Case Studies

We represented an oil-field floor hand injured at a worksite. Working with Stuart White as lead counsel, we focused the case—at the outset—on a company that re-certified the lifting equipment for use at the wellsite. Its paperwork represented that new components would be used in the recertification process—the selling point to our client’s employer and the expectation in the field. When the lifting system failed, he suffered major head and neck injuries, was airlifted for emergency surgeries, endured a long rehabilitation, and now lives with permanent disability.

We obtained the failed assembly, disassembled it, documented part numbers and stamps, and matched each piece to the recertification file. The teardown showed refurbished and repaired parts, inconsistent with the “new” representations, and the condition aligned with how the failure occurred.

We built the procedural record and sequenced depositions from the top down. With the head of quality control, we established that new components were required for the relevant steps and that refurbished parts should not have been sent to the field. We worked through other employees involved in the process and then took the key deposition of the technician whose signature ran through the forms. Walking him through his own checklists, dates, photographs, and the parts on the table, we secured admissions that he lacked required qualifications for portions of the work, performed tasks he was not authorized to perform under company procedures, and that his work was approved and put into service. By the end, we had him dead to rights on the core points.

With the physical evidence, procedures, and testimony aligned, we served a detailed policy-limits demand immediately after the depositions. The carrier promptly paid the $6,000,000 limits. At the hearing to confirm the settlement, when we said we hoped to see opposing counsel again on another case, he replied, “respectfully, I hope not”—a quiet nod to relentless investigation and discovery.

I represented my client, a pilot, after a corporate aircraft ran off the runway and crashed. The NTSB’s preliminary report blamed him—citing low total time and that it was his first flight in that model without an instructor—and indicated it would finalize in under six months. I pushed back, engaged FAA leadership, and NTSB held off to conduct a full, manufacturer-focused review of landing-gear and landing-sequence issues.

Party status was denied, so I ran a parallel investigation with a former NTSB investigator, former FAA maintenance inspector, and an aviation engineer. We reviewed our aircraft’s maintenance and service history, gathered ATC and airport records, interviewed witnesses, and built a pattern analysis. That work surfaced four prior excursions and one subsequent event, plus additional unreported near-events consistent with the same issue—including an unreported development-phase excursion by a manufacturer test pilot. We identified a design issue in the landing sequence and, through a maintenance-provider whistleblower, a manufacturing defect tied to a flawed assembly-line process.

I developed and executed a media plan and organized owners and pilots of this model to share data, culminating in national coverage in The Wall Street Journal by a leading aviation journalist. Senior FAA leadership engaged, the manufacturer notified owners it was reviewing landing excursions, issued multiple service and maintenance bulletins, and briefly grounded the fleet. After a lawsuit was filed against the manufacturer and a maintenance provider for damages sustained by my client, the case settled early for $2,700,000.

I represented a passenger in a tractor-trailer involved in a multi-vehicle crash. With a quick-response team and an accident reconstructionist, we secured the truck, downloaded the ECM/EDR and ELD/GPS, and established speed, lack of braking, and time-and-distance facts consistent with failure to keep a proper lookout and inadequate following distance.

I deposed the driver and, using the carrier’s manuals, applicable Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations, and guidance from the commercial driver manual—together with the electronic record—locked in spacing and hazard-recognition expectations. In parallel, I dug into the driver’s background and the company file to build negligent hiring and retention theories, threading the needle given my client was a passenger.

Before the scheduled corporate deposition, the insurer tendered the $1,000,000 limits to get out. I structured the litigation approach so it did not undercut claims against the other driver—no apportionment concessions, no unnecessary admissions, and discovery preserved—leaving a clean path to continue that case.

We represented the parents of a teenager who was shot inside a friend’s apartment. With recovery options uncertain, we prioritized coverage work over formal discovery. We obtained the police and EMS materials, the lease and house rules, and confirmed the complex required renters-liability insurance. We opened the first claim under the apartment unit’s policy, and the insurer paid the $300,000 limits.

We then pursued the neighbor shooter’s liability policy. Despite coverage issues, we framed the claim to fit available coverage and pressed the carrier; it paid its limits as well, bringing the total recovery to $600,000.

Our client made a full recovery and will live a normal life. We coordinated his counseling and aggressively reduced medical expenses to maximize the net recovery.

I represented a driver who was stopped at a yield to enter a highway when a commercial truck hit her from behind. I rebuffed early settlement attempts from the company and its insurer and filed suit to force discovery—both to determine whether video existed and to develop avenues for direct negligence against the company. We located footage showing three separate impacts, not a single tap.

Keeping expenses lean with no paid experts, I set out a clear narrative of her injuries, treatment, and day-to-day impact, tied to the multi-impact video and the medical record. We made it clear we would try the case despite a conservative venue. The insurer paid $250,000. Two other occupants from the same vehicle, represented by another firm, resolved their claims for under $50,000 each.