|
gilliland |
Martin Tovar vs. Ed Ewing Award/Settlement for $5.2 million*
Martin Tovar was working as a landscape assistant in San Diego when a crane moving a palm tree swung and struck Mr. Tovar. Mr. Tovar suffered numerous injuries to his back, head and both of his legs. The case was settled against the workers compensation insurance company, and the uninsured general contractor. The personal injury settlement and Workers Compensation Award totalled $5.2 million dollars.
Estaban Olea vs. Nova Landscape and Construction Award $1.5 million.*
Estaban Olea was sitting on the back of his work vehicle as he and his co-workers were transporting material when the vehicles movements caused Mr. Olea to be launched from the vehicle. Mr. Olea suffered injuries to his head and back. The case was settled for $1.5 million dollars.
Norman Bonk vs. Hit Products Stipulation/Award 100% Disability, Lifetime Medical.*
Norman Bonk while working as a mold maker suffered injuries to his head, neck, back and right upper extremity, when he was attempting to remove product from a storage shelf, and the products fell on top of him pushing him to the ground. The case resulted in an award paying him two thirds of his average weekly wage for the rest of his life, and also providing him lifetime medical.
Parra, et al. vs. Hometown Buffets Inc. Settlement Death Benefits.*
Salvador and Javier Parra were both employed as dish washers at Hometown Buffet. One night after they finished working, they exited the restaurant and while sitting in their car, were shot and killed by an unknown assailant. The insurance carrier claimed that the Parras were not "working" at the time of their death. The case resolved for payment of death benefits to the surviving families of a confidential amount.
Jay Vorzimer vs. Sea Ranch Settlement $500,000.00.*
Jay Vorzimer while turning left onto Pacific Coast Highway was struck by oncoming traffic. Mr. Vorzimer's case had been turned away by three reputable Bay Area Personal Injury firms. After extensive discovery and heated litigation, the case settled for one half million dollars.
Juan P. v. Doe Landowner
In 1996, Juan P. was a migrant worker in Carmel Valley, California. He worked in a field near 5500 Black Mountain Road. One evening, a ranch hand working for a landowner on Black Mountain Road became drunk and started shooting a rifle at migrant workers resting on a berm. He hit Juan P. in the leg and buttock. Paramedics saved Juan P. from bleeding to death.
The defendants were sued for hate crimes and premises liability. AH&G was hired by the landowners insurance company to defend the landowner. The case was settled just before trial for a confidential amount.
Marshall v. Doe Law Firm
In this case, AH&G was retained by a La Jolla, California law firm to defend it against a lawsuit for legal malpractice and breach of fiduciary duty. The plaintiff, a Hollywood actor, alleged that he hired the law firm to oppose the renewal of a significant judgment entered against him by Wells Fargo Bank. Plaintiff alleged that the renewed judgment was entered solely as a result of the law firm’s negligence.
At trial, a Tulane University ethics professor testified for the Hollywood actor. He opined that the law firm indeed committed legal malpractice by not contesting wrongful service of process upon such a recognizable Hollywood actor. After deliberations, the jury awarded the La Jolla law firm a complete defense verdict on all charges.
Dunham v. Shell Oil Company
AH&G defended a manufacturer of polybutylene plumbing pipe in a construction defect lawsuit that was tried in the El Cajon Superior Court. The Plaintiff alleged that the polybutylene plumbing pipe contained a manufacturing defect because it did not adequately carry the hot water supply without disintegrating and thus causing leaks. The case was not part of the multi-billion dollar class action settlement made by other manufacturers of polybutylene plumbing pipe.
After an eight week jury trial, the jury found that polybutylene plumbing was not defective and awarded AH&G’s client a defense verdict.
Blossom N. v. Doe Homeowner’s Association
In this case, a homeowner in an affluent homeowner’s association near Rancho Santa Fe, California secretly operated a governmentally funded home for disadvantaged persons. One such person was a convicted sexual predator. One night, the convicted sexual predator climbed out the window and entered the estate of another homeowner within the association. From the darkness in the backyard, the convicted sexual predator watched AH&G’s client cleaning the dishes through the kitchen windows. After her 19 year old son left for the evening, the convicted sexual predator entered the home through the open garage door. He took a towel from the laundry room and entered the kitchen. He wrapped the towel around AH&G’s client’s head and assaulted her that evening in her kitchen. The case was tried in the Vista Superior Court. After closing argument and one day of deliberations, the case was settled for a confidential amount.
Doe v. Doe Law Firm
In 1991, a businessman sued his tax attorney for allegedly committing lawyer malpractice. The plaintiff was represented by a Beverly Hills plaintiffs lawyer. In 1993, shortly before trial, the Beverly Hills lawyer quit the case and the businessman had no lawyer to battle the tax attorney’s insurance defense lawyers. At that time, AH&G took over the case which was less than 90 days from trial. After pre-trial motions, and just before jury selection was set to begin, AH&G settled the case for a confidential amount.
Doe v. Doe Life Insurance Company
AH&G represented a woman from San Diego that bought a health insurance policy from the defendant. Plaintiff developed ovarian cancer and began treating with an oncologist. Over one year later, the insurance company denied coverage for the treatment and claimed that the plaintiff committed fraud by not fully disclosing her medical history during the insurance application. The parties mutually agreed to mediate the case before the former presiding judge of the San Diego Superior Court, Hon. Arthur Jones (ret). The parties were able to reach a settlement before Judge Jones. As a term of the settlement, the name of the parties and the amount of the settlement are confidential.
Doe v. Doe Law Firm
In this case, AH&G sued a lawyer for committing legal malpractice. The lawyer previously represented a client in a real estate fraud case. The lawyer failed to file the complaint before the client’s statute of limitation ran. Realizing the statute had expired, the lawyer prepared the lawsuit and filed it in the client’s name only (no attorney listed as plaintif's lawyer). At a subsequent hearing, it became clear that the lawyer signed the lawsuit, pro per, without the client’s knowledge or consent. A bench warrant issue for the lawyer and AH&G settled the malpractice case against the lawyer and his law firm for the limits on his malpractice insurance policy.
Doe v. Doe Grocery Store
On Christmas Eve, Plaintiff was shopping at a grocery store in San Diego. She slipped and fell on a wet and sticky substance on the floor. Plaintiff broke her hip and underwent a hip replacement surgery on Christmas Day. During surgery, she had a heart attack. AH&G settled the case for a confidential amount.
Doe v. Doe Product Manufacturer
AH&G represented a corporation that specialized in tree and vegetation removal. The corporation bought a tub-grinder that is transported on an eighteen wheel big-rig and is used to grind trees and tree stumps into greenwaste. After the six-figure purchase, plaintiff alleged that the tub-grinder did not work as well as it was represented. AH&G brought a product liability suit against the manufacturer of the tub-grinder seeking repair costs and over $500,000.00 in loss of future earnings. The case was settled confidentially before trial.
*This document may contain a Testimonial or Endorsement which does not constitute a Guarantee, Warranty or Prediction regarding the outcome of a legal matter.
Making a false or fraudulent workers' compensation claim is a felony subject up to five years in prison or a fine up to $50,000.00 or double the value of the fraud, whichever is greater, or both imprisonment and fine. |
|
