Grossman Law Offices are the best attorneys that I know. They helped me when my husband was killed in a railroad accident.
-
R. Seagroves
Wife of a Wrongful Death Victim
An Example of How Workers' Compensation Coverage Hurts Injured Workers
A young man lost three fingers in a work-related accident and our laws failed to provide him with justice.
Let's face it; Texas workers' compensation laws can be very unfair to injured workers. It is very common that injured workers are afforded no other remedy other than workers' comp benefits, and these benefits are often insufficient to meet the injured worker's needs.
Here's how it breaks down: If a Texas company subscribes to workers' compensation coverage, they are afforded almost unilateral immunity from work injury lawsuits. Workers' comp is more than just what we call work injury insurance. It is a system that is designed to provide some level of near-guaranteed coverage for the injured worker while still protecting the employer. Lawmakers will tell you that this is a win-win situation.
However, the reality of Texas workers' comp coverage is that the compensation and benefits that an injured worker is entitled to receive are considerably less than they would recover under a normal personal injury claim, such as the type of personal injury claim that one would file in relation to a car accident. If an injury occurs whereby a driver runs a red light and then harms another person, the injured party can sue the defendant in order to get compensation for medical bills, lost wages, pain and suffering, so and and so forth. But if a worker is injured and his employer subscribes to Texas worker's comp coverage, the only benefits he is entitled to receive are medical benefits and a mere fraction of his wages to be paid. All of the other types of compensation that would be available to the car accident plaintiff are not available to the work injury plaintiff. He simply is forced to take the bare minimum form of compensation. While this may not seem like it's the end of the world when we're talking about an injured worker who has a pulled muscle, it becomes painfully obvious that this system is not fair to injured workers when you consider the huge disparity between the compensation that a seriously injured worker deserves and what they actually are eligible to recover.
For example, our office was recently contacted by the father whose son, a mere teenager, lost three fingers in a work-related accident. To be clear, the accident was not the teen's fault. He was performing his job as he was instructed to do and he was injured by a piece of machinery that had been negligently maintained. Additionally, the company he worked for was in violation of several OSHA rules, including the lockout/ tagout procedures.
In spite of the fact that his son lost three fingers at such a young age, our voting populace has determined that the best the boy can hope for is to have his medical bills paid and then receive a very modest disability-type compensation package, whereby he would be forced to take a pay cut. Since his employer has workers' compensation coverage, the injured teen cannot sue them. He cannot get compensation for pain and suffering. He cannot get compensation for disfigurement. The father asked our firm, "How is it that the company can get away with that. They took away so much of his future and we can't do anything to hold them accountable?"
Sadly, the answer to his question was, "No, you cannot hold them accountable." Texas law prohibits an injured worker from filing suit against their employer, irrespective of the degree of negligence that the employer displayed while causing harm to the employee, so long as the employer subscribes to Texas workers' compensation coverage. If his son instead had lost his fingers in a car accident or due to virtually any other type of injury, the defendant would not be shielded from a lawsuit and the young man would be able to seek out the compensation that he deserves. Based on what I've seen over the past 21 years of practicing law, I would estimate that his claim should be worth in excess of $1 million once you factor in rehabilitation, future medical expenses, loss of earning capacity, pain and suffering, disfigurement, etc. However, because of the fact that his employer chose to buy into the worker's compensation system, this young man will probably only receive thousands of dollars.
While I don't suspect that our workers' compensation laws are in any way soon to change in order to be more plaintiff friendly, I feel that we owe it to this young man to at least acknowledge the fact that we've all collectively voted into existence a system which marginalizes him in favor of protecting his employer. In my opinion, that's hardly fair, equitable, or just.
-Dallas Work Injury Attorney Michael Grossman
Recovery for injured worker who suffered a closed head injury in a scaffolding accident.
$125,000.00
$30,000.00
$2,135.00
(policy limits) Recovery of a disputed life insurance policy for the family of a contractor who died on the job.
$150,000.00
$50,000.00
$341.00
(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.
Confidential
Confidential
Confidential
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.
$226,000.00
$84,000.00
$5,500.00
(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.
$550,000.00
$220,000.00
$40,000.00
Recovered for worker who injured their shoulder while lifting a heavy object.
$162,500.00
$81,250.00
$3,784.00
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.
$700,000.00
$175,000.00
$1,084.00
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
$1,450,000.00
$560,000.00
$31,410.00
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.
Confidential
Confidential
Confidential
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.
$300,000.00
$120,000.00
$9,807.00