trick employers have to hide their legal liability. We have also faced every major insurance carrier in the country, and their adjusters and defense lawyers are afraid of facing us in court. This means that they often cooperate fully with our settlement demands, so that we can resolve your case without even taking it to court. In other words, we can often help you get the compensation you need quickly, without the stress of filing a lawsuit. Our firm is dedicated to getting you the compensation you need and the justice you deserve, no matter what your situation is. So if you have been injured on the job, do not let your employer’s negligence (or the negligence of any other party) go unpunished. Contact experienced San Antonio workers' comp lawyer Michael Grossman from Grossman Law Offices today, and make sure your rights are well protected.
Some of Our Most Recent Successful Cases
$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
$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
$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
$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
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
$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
$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
$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
$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
$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



