Case Studies

We represented an oil field floor hand injured at a worksite. Working with Stuart White, we focused the case—at the outset—on a company that re-certified hoisting equipment used at the wellsite. Its paperwork represented that new components would be used in the recertification process. When the hoisting system components failed, our client 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 equipment, 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.

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 I 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.

***

After the equipment case resolved, I kept pressing the operator-side and supervisory liability. The record showed this was not a single failure. Through document discovery and depositions, we exposed a broader breakdown in on-site safety that contributed to the injury: a rushed or incomplete JSA process that did not meaningfully address the known latch hazard and the hardware swap; lack of a documented inspection or sign-off before hoisting resumed over the rig floor; pace pressure; and weak drop-zone discipline before personnel were exposed beneath the load path.

With that record built, I pushed the case to mediation and the claims later settled for an additional $7,000,000, bringing the total recovery to $13,000,000.

I represented my client, an injured 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 the 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 the 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 to share data, culminating in national coverage in The Wall Street Journal by a leading aviation journalist. With the tide turning, the manufacturer notified owners it was reviewing landing excursions, issued multiple service and maintenance bulletins, and briefly grounded the fleet. After I filed a lawsuit against the manufacturer and a maintenance provider, the case settled early for $2,700,000.

Stuart White and I represented a family injured in an interstate highway crash in freezing conditions. Their priority was an early resolution, so I moved quickly to identify every responsible party with real funding and to build a record that justified pulling those parties into the case, including the shipper.

The crash sequence mattered. After the family’s vehicle was disabled in the median in icy conditions, a commercial tractor-trailer later lost control and struck them at highway speed. The driver was subject to hazardous conditions rules requiring “extreme caution,” speed reduction, and stopping when conditions become sufficiently dangerous. I used that framework, the weather/roadway facts, and the carrier’s own conduct to lock in “too fast for conditions” liability.

At the same time, I treated this as a chain-of-responsibility case, not just a driver case. I followed the load to the entities that selected the motor carrier, controlled key aspects of the work, and benefited from pushing performance metrics even when conditions required slowing down or shutting down. I focused early on the shipper’s role in carrier selection and oversight. That approach expanded the recovery path and created settlement pressure beyond the obvious defendant.

With the key parties identified quickly and liability framed in a way that was difficult to defend, we pushed the case to an early mediation. The case resolved for $1,650,000.

I represented a passenger in a tractor-trailer involved in a major highway crash. Taking an emergency response approach from my defense days, I retained an accident reconstructionist and secured the truck for preservation. We 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 used the carrier’s manuals, applicable Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations, the commercial driver manual, and the electronic data to lock 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, while 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 involved in the crash—no apportionment concessions, no unnecessary admissions, and discovery preserved—leaving a clean path to continue the case.

I represented a plaintiff who was stopped at a red light when he was rear-ended by a company driver. On liability, I focused on the hard data and the simple story. This was not a close call. The impact occurred because the company driver failed to maintain a proper lookout and failed to brake in time. That evidence gave the case a strong foundation and made it difficult for the defense to reframe the crash as unavoidable or trivial.

On damages, I made an intentional choice to keep the case credible. A potential mild traumatic brain injury was evaluated by treating physicians and ultimately ruled out. I narrowed the damages presentation to what I could prove, document, and explain without overstatement. I built the case around day-to-day impact and likability. I developed the plaintiff’s and family’s testimony around specific, everyday changes: what he could no longer do comfortably, what tasks became harder, what routines changed, and how the injury affected his work, temperament, and relationships. The point was to make the consequences real, consistent, and believable, and to present the plaintiff as credible, relatable, and easy for a jury to root for.

With liability anchored and damages framed around documentation and credibility, I pushed the case to mediation. The mediator’s feedback was direct: three similar cases settled for under $500,000 in the past year. The case resolved for $750,000.

I represented plaintiffs injured when a tractor-trailer lost control in heavy rain and caused a highway crash. From the outset, I built liability around objective proof and a straightforward theory: the driver was traveling too fast for conditions.

I established that point directly with the driver in deposition. I then reinforced it with weather evidence and liability experts, which corroborated the conditions at the time and connected those conditions to the driver’s speed, stopping distance, and loss of control. That record made it difficult for the defense to reframe the event as unavoidable.

The defense signaled they would challenge the plaintiffs and their likability at trial and try to turn the case into a credibility contest. I met that by building a corroborated damages and causation presentation. I coordinated counseling to document the day-to-day impact of the crash and support the damages story. I retained a biomechanical expert to address causation issues. And I used medical experts to support the injuries, treatment, and prognosis.

With liability anchored in the driver’s admissions and expert-supported weather analysis, and with damages and causation supported by counseling and medical proof, the case resolved for $600,000 after I disclosed experts.

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

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

My client made a full recovery and will live a normal life. I 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.