The Legal Examiner Affiliate Network The Legal Examiner The Legal Examiner The Legal Examiner search feed instagram google-plus avvo phone envelope checkmark mail-reply spinner error close The Legal Examiner The Legal Examiner The Legal Examiner
Skip to main content
| Bradshaw & Bryant PLLC

The first week of July in Harris County, Texas, a man who lost his leg from mid-thigh down, part of his right foot and all of his fingers received a verdict of $10 million. The man was injured after an allergic reaction to Heprin. Under the present law in Texas, he would have really received $250,000. The product of tort reform caps that Steve Lombardi has covered extensively here at the Injuryboard. But, because he was "lucky" enough to be horrible manipulated before the law was imposed he was able to receive a little justice.

Look at this case and do you see a frivolous claim? Was the law really meant to stop this sort of case from getting to court? Absolutely not. It was championed with talk of stopping frivolous claims and stopping scummy lawyers. And instead it created a haven for bad doctors, protects bad medicine and most of all saves Insurance companies money.

This case will hopefully open some eyes, or at the very least provide evidence for why other states shouldn’t steal the rights of the consumer. Justice needs to be available for everyone. Congratulations, that at least there was still a place for someone to be protected in Texas.


  1. Timothy Smith

    Here in Michigan, we have caps in certain claims on non-economic damages such as "pain and suffering" or "loss of society and companionship".

    Recently, insurance companies have tried to argue that the loss of services [the money a family would pay to hire someone to do the things around the house that dad did before he was killed - mow the lawn, shovel the snow, etc] that these are non-economic damages...... huh?

    How can money the family has to pay, out of their own pockets, to hire folk to do the chores/tasks that dad used to perform a non-economic damage? Typical B.S. argument from an insurance company looking to avoid paying what is due under a policy.

    Luckily, our Court of Appeals and newly re-configured Supreme Court saw through this boloney argument and shot it down.

  2. Gravatar for Mike Bryant
    Mike Bryant

    Glad to see the court saw it the same way. Thanks for taking the time to read and comment.

  3. Gravatar for Daniel 8791
    Daniel 8791

    Nice to see some justice still being upheld out there. Interesting stuff no doubt going on in Texas and Michigan, and it's probably just a matter of time before Minnesota sees some sort of "controversy" with similar situations. Kudos to both of you gentlemen on this effort.

  4. Gravatar for Mike Bryant
    Mike Bryant

    Hope not, the Minnesota system of affidavits are actually what other states should be looking at. Thanks for taking the time to read and comment.

Comments are closed.