Houston Personal Injury Attorneys – Smith & Hassler

A Harris County jury awarded the family of 21-year old Oscar Alfredo Gomez $1,400,000 in a wrongful death lawsuit filed against Republic Waste Services. Republic Waste filed an appeal of that award based on an unusual legal argument: that Gomez was an illegal immigrant from El Salvador and that the jury should have heard evidence of his immigration status during the trial. Republic‘s appeal claims that Gomez’ immigration status should have been a factor in the calculation of Gomez’ family’s loss of his future lost income. Attorneys handling the appeal for Republic Waste claim that Gomez probably would have been detected and deported during an Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) raid of Republic‘s Houston office that took place two weeks after Gomez died.  As such, argued Republic Waste‘s lawyers, Gomez’ future lost income should have been calculated based on his likely annual wages in El Salvador ($1,000/year) versus his wages working in Houston ($33,000/year).

The First Court of Appeals disagreed with Republic‘s argument and in a January 20th opinion said that the trial court correctly exercised its discretion in not allowing the jury to hear evidence of Gomez’ immigration status.  The appeals court said that Republic‘s claim that Gomez would have been deported in the raid was “speculative” on Republic‘s part.

Gomez was killed January 15, 2007 when he was run over by a garbage truck driven by another Republic Waste employee. After his death Republic discovered Gomez had falsified his immigration paperwork and used another person’s social security number to get the job. The lawsuit against Republic was filed by Gomez’ common law wife who lives in Houston with their daughter and by his father who lives in El Salvador.  The driver of the trash truck that killed Gomez and Republic Waste were sued. The jury found in favor of the Gomez family and awarded $1,400,000 which included $1,275,000 for future lost wages.

People living in and around Houston are hardy and active folks, but Texans, along with the rest of America, are getting older. It’s not uncommon for a healthy older person to need a joint replacement. Hip replacements and other common procedures can allow a Texan to maintain a good quality of life.

Hip replacement, no doubt, is a big business. Unfortunately, companies sometimes rush an untested product into the marketplace. The consequences of such negligence can be devastating. Hip implant defects have caused significant injuries in patients, or prompted the need for a second, revision surgery that puts the patient at risk.

Recently, DePuy Orthopaedics Inc. announced a recall of two hip implant devices, which has given rise to product liability lawsuits. The devices, recalled in August 2010, caused some patients to experience problems, including:

• Loosening of the implant
• Bone fractures around the device
• Dislocation of the implant’s ball and socket in some cases

Some patients had to under another hip replacement surgery. The defective hip implant device also can produce metal shavings that can irritate the area around the implant or get into the blood stream. It’s possible that the metal shavings may lead to heart failure or dementia in some patients.

If you received a hip implant since 2003, it’s a good idea to get in touch with your doctor for an evaluation. DePuy’s products were introduced in 2003 and 2004. The company’s defective hip implant products are the DePuy ASR Hip Resurfacing System and the DePuy ASR XL Acetabular System.

Another hip replacement device that was subject to a recent recall is the Zimmer Durom Cup, a hip component that is inserted into people undergoing total hip replacement surgery. The Zimmer Cup (technically the Zimmer Durom Acetabular Component) was recalled in 2008 because some patients required additional surgery after the unit failed to properly bond.

If you have experienced any pain or side effects related to a hip implant defect, we recommend contacting an experienced attorney. You may be entitled to compensation.

Some patients who have been implanted with DePuy may be contacted by a company representative. It’s crucial that you discuss your specific case with an attorney before accepting any compensation. You may be entitled to additional compensation for your losses.

The Houston lawyers at Smith & Hassler know how to fight for the rights of hip implant defect victims. Our lawyers have years of experience and many resources to help you pursue a successful claim. Call us today for a free consultation at 1-877-777-1529. We are committed to helping clients get the results they need – and deserve.

Saturday January 29, 2011: Houston police responded to a call for service at around 4:00AM to the Delmar Apartments in Houston on the Gulf Freeway when someone reported seeing men stealing car license plates. When officers arrived at the scene they asked the men to provide identification, which they agreed to do, but then the men jumped into a pickup truck and fled. Police chased the men for a few miles up the Gulf Freeway: the passenger in the pickup truck bailed out and narrowly missed being hit by a car. He was quickly arrested by police.

The driver kept going and crashed into another car on the freeway. The driver exited at Broadway Street and the chase came to an end when the driver blew out a tire because he either hit a curb or rear-ended another vehicle. The driver claimed a leg injury and he was immediately arrested. The men, whose names have not been released, are facing criminal charges including felony evading.

Ironically the chase appears to have come to an end right outside a Progressive Insurance office:

HPD chase on the Gulf Freeway ends with car accident and injuries

The Toyota Avalon sped through an intersection, crashed through a fence, rammed a tree and landed upside-down in a pond in Southlake, a suburb of Fort Worth. Four people, including the driver, were killed. It was the day after Christmas in 2009.

The horrific accident occurred after Monty and Linda Hardy had taken their vehicle to the dealership several times with complaints about unintended acceleration. The dealership, however, said nothing was wrong, according to their attorney.

“Money can’t bring back my husband,” Linda Hardy told ABC News. “I want Toyota to take care of these problems so no one else will die.”

Toyota defects have been linked to other car accidents and deaths not just in Texas, but in places across the country. Alarmingly, Toyota said it knew about an accelerator problem two months before the fatal accident in Southlake, but did not say anything publicly until a month after the accident.

Toyota recalls about 13 million cars

Since then, Toyota has recalled about 13 million of its vehicles because of possible defects, including sticky gas pedals in some models and floor mats trapping the accelerator in other models. Both of these defects are linked to cars racing out of control.

In the latest setback for the car manufacture, in January 2011 Toyota announced a recall of 1.7 million vehicles to address problems related to defective fuel pumps and fuel lines.

In December 2010, Toyota agreed to pay $32.4 million in fines to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) because the car company delayed reporting safety defects in its vehicles on two separate occasions.

Was your car part of the Toyota recall? Were you or someone you know injured due to a Toyota defect in Houston or elsewhere in Texas? Don’t hesitate to contact an experienced attorney who knows how to help victims of injured due to Houston Toyota defects. Smith & Hassler has experience in handling all types of product liability cases as well as wrongful death lawsuits.

Smith & Hassler can help those affected by Toyota recall

At Smith & Hassler, we can put our knowledge of the Toyota recall to work for you. Our attorneys understand how to apply Texas law to defective product cases, including a Houston Toyota defect. We have resources and expert witnesses who can help you build a strong case. We aggressively stand up to big corporations and their teams of attorneys and demand justice for our clients.

Car accidents happen fast and for a variety of reasons. We understand how devastating a car accident can be – especially when the accident is due to a car maker’s negligence. The attorneys at Smith & Hassler are dedicated to helping victims get the maximum compensation they deserve. Contact Smith & Hassler today for a free and confidential consultation. Tell them you mean business.

If you use dentures, you may have exposed yourself to dangerous amounts of zinc. You may not even be aware of what’s causing your pain, since the ingredient was not listed on many common brands of denture cream.

Common brands of denture cream, including Fixodent and Super PoliGrip, use zinc as an ingredient to aid in both adhesion and odor control. Zinc is an essential mineral for humans, but too much zinc can lead to a reduction of copper in your body. A copper reduction can lead to neurological disorders.

Denture creams are listed as Class 1 medical devices by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). This means they do not have to list their ingredients on the packaging.

However, the denture cream makers have a duty to inform consumers that zinc is an ingredient. And they have a duty to warn users about serious side effects of denture cream zinc poisoning!

Common side effects of zinc poisoning related to denture cream use include:

Hands and feet feeling numb (paresthesias)

Difficulty in walking

Paralysis in some cases

Abnormal sense of touch or painful sense of touch (dysesthesias)

Loss of sensation

What would you do if you experienced any of these potentially debilitating symptoms? You may be unable to work. You may be unable to pay your bills. You may feel overwhelmed.

While zinc poisoning from dangerous denture cream can turn your life upside-down, you do have options. You may be entitled to compensation. Turn to a Houston law firm experienced in handling complex zinc poisoning cases. At Smith & Hassler, we understand Texas’ complex legal system. Our aggressive products liability attorneys can scrutinize your case and pursue justice for you!

Don’t hesitate to contact us for a free and confidential case review. At Smith & Hassler, we put our experience and resources to work for clients who have been injured due to denture cream zinc poisoning. Our attorneys are not intimidated by insurance companies and their teams of lawyers.

Don’t let a zinc poisoning injury ruin your life. Demand justice. Call 1-877-777-1529. Contact Smith & Hassler today. Tell them you mean business.

An accidental shooting in northeast Houston on Sunday has left a 16-year old boy in critical condition. The teen was with three other persons in a bedroom of a home in the 7600 block of Teesdale, playing with a handgun and a shotgun at around 1:40am, according to Houston police. Another teenage boy was unloading the shotgun, which he believed to be empty, and pulled the trigger: the gun discharged striking the 16-year old in the head. The case has been referred to a Harris County grand jury; the shooting is believed to be unintentional.

The Houston Chronicle’s article did not provide any information on how the boys got the guns they were handling. Depending on the specific facts, accidental shootings sometimes occur due to negligence on the part of the homeowner. Acts of homeowner negligence leading to injury to another person or their property are covered under homeowner’s insurance policies.

Smith & Hassler recently filed a lawsuit against a drunk driver who injured a Houston area woman in a three car collision last August. The drunk driver crashed his Honda Accord into the rear of an Acura, the Acura was in turn pushed into the rear of our client’s Ford Mustang. All vehicles were damaged, the drunk driver’s Honda had to be towed from the scene. The drunk driver was arrested by a Harris County Sheriff’s Deputy and registered a BAC (Blood Alcohol Content) of .201.  That is approximately two-and-one-half times the legal limit for intoxication in the State of Texas (anything at or over .08 BAC is legally intoxicated under Texas law). The drunk driver pleaded guilty and was convicted of DWI a month later.

Our client was checked by an ambulance at the scene because she was complaining of back and neck pain, but she chose not to be transported to the hospital right away.  She later went to the emergency room, then followed up with physical therapy and an MRI to help determine the source of her neck pain.

An attempt was made to reach a fair and reasonable settlement with Amica Mutual Insurance Company, the liability insurer for the drunk driver. Amica received the settlement packet (which included the client’s medical bills and records) and, even though they had been given 30-days to evaluate the settlement packet, the very next day responded with an offer of $1,100 less than our client’s medical bills.

Smith & Hassler filed suit right away. Hopefully with an opportunity to re-evaluate, Amica County Mutual Insurance will reconsider their evaluation of the claim.

Punitive damages (also known as exemplary damages) are money damages awarded not to compensate the injured person but for the purpose of punishing the person and/or company that caused the injury.  For example: if a highly intoxicated driver ran a red light and caused a motor vehicle collision that resulted in the other driver sustaining a broken arm, the jury could consider awarding punitive damages against the drunk driver to punish the drunk driver for her conduct. Punitive damages awarded would go to the injured person. The purpose of the punitive damages though is not to compensate, but to punish.

The standard for recovering punitive damages in Texas is set out in Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code Section 41.003.  Exemplary damages can only be awarded if the claimant (i.e. the injured person in an injury claim) proves by clear and convincing evidence that the harm they suffered results from: (1) fraud; (2) malice; or (3) gross negligence.

“Clear and convincing” is a higher burden of proof than usually applies in a civil case.  Usually the burden of proof for a civil claim for money damages is “preponderance of the evidence.”  Put another way, to recover punitive damages the injured person is held to a higher standard of proof than if they were suing for, for example, ordinary negligence.

It is also a requirement in Texas that a jury must be unanimous in their decision to award punitive damages.  That means in civil district court, 12 of 12 jurors must all agree to award punitive damages (or in county court at law, 6 of 6 jurors must agree).  To award punitive damages, the jury has to be in complete agreement: (a) to award punitive damages in the first place: and (b) on the amount of punitive damages they will award.

It is not always clear what type of conduct rises to the level of gross negligence that a jury would realistically award punitive damages for.  In cases where a drunk driver causes another motorist injury, attorneys almost always seek punitive damages when filing suit for the injured person and there is a high probability a jury would consider awarding punitive damages.  In a case where someone was texting while driving however, a jury may not be so ready to agree that such conduct constitutes gross negligence.

Insurance policies sometimes specifically exclude coverage for gross negligence, meaning if a jury were to awarded punitive damages against their insured for gross negligence, the insurance company would not have to pay those damages.

In our 20-year history Smith & Hassler has represented many injured individuals and their family members in injury claims against drunk drivers.  While we cannot guarantee specific results, we can guarantee our best efforts to make sure clients are fully compensated for all damages available under Texas law, including punitive damages when such occasions arise.

Smith & Hassler is pleased to announce a trial victory yesterday in an automobile accident injury case. The case is Cause No. 2009-38849; Pedro Arroyo v Jennifer Fares, In the 165th Judicial District Court, Harris County, Texas (Judge Josefina Rendon presiding). Some details of the case are discussed here: no attorney-client privileges are violated because the trial and the trial transcript are a matter of public record.

Smith & Hassler’s client, Mr. Pedro Arroyo, is a 40-year old self-employed construction worker with 3 children. On December 12, 2007 Mr. Arroyo was driving a Chevrolet van on the beltway 8 feeder road. When he reached the intersection of the beltway 8 feeder and Gulfbank, his van was struck by a 2006 Dodge Magnum station wagon driven by the defendant, Jennifer Fares, who was 19-years old at the time.

The impact was significant: both vehicles were badly damaged and had to be towed. Many of Mr. Arroyo’s construction tools that were in his van were damaged. The police investigated and Ms. Fares was issued a ticket for running the red light. An ambulance checked Mr. Arroyo out at the scene but he did not want to be transported because he was concerned about the safekeeping of his tools. After the collision Pedro had pain to his left knee, left elbow, neck and his low back.

The next day Mr. Arroyo saw a chiropractor at Houston Spine & Rehabilitation Center on FM1960. He was diagnosed with headaches and lumbar and cervical sprains/strains. Pedro left for his annual Christmas vacation to Mexico at that time and resumed treatment with Spine & Rehab on January 4, 2008 when he returned to the United States. Mr. Arroyo’s additional treatment consisted of an MRI of his neck, an MRI of his low back, a consultation with a pain management specialist (M.D.) and two visits to a board-certified orthopedic surgeon. Doctors suggested Mr. Arroyo get an epidural steroid injection (he never have the injection). He had a total of 14 visits to Spine & Rehab for physical therapy and chiropractic care.

Pedro’s medical bills came to $8,046.  Before a lawsuit was ever filed, Smith & Hassler presented Pedro’s claim to Allstate, Ms. Fares’ automobile insurer, hoping to negotiate a fair settlement and avoid a lawsuit.  Allstate initially offered Pedro an amount under $6,000 then finally made their “top offer” of $6,800.  Despite Smith & Hassler’s efforts to negotiate, both before and after the lawsuit was filed, Allstate never offered more than $6,800 (which is less than Pedro’s medical bills). The last settlement offer Smith & Hassler made to Allstate before trial was $15,000.

After hearing the facts and evidence during a one-day trial, during which the only witnesses were the Plaintiff and Defendant, Smith & Hassler attorneys Daragh Carter (lead) and Roger Sullivan asked the jury to award the following:

Past medical expenses: $8,046
Past physical pain: $2,500
Past physical impairment: $2,500
Past mental anguish: $1,500
Total: $14,546

Here is what the jury actually awarded:

Past medical expenses: $8,046
Past physical pain: $3,000
Past physical impairment: $3,000
Past mental anguish: $1,500
Total verdict: $15,546 (not including taxable court costs and pre-judgment interest).

It was very gratifying that the jury saw fit to award MORE than was asked for, and this speaks to the justice of Pedro’s case.  The case was defended at trial by the law firm G. Patrick Collins & Associates, who is Allstate Insurance Company’s in-house law firm.

This was a fair verdict for a deserving client. Smith & Hassler thanks Mr. Arroyo for trusting us with his case. At our firm we believe it is important a personal injury attorney be prepared to take a case to trial when necessary: if you are currently searching for a personal injury attorney to represent you, you might ask attorneys you are considering when they last tried a case to a jury and what the outcome was.

The American Association of Justice has released a top ten list of the worst insurance companies in America. Admittedly trial lawyer who represent injured plaintiffs, either in third party claims or in first party claims against insurance companies, have an interest in turning the public against insurers.  By the same token, trial lawyer deal with insurance companies daily and have first hand experience of how different insurers handle claims. The ten worst insurance companies from the AAJ’s 2010 list are as follows:

1. Allstate click here for CNN’s Anderson Cooper’s report on Allstate’s claims practices
2. UNUM
3. AIG
4. State Farm
5. Conseco
6. WellPoint
7. Farmers
8. UnitedHealth
9. Torchmark
10. Liberty Mutual

The AAJ’s full report on the 10 worst companies is available here.