Proven Results For Our Injured Clients

Our minor clients were left orphaned after their parents and one sibling were killed in a railroad crossing when the train failed to sound a whistle warning. Through expert witnesses, photographic and video evidence we were able to demonstrate that the crossing was unsafe and should have had lights and gates. A key element in the case was a document that we forced the railroad to produce. Many railroad locomotives come equipped with "black boxes" recording information such as train speed, braking and whether a whistle was sounded or not. There was conflicting witness testimony at trial regarding the sounding of a whistle. The railroad management had testified that there was not a "black box" on the lead locomotive. However, an internal document that we obtained in written discovery from the railroad indicated that the information from the "black box" had been downloaded. We obtained a written instruction from the Court to the jury that told them, if they believed evidence had been destroyed, they could infer that such evidence would have been unfavorable to the defendant railroad.

Another aspect of the case was that the morning sun was coming directly out of the same direction from which the train was traveling. With the help of photographs taken at the accident site at the same time of day that the collision occurred, our expert witness on visibility issues was able to demonstrate to the jury that the train could not be seen by the driver of the vehicle. This made the sounding of the horn a critical issue in the case. Kevin Glasheen was lead counsel at trial, and the case was settled on appeal after a favorable jury verdict.

Our client was driving a motorcycle when a truck ran a stop sign in front of him. As a result of the collision, our client suffered a significant brain injury. He was not wearing a helmet and one of the difficult questions in the case was whether a helmet would have made any difference in this case. We were able to hire one of the nation's leading experts in helmet safety issues and were able to show that, due to the velocity that our client hit the ground and the location of his head injury, a helmet would not have prevented the brain injury he suffered. There was also a question as to whether our client was impaired due to consuming alcohol the night before the early morning collision. Our firm hired an expert who "wrote the book" on perception-reaction time in collisions and we were able to demonstrate that, due to the speed of the truck, any alleged impairment of our client was insignificant as there was simply not enough time for him to react to the truck's presence. Our video and graphic arts department took the information obtained from our experts and developed an animated recreation of the collision that helped illustrate the time sequence of the collision.

We also were able to help our client obtain the best possible medical and rehabilitation care, arranging for hospitalization and residential rehabilitation services that continued for more than a year post-accident. This aggressive medical treatment helped ensure that our client could make the best possible recovery. That care would not have been available without arrangements that we made on his behalf. Our video and graphic arts department videotaped several of the therapy sessions that our client underwent and we obtained video throughout our client's recovery period. We presented all of the evidence and testimony we obtained to the insurance company for the trucking company and the case settled before trial.

This was a train wreck near Shallowater, Texas. Our clients' child was killed when a train struck a car at a railroad crossing. The railroad had failed to control the vegetation around the crossing and the high weeds obstructed the view of the approaching train. We hired experts on visibility issues as well as crossing safety and maintenance issues. Those experts testified live at trial. We also presented the jury with a video tape of the scene that was taken within a day of the collision. The video showed the overgrown vegetation that existed at the crossing on the day of the collision. We obtained a professional survey of the scene and through our experts were able to position the train back in photo stills of the scene. These photos helped show the jury that a train was not visible until it was too late for the driver to react to its presence. We also obtained testimony from one of the first responders on the scene. That testimony was compelling and provided the jury a detailed description of the last few moments of the child's life.

We assisted our clients in finding psychological counseling and were then able to present the testimony of the psychologist to the jury so that they could understand the tremendous loss that our clients had suffered due to the death of their child. The jury awarded 46 million dollars, but the case was settled based on a high-low settlement agreement that provided that the clients would receive one million dollars regardless of what the jury awarded or would receive whatever the jury awarded up to 8 million but then would limit the client's recovery if the jury verdict exceeded that sum. The settlement was paid within 30 days of trial with no appeals.

Our client was injured in a rear-end collision when the Defendant attempted to pass him at an excessive rate of speed. The Defendant attempted to pass our client to the left when he struck our client's vehicle from behind, causing both vehicles to lose control. Our client's vehicle spun, striking two trees and a brick wall, throwing our client and a passenger from the vehicle. Our client was wearing his seatbelt at the time of the accident but the force of the collision ejected him from the rear window of his vehicle. We were able to prove that at the time of this collision, the Defendant was driving while intoxicated with a blood alcohol content of .281 percent, more than three times the legal limit in Texas. The Defendant also tested positive for marijuana.

Our client came to us after contacting several other attorneys and having his case rejected by those attorneys. Among the reasons given for rejecting his case our client was told that there would be inadequate insurance to take care of his medical bills in the past and in the future. He suffered a head injury and was left a quadriplegic as a result of the collision. Through our investigation we were able to determine there was actually millions of dollars in insurance coverage available as the drunk driver's vehicle belonged to an insurance agent who had primary insurance coverage and then umbrella coverage as well. We also hired an expert in accident reconstruction who surveyed the scene. From the evidence gathered at the scene our reconstructionist was able to calculate that the drunk driver was traveling approximately 94 miles an hour in a 45 mph speed zone.

We helped our client obtain assistance from one of the nation's leading brain injury rehabilitation facilities. We documented his therapy and progress on video which made for a compelling presentation to the drunk driver's insurance company. We presented the reconstruction as well as the video and photos documenting our client's injuries to the insurance company and the case settled before trial. As a result of the settlement, our client's future medical needs are being met.

Our client was working at a gas compression station near Andrews, Texas. A chemical company was delivering acid to a 500 gallon tank and our client went out to sign a purchase receipt for the delivery. The delivery driver was standing on a 5 gallon bucket and holding a high pressure hose above his head to the tank to pump the acid and asked our client to flip a switch on the truck to turn on the pump. When our client flipped the switch, the delivery driver fell off the bucket and sprayed our client with acid causing burns to his arms and back.

We discovered in litigation that delivery drivers for this chemical company had been complaining for two years that the acid tank did not have proper connections for their hose to make a safe delivery. Instead they had to hold the hose over their heads and top fill the tank. In fact, the chemical company had a policy in place that stated they could not deliver chemicals to customers with top fill tanks because of the risk of accidental spills. Testimony from the chemical company management confirmed that they were aware of the safety policy against delivering to top fill tanks and simply ignored their own policy. The chemical company sales people also finally admitted that they knew the delivery system was unsafe, but they did not want to lose the customer so they continued to make deliveries even though the tank did not have proper hose connections.

Our client was working as a welder on an oilfield gas pipeline collection system near Ozona, Texas. The welding company he was working for had received a "hot work" permit from the operator of the pipeline system which assured them that the valves on the gas wells had been shut off so that they could do their maintenance on the gas lines.

However, the operator of the gas wells had not turned off the automatic timer that opened the gas well valves at regularly scheduled intervals. While our client was welding a pipe, the automatic valve from a gas well opened releasing natural gas into the pipe that our client was welding. The gas ignited and our client suffered burns to his face and hands. The defendant accepted responsibility for the case and, after our investigation the case was settled early in litigation.

In the spring of 2010 a 26-year-old man sustained a traumatic brain injury when a valve exploded, striking him in the head, at an oil well in Yoakum County.  After substantial rehabilitation, our client was released to live with his mother due to his diminished capacity and inability to obtain competitive employment.  In June of this year, after a year-long fight, we helped our client reach a confidential multi-million dollar settlement.  The settlement is structured to take care of all financial needs for the rest of his life.  Our client now has the freedom to live with his children, in his own home, and free of financial uncertainty.

Our client was an infant passenger in a vehicle struck by a train. Several people were killed in the wreck. Our client survived but sustained serious injuries. In 1995 the Railroad Company had been notified by state officials that this crossing was set to be signalized because it met all of the criteria of a hazardous crossing. However, that signalization never took place. Additionally, even though the crossing was a public crossing, the railroad company had the authority to close the crossing as there were other crossings in close proximity that were signalized with lights and gates.

Despite the railroad company's knowledge that the crossing had been designated as hazardous by state officials and despite meeting all of the conditions that would allow the railroad company to close the crossing, they did nothing to fix the problem of the dangerous crossing. Railroad executives testified that it was the railroad company's policy that it would not spend its own money to put lights and gates at public crossings. Their policy was to wait for state or federal officials to provide the funds to signalize those crossings. Through our investigation, we were able to demonstrate that the crossing was dangerous and should have had lights and gates to protect motorists. This case settled before trial.

Our client's husband was the supervisor for an oilfield services company that was testing pipe at a gas plant. The testing company would use nitrogen gas to pressure up pipe to ensure that it was structurally sound before it was installed in a gas compression plant. While testing pipes our client's husband over-pressured the pipe and it exploded causing his death. Even though our decedent was in charge of pressuring up the pipe, we showed that he had been working for over 20 hours straight without a break in violation of hours of service rules. We also discovered that the communication with regard to the pressures that were to be used for the pressure testing was done poorly and critical information was not being communicated methodically. The companies involved had no set policy on how test pressures were communicated to all those involved in the testing. The pressures to be used in the test were communicated verbally and written on chalk on the pipe. It was easy to see that the accident was going to happen under these circumstances.

Near Amarillo, Texas, an 18-wheeler ran a stop sign right in front of a pickup truck where our client was a passenger. The pickup truck went underneath the tractor trailer causing serious brain injury to our client. We showed the truck driver's logs were falsified and he had been driving in excess of the maximum hours allowed under DOT regulations. We helped our client get treatment for his brain injury at a world renowned hospital in Denver. Our client had been a Broadway actor and while he returned to independent living, we were able to demonstrate significant impairment that affected his career.

Our client was an employee at a meat packing plant in Friona, Texas. He worked in the trolley room where they washed the trolleys that carried the carcasses through the plant. To dry the equipment after it was washed, they had a blow dryer and a piece of pipe attached to the blower to direct the air. Oil used to lubricate the blower would continuously accumulate in the pipe and would then contaminate the equipment that had been washed. Our client was told by his supervisor to wipe out the pipe with a cloth. However, his supervisor failed to tell our client that there was a rotating fan in the pipe. When our client put his hand in the pipe to wipe it out, he had several fingers amputated.

The defendant did not carry worker's compensation insurance and was "self-insured" which allowed us to make a claim against it for negligence. When an employer does not carry worker's compensation, they are not allowed to use contributory negligence as a defense and so they were not able to blame our client for his part in causing his injuries.

Additionally, the plant production manager testified at trial in Lubbock that he had not trained our client on the dangers of the machinery because "we ain't got time for all that training. We got to get the product out the door." The jury awarded actual damages to compensate our client for his injuries as well as one million dollars in punitive damages to punish the company for its gross negligence in causing our client's injuries. The meat packing plant appealed the case but the jury's verdict was upheld by the Texas Supreme Court.

The confidentiality agreement in this settlement does not allow us to give any details of the case. However, after our investigation and our presentation to hospital representatives, the hospital accepted responsibility for the claim and the case was settled.

Our client was working on a trench for a sewer line for a new commercial building when heavy rains delayed construction for a week. When the trench dried up enough to work on, our client went in the trench and it collapsed, causing his death. The OSHA regulations require that trenches have bracing to prevent collapses and this trench did not have the required safety bracing.

Our client was an employee of an oilfield drilling company. The tool pusher had given the crew a ride home for a day off and they were returning early the next morning to the rig when the tool pusher lost control of the company pickup truck, rolled it and ejected our client, causing his death. Our client left a wife and minor child. There were disputed issues about whether our client was wearing a seat belt and whether the wreck was caused by a tire failure or the negligence of the driver.

This is one of many cotton gin cases that we have handled. The lint cleaners on many cotton gins lack specific guards which are required by OSHA standards. The lint cleaners consist of a series of rollers and saws that remove stems and other trash from the cotton that is to be ginned. In this case we discovered that OSHA had done an inspection of the cotton gin several months before our client suffered his injury. As the inspection OSHA had notified the gin in writing that it lacked the appropriate guards on its lint cleaners. Despite this knowledge the gin did nothing to make sure that its lint cleaners met OSHA standards for safety.

An additional procedure gin companies can use is called lockout/tagout. The procedure requires that the power source to the machine being worked on is shut off and a lock is placed on the power source by every individual who is to work on the machine. This assures that the machine will have no moving parts while maintenance is being performed and cannot be powered-up until all personnel have removed their locks. However, during cotton ginning seasons, ginners are reluctant to turn off the equipment when the delinting equipment gets jammed up with cotton because this slows down production and can reduce the profits the gin makes as well as the bonuses ginners receive.

In this case the ginner and the gin manager both testified that they were aware of lockout-tagout but did not require their employees to follow this safety procedure. Our client was asked to try to clean cotton out of the delinter while it was running and the machinery caught his hand, amputating several fingers. Like many others in our region, this cotton gin did not carry worker's compensation insurance and we were able to make a claim directly against them and collect from their insurance company.

Our client's husband was working as a federal grain inspector at a grain elevator. His job required him to inspect grain as it was being loaded into railroad cars. The grain elevator operator moved the train while our client was on top causing him to fall where he died beneath the wheels of the train. During our investigation we discovered that the grain facility had not trained its employees in the proper method of moving railcars at its facility even though it had written policies in place.

Even though our client's employer carried workers' compensation insurance, we were able to make a "third party" claim against the owner of the grain elevator. Our client left a widow with three small children to raise on her own. The case was settled while in litigation, based on the negligence of the train operator of the grain elevator.

Our client was a wire line operator in the oilfield. While running some test equipment on a well, the threads on a well head joint failed, causing the well head equipment to blast off the well head and strike him in the face. Our client had serious jaw and facial injuries. We were able to demonstrate that the oilfield equipment had an improper combination of tapered threads and straight cut threads which were a mismatch. The equipment had been supplied in a mismatched condition from an oilfield equipment supplier who was ultimately liable for the accident.

Our client was employed as a forklift operator for an industrial warehouse where his job required him to move large pallets of product in the refrigerator and freezer sections at the facility. During the morning of the accident, he was using a forklift in and around the freezer section of the facility. As on other occasions, operating the forklift in the freezer caused ice to build up on the forklift. As our client was operating the stand-up forklift he attempted to stop and get off the lift. As he did so he slipped on melted ice and/or water that had accumulated on and around the forklift. The concrete floor was slippery due to water dripping from other product. When our client slipped, his leg became pinned between the forklift and a metal pole. His employer did not carry workers' compensation insurance, and were therefore unable to blame our client for any contributory negligence in causing his own injuries.

Our seventeen-year-old client suffered a closed head injury when he was riding as a passenger in a pickup truck. The driver of the pickup truck took a curve in the road too fast and lost control of the truck, colliding with a pipe fence. Investigation revealed that the driver was intoxicated at the time of the incident.

Our client was working as a laborer in a feed mill in North Texas when the majority of his right hand was amputated by the rollers in a corn flaking machine. The feedlot yard had two feed mills. Our client was employed as an operator of the four corn flaking machines in one of the mills. The corn flaking machines mix the corn with steam prior to feeding steamed corn into rollers for flaking. The rollers often become clogged with rocks which prevent corn from passing between the rollers. When clogged the corn begins to pile up and flow out of the machine onto the floor. Our client was required to shut down the rollers and steam and reach into the machine to remove the rocks. Each of the four flakers has a green on/off switch near the machine for the roller and peg feeder. A ball valve is located at the top of the flaker to turn the steam on or off. A black switch located directly below the roller switch was used to shut off only the peg feeder. For some unexplained reason, a separate set of green on/off switches for the corn flaking machines are located inside a control room adjacent to the area where the flaking machines are located. The employees do not have sight of the corn flakers while operating the switches inside the control room. Our client turned off the rollers and peg feeder using the green switch beside the flaker. He also shut off the steam valve and turned off the black peg feeder switch. Once the machine was stopped and the steam had dissipated, he reached into the roller area to remove the rocks. Suddenly, and without warning, the rollers were turned on while our client's hand was in the roller area. We sued our client's employer for failure to properly train it employees and for having faulty equipment that good be energized from two separate sources.

Our client was working as a truck driver delivery person. The defendant employer did not carry worker's compensation. Our client slipped and fell in some product that had leaked on the floor of the truck because it had been loaded improperly. Our client came to us the day before the statute of limitations was to expire. His case had previously been rejected by several lawyers because it was mistakenly believed that the employer carried workers' compensation insurance. We investigated and discovered that the company had a private insurance. Since his employer did not carry worker's compensation, we were able to make a claim against the employer for negligence and damages and were not limited to worker's compensation benefits. We obtained a substantial recovery for the client.

Our client's husband was an employee at a grain elevator and was trying to shovel grain towards an auger. The whirlpool of grain caught him and pulled him into the auger to his death. Our investigation revealed that the grain elevator operator did not have entry procedures in place that were mandated by OSHA. Further, the operator did not provide its employees with body harnesses connected to a life line that were also required by OSHA regulations in order to prevent employees from being engulfed by the grain.

The superintendent of the grain elevator testified that, although the OSHA regulations were in a binder on top of a filing cabinet in his office, he never once bothered to read the regulations. He further testified that he had 25 years of experience working at grain elevators. The testimony was that, even though he was the Manager and superintendent of the grain elevator, his superiors had never required him to become familiar with the OSHA regulations that specifically applied to grain elevators.

Even though the defendant had worker's compensation, Texas law allows a family of a person killed at work to bring a claim against the employer for gross negligence and punitive damages only. This was a settlement of such a punitive damages claim.

Our client's husband was an active member of his community spending most of his retirement volunteering and serving the community of Levelland. He was killed in a truck wreck when the Defendant, a driver with a well-known national courier service, failed to stop and yield the right-of-way and collided head-on with our client's husband's 1989 Toyota pick-up truck.

Our client was injured when she was visiting a home owned by some of the Defendants. Our client was interested in having an elevator built in her home due to a medical condition which limited her mobility. One of the Defendants invited her to the home to view a home built elevator. The elevator had been built by another Defendant using a wench from a truck as the lift mechanism. When our client entered the elevator and it began to rise, the elevator cable broke and it fell to the lower level severely injuring our client.

Our client was a gentleman in his late 70's who had purchased a new Cadillac for his wife for mother's day. Our client had the car equipped with handicap controls so that he could operate the vehicle. This consisted of a handle on the steering wheel that was connected to the gas pedal by a metal rod that allowed you to operate the gas pedal with a hand lever. The first week of driving the car, our client's wife got her foot caught on the rod which prevented access to the brake as she approached a stop sign. She lost control of the car and struck an embankment which resulted in her death. We sued alleging the device had been poorly designed and improperly installed to interfere with the driver's foot. The Defendants took the position that it was physically impossible to install the rod any other way. We bought an identical Cadillac and took it to another one of their dealerships and had them install the controls. At mediation we demonstrated a correct installation was feasible. The defendants knew we had an example Cadillac with a properly installed rod. They gave up on their argument that it wasn't feasible to install the controls properly and instead settled the case.

Our client worked as a ginner's assistant in a gin near Slaton Texas. Our client suffered severe hand injuries to his dominant hand when he attempted to un-clog the linter cleaner using a metal bar, as previously taught by his boss, the Defendant. We proved that the gin lacked providing a safety plan, training for its employees, and providing a location and mechanism to lockout/tagout gin equipment.

Our client was the driver of a minivan traveling from Lubbock through San Angelo on her way to a convention. It was a foggy morning, with very limited visibility. A gravel truck pulled out on Highway 87 in front of the minivan causing a serious accident. Our client had a leg injury which required significant medical management and assistance from our firm in obtaining medical treatment. We were able to show the truck driver was taking Lortab for back pain several times a day, even though he had denied having any medical conditions on his work application. The fog was a major contributing factor to the accident.

At approximately 1:00 a.m. on November 5, 2009, our clients awoke to the roar of a 400 foot tall fire ball less than 100 yards from their home caused by the eruption of a 26" natural gas line. As the family ran for safety, three of the four members of the family received burns.

Over the next year, two of our clients received skin grafts and scar revision surgeries. The family suffered through months of nightmares, reliving that night. Over the year-and-a-half since this incident we helped the family back on their feet.

We aggressively pursued their claim against the gas company that owned the line. From preserving the evidence at the outset to hiring first-rate experts to aid us in the case, we covered all the information in our search to prove the gas company's negligence. The case recently settled for a confidential amount that will provide for the family's future and allow them to complete the rebuilding of their lives.