- Home
- Practice Areas
- Personal Injury Information
- Houston Personal Injury Lawyer
- What is a Personal Injury?
- Can I File an Injury Claim?
- Statute of Limitations
- What Makes Up a Strong Case?
- Personal Injury Damages
- Personal Injury Categories
- Vicarious Liability
- Injury Attorneys in Houston
- Houston Premises Liability
- Child Injury Cases in Houston
- Preponderance of Evidence
- Fire & Burn Injury
- Free Online Legal Advice
- Houston Personal Injury Law Firm
- Conroe Personal Injury Attorney
- More...
- Houston Pro Bono Lawyer
- Houston Personal Injury Accident Claim
- Houston PI Lawyer
- Houston Personal Injury Law Attorney
- Alternative Dispute Resolution
- Amputation Accidents in Houston
- Houston Personal Injury Legal Advice
- Spinal Cord Injury
- Houston Personal Injury Lawyers
- Houston Personal Injury Attorneys
- Mitigating Damages After an Injury
- Proving the Proximate Cause
- Thin Skull Rule
- Broken Bones
- Mediation in an Injury Lawsuit
- Houston Personal Injury Law
- Subrogation Reimbursement
- Best Injury Lawyer in Houston
- Wrongful Death Information
- Houston Wrongful Death Lawyer
- Statute of Limitations
- Texas Wrongful Death Law
- Texas Survival Statute
- Fatal Car Accidents
- Truck Accident Fatalities
- Plane and Aviation Fatalities
- Houston Fatal Boating Accidents
- Motorycle Accident Wrongful Death Cases
- Houston Work Related Death Cases
- Fatal Construction Accidents in Houston Texas
- Fatal Pedestrian Accidents in Houston
- Houston Elderly Wrongful Deaths
- Conroe Wrongful Death Lawyer
- 18-Wheeler Truck Accidents
- Houston Truck Accident Attorney
- Houston 18-Wheeler Accident Info
- Flatbed Trailer Accidents
- Trucking Accident Claim
- Cargo Related Trucking Accidents
- Intoxicated Truck Driver Accidents
- Unsafe Trucking Company Practices
- Commercial Vehicle Accidents in Houston
- Accidents Caused by Defective Truck Tires
- Houston Tractor Trailer Accident Lawyer
- Conroe 18-Wheeler Accidents
- More...
- Houston Truck Accident Lawyer
- Houston Dump Truck Accidents
- Accidents with Construction Vehicles
- Houston Truck Crash Attorney
- Houston Trucking Accident Lawyer
- Houston Truck Injury Lawyer
- Houston 18-Wheeler Accident Lawyer
- Flatbed Truck Accidents
- Houston Truck Accident Lawyers
- Houston Tractor Trailer Accident Attorney
- Big Rig Accidents in Houston
- Houston Truck Attorney
- Houston 18-Wheeler Attorney
- Car Accidents
- Houston Automobile Accident Attorney
- How the Claims Process Works
- Statute of Limitations
- Fatal Car Accidents
- Denied Car Insurance Claims
- Damages Available in a Car Accident
- Negligent Entrustment of a Vehicle
- Injury to a Child
- Rollover Accidents
- Can You Trust the Insurance Adjuster?
- Auto Accident Attorney in Houston
- Conroe Car Accident Lawyer
- More...
- Injured in a Houston Car Accident?
- How Property Damage Affects Your Personal Injury Claim
- Rear End Collision
- Head, Neck and Back Injuries
- Soft Tissue Injuries
- Car Accidents Resulting in Psychological Damages
- Accidents Caused by Drivers on Their Cell Phone
- Getting a Rental Car
- We can help you get Medical Attention
- How to Handle a Car Accident Claim
- Houston Insurance Attorney
- How Uninsured and Underinsured Claims Work
- How Personal Injury Protection (PIP) Works
- How Witness Statements Affect Your Claim
- Accident Mediation Process
- How to Handle Disputed Liability
- Drunk Driving Accidents
- On The Job Injuries
- On the Job Injury Attorney
- Worker's Compensation
- Non Subscriber Cases
- Injuries Caused by Machinery
- Houston Drilling Accident Injury
- Houston Mesothelioma Cases
- Forklift Injury Cases Houston Texas
- Slip and Fall Accidents
- Conroe Work Injury Lawyer
- More...
- Houston Lifting Injury
- Industrial Accidents
- Houston Warehouse Injury Attorneys
- Shiping and Receiving Dock Injuries
- Houston Carpal Tunnel Office Injuries
- Houston Delivery Driver Injuries
- Subscriber Claims and Workers Compensation
- Loading Dock Accidents and Waterfront Injuries
- Houston Oilfield Injuries
- Toxic Exposure and Asbestos Cases
- Construction Accidents
- Job Site Injury Attorneys
- Workers Compensation Cases in Houston Texas
- Houston Non Subscriber Cases
- Construction Site Hazards
- Heavy Equipment Injuries in Houston
- Electric Shock Cases in Houston Texas
- Crush Injuries on Houston Construction Sites
- Power Tools Injuries and Accidents in Houston Texas
- More...
- Trench Collapses in Houston Texas
- Houston Hazardous Chemical Exposure
- Construction Accidents Caused by Equipment Malfunction
- Scaffolding Accidents and Injuries in Houston
- Houston Road Worker Injuries
- On the Job Burn Injuries
- Houston Crane Accidents
- Fallling Injuries in Houston
- Structure Collapse Cases Houston Texas
- Maritime Injuries
- Product Defect Liability
- Prescription Drug Injury
- Medical Malpractice
- Birth Injuries
- Day Care Child Abuse
- Drowning Accidents
- Other Vehicle Accidents
- Personal Injury Information
- Successes
- Meet Our Attorneys
- Information Center
- Main Information Page
- Attorney Referrals
- Legal Term Glossary
- Glossary Terms "A"
- Glossary Terms "B"
- Glossary Terms "C"
- Glossary Terms "D"
- Glossary Terms "E"
- Glossary Terms "F"
- Glossary Terms "G"
- Glossary Terms "H"
- Glossary Terms "I"
- Glossary Terms "J"
- Glossary Terms "L"
- Glossary Terms "M"
- Glossary Terms "N"
- Glossary Terms "O"
- Glossary Terms "P"
- Glossary Terms "R"
- Glossary Terms "S"
- Glossary Terms "V"
- Glossary Terms "W"
- Mission Statement
- Recent Cases of Note
- FAQs
- Contact Us
Mr. Grossman helped us through a David & Goliath scenario where we were swallowed alive by overwhelming forces. In our moment of desperation, I knew we had made the right choice with Mr. Grossman. Your organization is for all of us who have always struggled, making justice for all a reality. With Mr. Grossman's help we were able to make a 180-degree life change.
-
J. Dodd
Houston Office Injury Attorneys
Do you have carpal tunnel or another office related injury in Houston, Texas? The Law Offices of Michael Grossman in Houston can provide you relief.
An “office injury” usually involves carpal tunnel syndrome from repetitive motion such as typing. But other more serious injuries occur.
Office and work related injuries can involve falling objects such as merchandise falling from shelving or defective rolling devices that are supposed to keep pallets of merchandise from causing injury.
Mesothelioma - Dangerous for Office Workers as Well
Office injuries can also include asbestos exposure. Many of the older office buildings around the country and specifically Texas used asbestos. Exposure to asbestos can lead to asbestosis that can lead to a rare form of cancer called mesothelioma. Mesothelioma is not as rare if the person has been exposed to asbestos fibers.
The symptoms of mesothelioma often times do not appear for many years after the exposure. The exposure leads to the microscopic fibers embedding in the lining of the lungs. The person will begin to feel shortness of breath and restricted breathing. Many times the doctor would misdiagnose the condition because the condition was extremely rare.
What can Grossman Law Offices do for my Office Injury?
The benefit of hiring Grossman Law Offices carpal tunnel attorneys in these types of cases is that we can help with the initial determination of whether or not the employer had workers' compensation coverage or not. The answer to this question is critical to understand which legal path to take. Please see our pages on “workers compensation” and “non subscriber cases” for more detailed information with regard to this issue.
After making the workers compensation determination, we can assist in developing the case both from a liability and damages angle. We can help obtain witness statements, hire expert witnesses and use a private investigator to obtain evidence that is critical to the case. We will contact the medical people necessary to prove the extent of the injury to the employee to “paint” an accurate picture for the employer, insurance company, opposing lawyer, or jury.
Some of Our Most Recent Successful Cases
Confidential Recovery - Wrongful Death / Commercial Vehicle Accident
(policy limits) Our attorneys secured a recovery against a major trucking company for the daughter of a man who was killed after his vehicle collided into an 18-wheeler which was blocking the roadway. Litigation is ongoing against additional defendants.
(policy limits) Our attorneys secured a recovery against a major trucking company for the daughter of a man who was killed after his vehicle collided into an 18-wheeler which was blocking the roadway. Litigation is ongoing against additional defendants.
Total Recovery:
Confidential
Confidential
Attorney Fees:
Confidential
Confidential
Litigation Expenses:
Confidential
Confidential
$75,000.00 Recovery - Workplace Accident (Soft-Tissue Injuries)
Recovery for worker who suffered soft tissue injuries when his fork lift was struck by a delivery truck.
Recovery for worker who suffered soft tissue injuries when his fork lift was struck by a delivery truck.
Total Recovery:
$75,000.00
$75,000.00
Attorney Fees:
$25,000.00
$25,000.00
Litigation Expenses:
$350.00
$350.00
$335,000.00 Recovery - Wrongful Death/ Commercial Vehicle Accident
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.
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.
Total Recovery:
$335,000.00
$335,000.00
Attorney Fees:
$134,000.00
$134,000.00
Litigation Expenses:
$63,000.00
$63,000.00
$1,450,000.00 Recovery - Commercial Vehicle Accident (Brain Injury)
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
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
Total Recovery:
$1,450,000.00
$1,450,000.00
Attorney Fees:
$560,000.00
$560,000.00
Litigation Expenses:
$31,410.00
$31,410.00
$550,000.00 Recovery - Wrongful Death / Workers' Compensation Gross Negligence
(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.
(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.
Total Recovery:
$550,000.00
$550,000.00
Attorney Fees:
$220,000.00
$220,000.00
Litigation Expenses:
$40,000.00
$40,000.00
$162,500.00 Recovery - Workplace Accident (Shoulder Injury)
Recovered for worker who injured their shoulder while lifting a heavy object.
Recovered for worker who injured their shoulder while lifting a heavy object.
Total Recovery:
$162,500.00
$162,500.00
Attorney Fees:
$81,250.00
$81,250.00
Litigation Expenses:
$3,784.00
$3,784.00
$150,000.00 Recovery - Wrongful Death / Workplace Accident
(policy limits) Recovery of a disputed life insurance policy for the family of a contractor who died on the job.
(policy limits) Recovery of a disputed life insurance policy for the family of a contractor who died on the job.
Total Recovery:
$150,000.00
$150,000.00
Attorney Fees:
$50,000.00
$50,000.00
Litigation Expenses:
$341.00
$341.00
$1,010,000.00 Recovery - Workplace Accident (Hand Lacerations)
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.
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.
Total Recovery:
$1,010,000.00
$1,010,000.00
Attorney Fees:
$333,300.00
$333,300.00
Litigation Expenses:
$50,000.00
$50,000.00
$300,000.00 Recovery - Commercial Vehicle Accident / Work Injury (Facial Fractures and Head Trauma)
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.
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.
Total Recovery:
$300,000.00
$300,000.00
Attorney Fees:
$120,000.00
$120,000.00
Litigation Expenses:
$9,807.00
$9,807.00
$226,000.00 Recovery - Workplace Accident (Shoulder Injury Requiring Surgery)
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.
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.
Total Recovery:
$226,000.00
$226,000.00
Attorney Fees:
$84,000.00
$84,000.00
Litigation Expenses:
$5,500.00
$5,500.00









