Archive for new-filings
Doyle Raizner LLP has filed a Jones Act and general maritime lawsuit in Harris County against Nippon Steel & Sumitomo Metal (“Nippon Steel”) on behalf of an injured seaman. The seaman, a Field Project Manager and Supervisor, was engaged in sandblasting a Nippon-operated pipe lay barge when he suffered debilitating injuries to his neck and arms.
As owner and operator of M/V KUROSHIO, Nippon Steel was obligated to maintain a vessel of seaworthy conditions and fit for its intended purpose. This obligation was violated as the plaintiff, serving as a member of the crew, and servicing the vessel, was injured due to the company’s failure to provide adequate crew, proper equipment, operations, and other supportive elements.
This harmful condition violates the laws and regulations of the United States of America for vessels. Nippon Steel further breached its obligations of timely maintenance and cure payments to our client. This entailed a delay of medical evacuation from the vessel after the injury and failure to provide compensations required by law. This denial, despite the plain indications of the necessity, can only be described as willful, arbitrary, and capricious.
Doyle Raizner stands behind this client in his fight against a company refusing to honor its obligation as our firm continues to successfully represented clients against some of the largest maritime employers in the world.
If you or someone you know has been involved in any type of offshore accident, contact the experienced maritime lawyers of Doyle Raizner to discuss your options.
Last week, a series of huge storms swept through the Midwest and Texas, leaving a trail of tornadoes and hail in their wake. In Fort Worth, downed utility poles and damaged roofs were reported by the National Weather Service. A tornado touched down near Farmersville. Denton experienced large hail twice, with some being the size of baseballs.
Hail can especially cause massive damage to roofs, leading to later leaks, insulation problems, or even outright holes in a weak roof. In a commercial building, these repairs can be very expensive. Commercial structures are held up to a much higher building standard than residential structures. Insuring these buildings is expensive, and it can be difficult to get insurance companies to pay up. This can leave a business with little choice but to shutter the business until repairs can be made out of pocket. That means lost revenue, lost wages for your workers, and potentially a lost business.
Our firm can help you. Doyle Raizner focuses on commercial property case law, and we have represented a number of Houston-area businesses over the past few years. We handle insurance disputes for any type of business, large or small, that need a fair settlement to get back in shape. Call our offices today for a free consultation if you’ve been fighting your insurance company after the recent storms.
Doyle Raizner LLP has filed a commercial property insurance lawsuit in Hidalgo County, Texas, on behalf of a church. The insurance company that the church contracted with has failed to properly pay the church after the 2012 hail storms in Hidalgo County.
The plaintiff contracted with Church Mutual Insurance Company and was paying premiums. The hailstorms that swept through the county caused extensive damage to the structure, including the HVAC system, roofing, and interior damage. The plaintiff filed a claim against the damages with Church Mutual.
According to the plaintiff, the company sent untrained adjusters to examine the damage, and was offered a payment amount well below the costs of damages. The plaintiff asked for a second opinion from a second claims adjuster and asked them to work with Church Mutual. However, the insurance company has failed to pay out any form of payment for months.
Church Mutual accepted premium payments from the First Presbyterian Church but failed to provide the coverage it sold to First Presbyterian Church when actually needed, in violation of their insurance contract. When Church Mutual continued to remain in violation of its legal and contractual obligations, despite repeated attempts to work with them in good faith by the plaintiff, they retained legal counsel.
In failing to honor its contractual and legal obligations, Church Mutual may be liable for both the costs of repairing the church, but also interest, attorney’s fees, and other damages allowed under the law.
Doyle Raizner is working tirelessly on behalf of our client against this insurance provider that failed to live up to their end of the bargain. If you have been dealt with unjustly in a commercial property insurance case, contact one of our attorneys so we can examine your case.
In January 2011, June 2012 and August 2012, the plaintiff was involved in three incidents where he slipped resulting in injuries to his right knee. In each case the surface was maintained in an unseaworthy condition and not fit for its intended purpose.
Helix Energy was the owner and/or operator of M/V Q4000 and responsible for its dangerous and unseaworthy conditions, which caused the plaintiff’s injuries. The dangerous and defective condition of the vessel violated applicable laws and regulations of the United States of America for vessels, and accordingly Helix Energy is liable for negligence, negligence per se, and in strict liability.
Further, Helix Energy, as the responsible party, has an obligation of maintenance and cure. The company has failed to provide and continue to breach their obligations of timely maintenance and cure payments to the plaintiff.
Doyle Raizner stands behind this client in his fight against a company refusing to honor their obligation of safety. The lack of maintenance and cure is further evidence of a company’s disregard of laws set forth to protect injured seaman.
If you or someone you love has been injured on a rig, please contact the attorneys of Doyle Raizner.
Doyle Raizner LLP has filed a workers comp bad faith lawsuit against Zurich American Insurance Company and Sedgwick CMS. The plaintiff was an employee of Starwood Hotels & Resorts at the time of his injury.
The plaintiff was a cook for Starwood and was injured while in the kitchen. He suffered a fall against a freezer and injured his shoulder. Upon examination by an orthopedic surgeon, it was found the plaintiff had suffered a torn rotator cuff. The surgeon recommended surgery to repair the tear and ensure long-term recovery.
There was conflicting information on how the plaintiff fell, however, the Industrial Commission of Arizona during proceedings cited Arizona law confirming that the mechanism of injury is irrelevant; and that there was no legitimate dispute that the plaintiff did in fact get injured while in the scope and course of his employment.
Upon submitting a claim to Zurich American Insurance Company, the claim was handed to Sedgwick CMS, a third party claims administrator. Sedgwick assigned an adjuster who denied the claim. The adjuster did not properly investigate the claim and improperly denied the claim despite the fact the plaintiff was promised workers compensation as an employee of Starwood Hotels & Resorts. The plaintiff initiated proceedings with the Industrial Commission of Arizona who ordered the benefits paid.
These benefits do not fully compensate for the failure of Zurich and Sedgwick to timely recognize and acknowledge the nature and extent of the plaintiff’s injury, and to follow the law. The two companies also failed to accept the undisputed evidence regarding the claim. The companies’ representatives worked in an “outcome-driven” approach claim and created reasons to deny and delay his claim.
Doyle Raizner supports this plaintiff in his pursuit of justice against an insurance company and third party administrator who chose to breach their duty of good faith and fair dealing to an injured worker in need of compensation for an injury sustained while
Doyle Raizner has filed a RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act) lawsuit in the Federal District Court for the District of Arizona against York Risk Services Group on behalf of firefighters employed by the City of Phoenix whose workers’ comp claims were wrongfully denied. York is a third-party administrator of workers compensation and other types of insurance claims management. The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit ruled in Brown et al. v. Cassens Transport Company that a company may be held accountable under the federal RICO statute for scheming to withhold and/or wrongfully deny workers compensation benefits.
The suit was brought by eight City of Phoenix firefighters injured on the job. The proper paperwork and procedures were followed by the firefighters after each of their on the job injuries. York denied each firefighter’s claim by letter sent through United States Mail, and in each circumstance York refused these first responders medical treatment for on the job injuries sustained helping the residents of Phoenix. Each firefighter appealed York’s denial to the Industrial Commission of Arizona (ICA), the agency that administers state laws relating to workers’ compensation. In each individual appeal, the ICA determined that York wrongfully denied care to the firefighter.
The extent of the injuries each firefighter sustained varies; however, each was harmed financially, medically and emotionally. York’s fraudulent denial and lack of timely payments for the medical care of one firefighter resulted in her untimely death from work related cancer due to chemical exposure. Prior to her death, the financial loss due to York’s lack of payment resulted in her family losing their home. Another firefighter also lost her home due to financial hardship due to York’s denial of supportive care for the on the job injury. York ignored the Industrial Commission of Arizona’s ruling that rejected their denial for coverage, and continued to refuse payment in defiance of the law and administrative orders.
Doyle Raizner has filed a lawsuit against the maker of Mirena; an intrauterine device (IUD) that provides continuous birth control, on behalf of a woman whose IUD migrated outside the uterus resulting in the surgical removal of her right ovary and fallopian tube.
The plaintiff’s physician implanted the device without difficulty. During the six week follow up appointment, the device was in proper placement. A short time later the plaintiff was admitted to the hospital due to severe abdominal pain, nausea and vomiting. It was found at the hospital the plaintiff had a ligament abscess and infected Fallopian tube. She then underwent surgery to remove the right Fallopian tube, right ovary, the Mirena IUD and appendectomy. Since the plaintiff underwent this surgical removal of the device after uterine perforation, she has had difficulty conceiving a child.
Mirena has been scrutinized for the potential health risks associated with the device and the lack of warning of serious and dangerous side effects. Their overzealous and deceptive marketing tactics have also been subject to warnings from the Department of Health and Human Services’ Division of Drug Marketing, Advertising, and Communications (DDMAC) concerning their failure to communicate risk information. DDMAC also stated Bayer inadequately communicated Mirena’s indications and overstated the efficacy. DDMAC contacted Bayer in 2009 regarding a consumer-directed program that represented Mirena users would increase the level of intimacy, romance and emotional satisfaction between sexual partners. DDMAC determined these claims to be unsubstantiated and pointed out the package insert states at least 5% of clinical trial patients reported a decreased libido after use.
Bayer intended for their dangerous device to be promoted as safe and effective and as a result physicians began commonly prescribing Mirena even though it was not reasonably suited to the use intended. Bayer failed to exercise due care when advertising and promoting Mirena. Further, Bayer placed its profits above its customers’ safety by downplaying the serious and dangerous side
Doyle Raizner Files Negligence Suit on Behalf of Worker Injured on Grounded Vessel off Coast of Chile
Doyle Raizner has filed a negligence lawsuit against T&T Marine Salvage and Titan Maritime on behalf of a worker who was thrown 30 feet in the air and dropped on the beach landing on his back.
The plaintiff was an employee of T&T Salvage in Texas and the company sent him to Chile to work on the salvage of a grounded vessel offshore Puerto San Antonio. While on the shore operating a winch to unload cargo from the ship, the line on the winch broke. A cable from the vessel en-wrapped the plaintiff’s leg and body and launched him into the air.
After landing on the beach, he was rushed to the hospital where a pain shot was administered and the plaintiff was released. He was taken to a motel for three days without pain medication while waiting for a flight back to Texas. The plaintiff was taken directly from the airport to an urgent care clinic chosen by T&T Salvage where a pulled muscle was diagnosed, light duty and painkillers were prescribed. The plaintiff sought an independent physician who diagnosed two protruding discs in his back after review of a MRI.
T&T Salvage negligently failed to provide safe, properly maintained equipment and work facilities for the plaintiff’s use to carry out his job duties. The company also failed to provide proper training and supervision. Managers of T&T Salvage and Titan Maritime had obligations to safety they failed to uphold by proceeding with conscious indifference to the rights, safety and welfare of the plaintiff despite having awareness of the risk involved.
Doyle Raizner stands behind this client in their fight for justice and accountability for his injury and inability to work.
Doyle Raizner has filed a workers’ comp bad faith case against Gallagher Bassett and Ace American Insurance on behalf of an injured worker whose claim for benefits was wrongfully denied and unreasonably delayed. Ace American Insurance issued the workers’ comp insurance coverage under the Arizona Workers’ Compensation Act. Gallagher Bassett adjusts insurance claims on behalf of Ace American under the same act.
The plaintiff was injured in the scope and course of his employment in 2011, when another vehicle hit at a high rate of speed the truck he was driving. The collision resulted in traumatic brain injury, post-traumatic headaches, post-concussion syndrome, chest injuries, cervical spine injuries, among other injuries.
The plaintiff’s claim for benefits was initially accepted by Ace American and Gallagher Bassett. However, Ace American and Gallagher Bassett began to ignore their obligation to timely and appropriately approve reasonable and necessary medical treatment recommended by the plaintiff’s treating physician. Due to the denial of timely benefit payments to which the plaintiff was entitled, an attorney was hired to help secure the workers’ compensation benefits. A final and binding order was issued by the Industrial Commission of Arizona and required Ace American and Gallagher Bassett to provide the treatments. The commission noted the carrier had no evidence to controvert the plaintiff’s right to treatment and had not even bothered to appear to attempt to justify its wrongful conduct.
Ace American, as the plaintiff’s workers’ compensation insurer, breached their duty of good faith and fair dealing by refusing to properly investigate and effectively denying necessary medical care and other benefits, without any reasonable basis to do so. Gallagher Bassett acts and omissions were performed by it in its individual capacity and as an agent for Ace American. Gallagher Bassett knew the claim was not fairly debatable and substantially assisted or encouraged Ace American in delaying or denying the claim without a reasonable basis.
Ace American and Gallagher Bassett placed unnecessary