Midland Work Injury Lawyer
Texas Work Injury Law According to Midland Work Injury Attorney Michael Grossman
- My Employer has Workers’ Compensation
- My Employer Doesn’t Have Insurance
- Obstacles to your Success
- Am I an Employee, or Something Else?
Whether you’ve sustained a minor back injury due to heavy lifting, or suffered something more serious, dealing with the consequences of a work injury can be difficult. This is especially the case when your injury has complex legal implications.
Work injuries can occur in all sorts of settings, depending on where you do your work. A truck driver who is injured on the road, a chef who is burned in the kitchen, and a landscaper who slips and falls in a customer’s yard have all suffered work injuries, even if they haven’t been injured in what many of us might think of as a traditional workplace. When you’ve been injured at work, your employer and its insurance company will have lawyers on their side. You need someone representing your interests as well. While your employer is looking out for its rights, let a Midland work injury attorney from Grossman Law Offices look out for yours.
What Kind of Case Do I Have?
There are two kinds of work injury cases in Texas — cases involving subscribers, and cases involving non-subscribers. Under the Texas Workers’ Compensation Act of 1993, every employer has the option to choose whether it wants to purchase workers’ compensation insurance through the Texas workers’ comp board. Employers which choose to do so are known as subscribers. Those who purchase another type of insurance, or no insurance at all, are called non-subscribers. Cases brought against non-subscribers are very different from cases brought against subscribers. An experienced Midland workers compensation lawyer will have a history of handling both kinds of cases.
My Employer has Workers’ Compensation Insurance
If your employer carries workers’ compensation insurance, it is known as a subscriber. The tort reforms implemented in 1993 protect employers which elect to purchase workers’ compensation insurance by making them virtually immune from lawsuits. If your employer has workers’ compensation insurance, your only recourse following your work injury is to look to the insurance company to pay you what you’re owed. You cannot sue your employer, and you cannot recover for your pain and suffering, no matter how terrible your accident may have been.
Even though the insurance policy is theoretically in place to compensate you for your injury, most cases are contested, and few cases are simple. Insurance companies look out for their own interests, and few will offer you what you’re really owed. Furthermore, because cases involving subscribers are handled before an administrative law judge instead of in regular court, they tend to involve heightened bureaucracy and more red tape than a normal lawsuit. Having experienced West Texas lawyers, such as the Midland work injury attorneys at Grossman Law Offices, can spell the difference between navigating this red tape and getting lost in it.
You should be aware of two important exceptions, under which you can bring your case in regular court even if your employer does carry workers’ comp insurance. First, you may be able to sue the employer of a loved one who died in a work accident if you can show that the employer was grossly negligent. Second, you may be able to sue third parties directly for your injuries. Not every work injury is completely the fault of your employer. Other individuals such as employees or contractors may also be at fault. Even if your remedy against your employer is only with the insurer, you may be able to sue these third parties for your harm. The Midland work injury attorneys at Grossman Law Offices are familiar with the steps involved in identifying every party who is liable for your Odessa work injury, and holding each of them responsible.
My Employer Doesn’t Have Insurance
If your employer doesn’t have workers’ compensation insurance, it is known as a non-subscriber. Cases against non-subscribers are very different from cases against subscribers. Just as the law rewards subscribers for choosing to carry insurance coverage, it punishes non-subscribers for their failure to do so. The law leaves non-subscribers wide open to being sued in regular courts for your injuries. From a non-subscriber, not only can you recover for your medical bills and lost wages, you may also be able to obtain damages for your pain and suffering. Suing an employer in regular court is not always easy, but doing so can be much more lucrative than navigating the bureaucratic workers’ compensation insurance system.
In order to win your conventional lawsuit against a non-subscribed employer, you will have to show that your employer was negligent, and that you suffered some kind of injury. These things may be apparent to you, but your employer and the court will require evidence of these facts in order for you to win your case. The Midland work injury attorneys at Grossman Law Offices know what evidence is needed, and can greatly increase your odds of winning your Midland work injury lawsuit.
Obstacles to your Success
As discussed above, the law punishes employers that don’t have insurance by allowing you to sue them directly in court. Another way in which the law punishes employers is by giving them only one defense against your claim—the “sole proximate cause” defense. Because this defense is an employer’s only option, almost every employer uses it. You can expect this defense to be the one of the primary focuses of your lawsuit.
But what is the “sole proximate cause” defense? Essentially, this defense lets the employer get off the hook for you injury if it can leave you on it. An employer can only avoid liability if it can prove that you are 100% at fault for your own accident. As a result, most non-subscriber cases turn into witch hunts, with your employer attacking you personally in order to show you were negligent and the accident was entirely your fault.
A second challenge involved in non-subscriber claims is proving the existence of an employer-employee relationship. Since employers do not have to pay workers’ compensation to non-employees, proving that you are employee is an essential element of your case. While it may be apparent to you that you were an employee, proving the fact is not always simple. Complications frequently arise if you were hired as a temp worker, a contractor, or even as a volunteer. A Midland work injury attorney from Grossman Law Offices knows how to prove that you are an employee in order to recover from your employer.
Am I an Employee, or Something Else?
Because employers know that they usually don’t need to pay workers’ compensation to non-employees, they will frequently hire workers as contractors or temporary employees in order to avoid potential liability. This is particularly the case when the employer knows that the work-site is dangerous. Employers will frequently argue that you were never their employee since they know it’s a get out of jail free card. This defense can be one of the biggest obstacles to your claim.
Ultimately, the burden is on you, the accident victim, to prove that you were an employee and not something else. Even when other Midland work injury attorneys have told our clients they have no case, our experienced attorneys have been able to prove the employer-employee relationship, and recover damages for our clients. Even if you were hired as a temp worker, a contractor, or a volunteer, we may be able to prove that you are an employee if one or more of the following is true:
- Your employer deducts social security or taxes from your checks
- You’ve been hired for an indefinite period of time, and not just to complete a particular job
- You are paid a salary or a wage, instead of a fixed amount at the completion of a particular task
- Your employer has asked you to relinquish some of your workplace rights, such as by signing an employment agreement or submitting to involuntary drug testing
- Your employer provides you with the tools and materials you need to do your job
- Your employer sets your work schedule, and supervises and inspects your work during your work period
If any of the above factors apply to you, or if you aren’t sure, contact a Midland job injury lawyer at Grossman Law Offices. Because of our twenty years of experience in this complex area of law, we know how to prove an employer-employee relationship exists, even when other attorneys do not.
Will OSHA Help me Win my Case?
The Occupational Safety and Health Administration, better known as OSHA, is a federal agency charged with both creating minimum safety standards and enforcing them. OSHA’s goals are admirable, but its execution of those goals is lacking. OSHA only has the authority to fine your employer a few thousand dollars. Due to its low budget and under-staffing, OSHA usually only visits a workplace after an accident has already occurred. It’s clear that OSHA lacks the teeth to really serve justice.
You may be aware that OSHA will prepare a report after learning of a work injury. This report is a very high level, bureaucratic document, which does little to discuss the cause of your accident or pin liability on your employer. Its purpose is never to help you win your lawsuit, and in almost every instance, it will not be of any help in winning your case. In short, OSHA is a well-meaning agency, but isn’t designed to help you with your lawsuit. The best assistance always comes from an experienced Midland work injury attorney.
What should my Next Step Be?
We have two critical pieces of advice for anyone injured on the job. First, never sign any liability release agreements given to you by your employer or the insurance company. These offers are rarely fair, and could limit your ability to recover money you’re otherwise entitled to. Second, gather and preserve as much evidence as you are able. Evidence has a way of disappearing as time elapses after the accident. Keeping evidence in a safe place is one of the best ways you can bolster your case.
Whether you know you are an employee, or you aren’t certain, and whether your employer is a subscriber or a non-subscriber, contacting a Midland work injury attorney is frequently the only way to recover all of what you’re entitled to. There are many injury attorneys in Midland, and choosing an attorney can seem like a daunting task. Midland work injury attorney Michael Grossman recommends interviewing two or three attorneys before deciding on the one that you want to handle your case. When you speak with each attorney, ask him about his track record for handling cases like yours, and with what frequency he settles and litigates workers’ compensation cases. You may also ask the attorney for a reference whose case was similar to yours, and find out if he can tell you what the strengths and weaknesses of your case are. Ultimately, you should hire someone you can trust, and who has a strong track record of winning workers’ compensation cases.
The Midland work injury attorneys at Grossman Law Offices have the experience you need to maximize your recovery. We’ve handled workers’ compensation claims for twenty years, and can put our experience to work for you. Call us to speak to an attorney and receive a free consultation. Our number is 1-855-396-0000 (toll free).
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
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
Recovered for worker who injured their shoulder while lifting a heavy object.
$162,500.00
$81,250.00
$3,784.00
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
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
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.
$1,010,000.00
$333,300.00
$50,000.00
(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
(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
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.
$335,000.00
$134,000.00
$63,000.00
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