San Antonio Workers' Compensation Attorney

San Antonio, Texas Work Injury Attorney Michael Grossman Explains Workers' Compensation & Work Injuries in Texas

If you or someone you love has been hurt on the job, you may be considering filing a lawsuit or seeking some sort of financial compensation. Texas work injury cases are made complicated by workers’ compensation and the immunity to law suits that it may give your employer.

Do you have a legal question?
Enter your phone number below and let's talk.
--

Many injured workers (and many lesser-experienced attorneys) hold a number of misconceptions about Texas work injury laws and workers’ compensation rules, and countless injured workers have been taken advantage of by the system.

Fortunately, experienced San Antonio workers’ compensation attorney Michael Grossman at Grossman Law Offices is here to answer your questions about workers’ compensation insurance and Texas work injury law. Our firm is dedicated to making sure you know what legal options are available to you, so that you will receive fair and adequate compensation for your work injuries.


What is Workers’ Compensation?

When a worker is hurt on the job, there are two possibilities which will largely dictate how the worker will go about seeking compensation: either the employer has workers’ compensation insurance or they do not. Unfortunately, due to the unscrupulous practices many employers use to try to avoid legal liability, many injured workers have a hard time determining whether their employer has workers’ compensation insurance. It is vital to determine whether or not your employer has workers’ compensation coverage or not as this will ultimately determine the amount of money that you may be entitled to. Our experienced lawyers can help you determine what type of case you have.

It is also important to note that workers’ comp coverage is NOT just an insurance policy that your employer buys. Workers’ comp coverage is part of a bureaucratic tort reform policy whereby our tax dollars pay into a fund that is state regulated and administered by private insurance companies within miles of red tape and obscure technicalities. Participation in the coverage is voluntary and costly but it affords companies a great deal of protection that a normal work injury policy does not provide. Do not make the mistake of assuming that workers’ comp is just insurance coverage. Workers’ compensation insurance does two things for an employer: it provides coverage for when an employee is injured, and it makes the employer completely immune to work injury lawsuits (except in cases where a worker dies and the employer was grossly negligent in the death, in which case, the plaintiff has a standard wrongful death claim). Despite common misconception, there is no such thing as a workers’ compensation lawsuit. If you are hurt on the job and your employer has workers’ compensation insurance (in other words, the employer is what we call a subscriber), then you cannot file a lawsuit. You can, however, go through a series of administrative hearings for which you will need an attorney to represent you.

But you may be eligible to receive some level of compensation from your employer’s workers’ compensation insurance. Typically, you will receive 70% of your lost wages, at a maximum of roughly $600 per week, compensation for your medical expenses, and possibly a small sum at the end of your recovery. For example, say you worked as a plumber and received $60,000 per year – approximately $1200 per week. If you are severely injured in an accident and you can no longer continue working, you will receive lost income payments from workers’ compensation (assuming your employer subscribes) for the rest of your life. But these payments will only be $600 per week, due to the cap on workers’ compensation lost wages payments. As you can see, the amount you receive from workers’ compensation benefits is relatively small and unfortunately, these payments are not up for negotiation. This is where an experienced San Antonio workers' compensation attorney can make all of the difference in your case by helping you determine if there is additional coverage or compensation that would apply.

The truth, however, is that many injured workers are lead to believe that their employer has workers’ compensation insurance, when in fact their employer does not. Unscrupulous employers will say they have workers’ compensation insurance when they do not, and some will even go so far as to pay an injured employee the $600 per week and pay for his or her medical bills in order to further the illusion that the employer is protected by workers’ compensation. An injured worker may never think to question this farce. The injured worker may do some research on “workers' compensation attorneys,” realize that there are no workers’ compensation lawsuits, and then give up – never realizing that he or she may actually have a non-subscriber case.

Do you have a legal question?
Enter your phone number below and let's talk.
--

Filing a Lawsuit in a Non-Subscriber Case

Our attorneys can investigate your accident and determine whether you have a workers’ comp case or a non-subscriber case. If you have a non-subscriber case, you can file a lawsuit seeking compensation for many different types of damages, including medical expenses, lost wages while recovering, lost earning potential later in life, and pain and suffering caused by your accident. Non-subscribing employers are not afforded protection from lawsuits like subscribers, so they have one legal defense: they will attempt to prove that you were the sole cause of your injuries.

In certain situations, this may seem to be quite simple for them. For example, say you are injured while lifting a heavy object at a grocery store. Since you were likely acting alone when you were hurt, your employer can easily claim that you were at fault for your injuries. But an experienced lawyer can link your actions back to the employer’s failure to provide training, proper safety equipment, machinery to lift the object, or another worker to help you.


Are You Technically an Employee or a Contract Laborer? The Case Law Decides

Texas statutes state that only general employees are eligible to file non-subscriber work injury claims – not contractors. Employers are often aware of this element of the law (particularly construction companies), and so they will often hire almost exclusively contractors and then not subscribe to workers’ compensation insurance. They think they have found the perfect loop hole: Just make all of your employees sign a document that says they are contract laborers. That way they are not eligible to file a non-subscriber work injury lawsuit and you don’t have to pay for workers’ compensation coverage.

Thankfully for the workers, this is not accurate. While legal statutes do state that only employees are eligible to file non-subscriber claims, the laws do not provide a clear description of exactly what constitutes an employer-employee relationship rather than a contract relationship. Thus our attorneys turn to case law to provide examples of how judges have ruled in the past in cases where it was not obvious as to the nature of the relationship that the employee had with the employer. Texas case law provides guidelines or tell-tale signs that establish an employer-employee relationship, even if the worker was originally hired as a contractor. According to the case law, you are not a contractor just because your employer claims that you are. If the following conditions exist, you are considered to be an employee and you are therefore eligible to file a non-subscriber lawsuit.


Proof of an Employer-Employee Relationship

If a contract exists that specifically states that the worker is an employee, then that is all the proof an employee would need and the worker can file a non-subscriber claim. There is really no defense against something this straightforward.

But even if the employer drafts a contract that specifically states that you are not an employee, the employer’s conduct can establish an employer-employee relationship regardless of any past or present contracts.

Additionally, if the injured worker was performing services particular to a defendant’s business, then the victim is an employee. In other words, if you are in a Burger King restaurant, wearing a Burger King shirt, standing behind a cash register, servicing customers, then you are a Burger King employee, regardless of the details or even the existence of any contract.

In cases where this relationship is not as clear-cut, the employer’s actions can establish an employer-employee relationship as well. Concerning general employees (i.e., not borrowed employees or volunteers), an employer-employee relationship is established by any of the following factors:

  • The independence of the laborer’s work: if the plaintiff is an electrician who does electrical work for many different customers, then he or she is likely a contractor. If, on the other hand, the electrician is working for a phone company and no one else, then the electrician is an employee.
  • The worker providers his or her own tools: if the worker brings his or her own tools to the job, then he or she is a contractor. But if the employer provides tools to the worker, then the worker is an employee.
  • The employer controls the worker’s progress: if the worker makes all of the decisions while working on a project and only the completed product is inspected by the employer, then the worker is a contractor. On the other hand, if the employer manages the worker during various stages of the project, then an employer-employee relationship is established.
  • The employer controls the length of time for which the worker is employed: if the worker can leave at any time, then he or she is probably a contractor. If the worker has been hired for an indefinite period of time, then the worker is an employee.
  • Method of payment: if a worker is paid by the hour, he or she is more than likely an employee, but if the worker is paid upon completion of a project, he or she is a contractor.

In some cases, an employer will borrow an employee from another company, but even in this situation, the worker can bring a non-subscriber case against the borrowing employer under certain circumstances:

  • Whether the borrowing employer can hire or fire: if the borrowing employer can hire or fire the worker, then the worker is an employee.
  • The borrowing worker could select the worker: if the borrower selected a specific employee rather than the worker being selected by the lending employer, then an employer-employee relationship is established.
  • The borrower owns the tools that the worker is using: if the borrower owns the worker’s tools, the worker is an employee.
  • The lending employer can substitute a different worker: if the lending employer can change the worker that the borrower uses at any time, then the worker is a contractor.
  • The employer is borrowing the worker for an indefinite amount of time: like with general employees, if the worker is employed for an indefinite amount of time, then he or she is an employee.
  • The borrowed employee has specific skills: if, for example, a boat manufacturing company borrows a composite materials expert from a surfboard company, then the worker is a contractor. If the boat manufacturer borrows a worker for a role that almost anyone could have filled, then the worker is an employee.
  • Social security or income tax benefits: if the borrower assumes the responsibility of paying the worker’s social security and income tax benefits, then the worker is an employee.
Do you have a legal question?
Enter your phone number below and let's talk.
--

As you can see, determining if you have a non-subscriber lawsuit or not is a complex, technical matter, particularly when employers attempt to obscure whether they have workers’ compensation insurance or other elements of your case. It is important that you seek help from an experienced San Antonio workers’ compensation attorney quickly, and do not sign anything or accept any payments from your employer before you do.

The experienced San Antonio workers’ compensation and work injury attorneys of Grossman Law Offices can help you seek the compensation you are owed. Whenever we take a work injury case, we conduct a thorough investigation of the accident and of your relationship with your employer. We have been investigating and litigating work injury cases for twenty years, and we have seen employers use every trick in the book to try to avoid liability. We know how to determine whether your employer really has workers’ compensation insurance, and what type of relationship you have with your employer. If you have a non-subscriber case, we can help you build a strong lawsuit and go after the compensation you deserve. Our firm is dedicated to helping you get back on your feet after you have been hurt on the job. So if you or someone in your family has been injured in a workplace accident, contact San Antonio workers’ compensation attorney Michael Grossman from Grossman Law Offices today, and let us help you secure the compensation you need and the justice you deserve.



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.
Total Recovery:
$125,000.00
Attorney Fees:
$30,000.00
Litigation Expenses:
$2,135.00
$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.
Total Recovery:
$1,010,000.00
Attorney Fees:
$333,300.00
Litigation Expenses:
$50,000.00
Confidential Recovery - Wrongful Death / Workplace Accident
Major freight train company sued as the result of an incident which claimed the life of an employee. Our attorneys settled the case outside of court for a confidential amount.
Total Recovery:
Confidential
Attorney Fees:
Confidential
Litigation Expenses:
Confidential
$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
Total Recovery:
$1,450,000.00
Attorney Fees:
$560,000.00
Litigation Expenses:
$31,410.00
$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.
Total Recovery:
$700,000.00
Attorney Fees:
$175,000.00
Litigation Expenses:
$1,084.00
$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.
Total Recovery:
$226,000.00
Attorney Fees:
$84,000.00
Litigation Expenses:
$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.
Total Recovery:
$75,000.00
Attorney Fees:
$25,000.00
Litigation Expenses:
$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.
Total Recovery:
$335,000.00
Attorney Fees:
$134,000.00
Litigation Expenses:
$63,000.00
$162,500.00 Recovery - Workplace Accident (Shoulder Injury)
Recovered for worker who injured their shoulder while lifting a heavy object.
Total Recovery:
$162,500.00
Attorney Fees:
$81,250.00
Litigation Expenses:
$3,784.00
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.
Total Recovery:
Confidential
Attorney Fees:
Confidential
Litigation Expenses:
Confidential