Over 100 Million Dollars Recovered. Samples Below.

Spencer Morgan Law represented three injured victims in the crash. The semi-truck driver vehemently denied that he was running a red light. He told witnesses that a vehicle turned in front of him, causing him to steer away. He also told witnesses that his tire had blown out. Spencer Morgan Law undertook a detailed and thorough investigation to discover the truth. Our investigation included interviewing 8 eyewitnesses, securing the services of an expert trucking reconstructionist, and securing a video from a nearby convenience store. The video, obtained by Attorney Spencer Morgan, proved critical in the investigation because the truck's "black box," which would have provided speed information, was destroyed in the crash. The video provided three different angles of the truck as it approached the intersection. The video clearly demonstrated that the truck was traveling at excessive speed. With that video, our expert was able to determine approximate truck speed, which was excessive. Together with the video, eyewitness accounts, and expert reconstruction - including drone photograph of the accident scene, the attorneys at Spencer Morgan Law were able to build a strong case and establish that the semi-truck was the cause of this very serious accident. Spencer Morgan Law then recovered the $1 Million Dollar liability policy on the truck on behalf of their clients.

The Law Offices of Spencer G. Morgan, P.A. are experienced personal injury attorneys and have the resources and ability to combat insurance companies that can make it difficult to receive the monetary damages that should be paid to our injured clients.

Ms. G was driving her car at the proper speed limit when she was rear ended by another automobile without warning. At the time of the crash, she thought that she had some minor whiplash and was convinced how lucky she was not to have permanent injury. A year and a half after the accident her injuries were quite severe, and she chose to have neck surgery. THROUGH THE EXPERTISE OF The Law Offices of Spencer G. Morgan, P.A. the insurance company of the negligent driver paid Ms. G a $1,000,000 award. SPENCER G. MORGAN convinced the insurance company to make this settlement without a law suit being filed. This a concrete example of how important it is to have an experienced and competent personal injury lawyer representing your interests, The Law Offices of Spencer G. Morgan, P.A., through its resources, experience, and dedication to its clients, can assist its clients in obtaining the proper medical care when they do not have the proper medical insurance by getting them a Dr. who will wait for payment until the case has ended.

Given the time and resource commitment that would be necessary, we decided to work with another law firm with extensive federal court litigation experience, and we sued the retailer. Discovery revealed that the employee doing the stocking was employed by a distributor. We then sued that distributor. We obtained samples of every product that had been delivered that day. At least 7 products were powdery and matched the minor’s description of what was on the floor.

After we deposed the employee that was stocking that day. Confronted with pictures that the minor’s mother had taken after the clean-up had been done, the employee reversed his prior “I don’t remember” testimony. In stunning fashion, his memory was restored, and he confessed that the powdery substance was indeed scattered over the floor and that it was no more than 2-3 feet away from him. Although the distributor denied the powder came from one of its products, the conclusion became inescapable. The employee used box cutters to open the product boxes. And again, multiple products matched both the employee’s and the minor’s description of what was on the floor.

After three failed mediations, the parties finally reached a settlement of $850,000 on the eve of the trial. The trial court approved the settlement, as required for minors, along with a sound investment structure that was established for the minor, her medical care, and her future.

We are proud to have made a difference in the minor’s life. She will be able to get proper care for lifetime. As the medical profession learns more about CRPS, we hope that breakthroughs are made more effectively to treat CRPS.

This was a case that began in Federal Court, ended up in State Court, and had many depositions and involved experts. We put a tremendous amount of time into the case and incurred significant financial risk. We will always utilize whatever resources are needed to obtain the best possible result for the client.

Unfortunately for Mr. K, he sustained multiple severe injuries including a left dorsal wrist avulsion fracture and a right clavicle fracture distal with severe comminution and acromioclavicular separation. He had clavicle surgery on February 22, 2019, about a week after the accident. This required a highly regarded Eduardo Gonzalez-Hernandez, MD who we have a relationship with, to perform a complex open reduction and internal fixation of the right clavicle fracture under anesthesia.

The driver told Mr. K he was riding on the sidewalk, but Mr. K stated he was certain he was in the bicycle lane. The insurance company for the driver took the position that Mr. K was on the sidewalk, not the designated bike lane and that Mr. K was the cause of the accident. We immediately canvased the area for video and a home security camera indicated that Mr. K was in fact in the bike lane and that the driver accelerated rapidly from the stop sign and caused Mr. K to fall. We also contacted a witness in the police report who provided a statement and corroborated events.

Given the now overwhelming evidence in favor of our client and the serious injuries sustained as well as lost wages, the insurer quickly resolved the claim for a very significant amount subject to a confidentially agreement. The case settled without a lawsuit and within a short time after the accident allowing Mr. K the funds he needed to relieve his financial pressure and to obtain any medical care he needs in the future.

The assailant then fled Defendant Financial Institution. Defendant Financial Institution had no security guard present. Mr. X and his wife sued the Defendant Financial Institution. Mr. X required surgery to repair the eye socket which did not take place for four months. Five days following the surgery, Mr. X suffered a stroke at home while still recovering from the operation which resulted in irreversible brain damage. Mr. X became incapable of independent living and would require nursing home care the remainder of his life. Mr. X Alleges that Defendant Financial Institution should have had a security guard to deter the assailant’s actions or to intervene. Defendant Financial Institution argued it was not legally required to have a guard. Both sides hired qualified security experts. Mr. X contends that the store is in a high crime area and that the nature of the business called for a security guard. Defendant Financial Institution’s position was that guards do not necessarily reduce or prevent crime and in fact can create a more dangerous situation. The other challenging issue was whether the stroke could be related back to the original blow. On the causation of injury, Mr. X retained experts in neurology and neuroradiology. Defendant Financial Institution, likewise, hired several qualified experts including a neurologist, a neuroradiologist and an ophthalmologist. Ultimately, prior to trial, Plaintiff successfully resolved the claim. This allowed Mr. X to have assurance that he would have the care he needed for the rest of his life and for his wife to be financially secure. Plaintiff, along with co-counsel spent almost $100,000 in costs to prosecute this case. At Spencer Morgan Law, we will do what it takes to attempt to achieve optimal results.

The insurance company that represented the person whose car struck Ms. G. initially decided that our client was 100% responsible for the accident. They argued that she failed to use a crosswalk, the street was dimly lit and if she had used the cross-walk the accident would have never occurred. Through the successful efforts of The Law Offices of Spencer G. Morgan, P. A. the insurance company paid Ms. G. $300,000 which was the policy limit of the driver. In addition, The Law Offices of Spencer G. Morgan, P.A. collected an additional $230,000 from our client’s own underinsured motorist’s insurance company.

This is another example of The Law Offices of Spencer G. Morgan, P.A. are experienced personal injury attorneys and have the resources and ability to combat insurance companies that can make it difficult to receive the monetary damages that should be paid to our injured clients.

He blamed the “humid” floor. A worker who was employed by the house owners assisted him at the scene. There were no witnesses to the actual fall. Mr. B continued working but the pain would not allow him to continue.

Mr. B ultimately came under the treatment of medical providers and ended up having a cervical fusion at one level and an elbow ulnar transplant.

The Law Offices of Spencer G. Morgan theorized that the worker employed by the home owners must have hosed the patio down before Mr. B arrived and they should have known that he would be there at that time since he arrives there every Monday between 9:00 and 9:30 a.m., and they should have warned him of any wet or humid floor. We had no actual evidence at this point that the patio was hosed down or that the owners themselves knew when he arrived each week since it was not their primary home, and, they were not present at the time of the accident.

The Defendant’s position was that no one witnessed the fall, that if he fell the fall was his fault, as the soles of his tennis shoes appeared very worn, and that any wet or humid condition would be found to be open and obvious by a jury. In addition, the Defendant also asserted the need for both surgeries and most of the medical treatment was unrelated to any fall and, that due to his physical work history, any physical problems that he had were pre-existing. Both liability and damages were very challenging to say the least.

The Defendants denied the claim outright and The Law Offices of Spencer G. Morgan filed a lawsuit. We pursued the claim very aggressively, conducted discovery, and set the case for trial. Prior to trial, through intensive negotiations, we were able to obtain a settlement from the Defendant’s insurance company in the amount of $400,000. Mr. B was incredibly pleased with the result, as we were.

This accident was very unfortunate because Mr. W has a history of neck and back pain and this trauma caused aggravation resulting in a surgery requiring a disc replacement through the front of his neck and a need for a possible back surgery. The neck MRI was ultimately read by a well-respected board-certified neuroradiologist along with the surgeon, and they found neural foraminal stenosis at two levels. The original radiologist’s focus is gastrointestinal MRI reviews. Neuroradiologists specialize in neck and back abnormalities. Upon review and afterwards, Mr. W underwent a lengthy course of conservative treatment and injections for his neck and back. Eventually surgery was performed and the extruded disc herniation at C5-6 was replaced. Mr. W was found post-operatively to have a C5-C6 cervical disc herniation with bilateral radiculopathy.

After the neck surgery, the surgeon examined Mr. W. His neck was still sore after the surgery but his lower back pain persisted. The surgeon opined his back pain was aggravated by the February 11, 2019 accident and recommended back surgery. The defense argued he was already undergoing treatment for his neck and back, that he was litigious since he had previously filed a lawsuit for a car accident, and the minimal damage to his car could not have resulted in a need for surgery. They also argued the first radiologist did not see a change in the MRI, and they implied the second radiologist and the surgeon colluded to find the herniation.

Finally, after intensive negotiations with a possible back surgery looming and our aggressively and concisely distinguishing his previous medical history from his current problems, the insurer agreed to pay $350,000 rather than face a lawsuit. Mr. W was thrilled, and as an entrepreneur he will have the funds he needs to pursue his ambitions and obtain any future medical care he needs. Mr. W thought it would take 3 years or more to obtain a satisfactory result and it took us less than 1 year which was exceedingly fast.

Our investigation revealed that employees of a valet company had decided to speed in a patron’s car and had bounced off the entrance to a parking garage, lost control, and as a result hurtled into the bike stand. Initially, the insurance company asserted that due to the noise the oncoming car had made Mr. B should have been able to avoid the accident. They also argued that the owner of the bike stand did not install the stand up to code and if the bike stand were up to code, it would have withstood the impact and Mr. B would not have been injured. Finally, the insurance company argued Mr. B had felonies, the surgery was not necessary, and he had made an excellent recovery.

As a result of diligent investigation regarding the sufficiency of the bike stand, our aggressive investigation revealing that at least one of the valets involved had a serious criminal history, and forcefully advocating the necessity of the surgery, the insurance company ultimately agreed to pay $325,000. This was accomplished without the need to file a law suit.

The parents were injured and tragically the unborn baby passed away. Mr. Morgan overcame the liability arguments and convinced the insurance company the parents of the 23-week-old unborn who passed away were also entitled to a separate claim on behalf of the deceased unborn. Claims on behalf of unborns are not settled law but Mr. Morgan argued that since the time to have an abortion in Florida had then recently been lowered to 15 weeks by the Florida legislature and “viability” under medical malpractice law was around the amount of weeks the unborn was, that a claim was permissible. After extensive efforts, the insurance company agreed to pay $100,000 per claim which resulted in payment of the $300,000 policy limits.

The homeowner had no assets beyond a $300,000 homeowners insurance policy. Their insurance company rejected the claim because Mr. Vasquez was an independent contractor and because, it asserted, there was zero evidence of homeowner negligence.

After initial representation by another law firm who had not made any meaningful progress on the case, Mr. Vasquez contacted Spencer Morgan Law. We then decided to co-counsel with another law firm to share the risks and the work 50/50. We filed a lawsuit and after multiple depositions of family member and witnesses in the Tampa area, and Spencer Morgan personally spending several nights there, a picture started to emerge.

The elderly father of the homeowner was on the roof when Mr. Vasquez fell. Witnesses arriving shortly after the fall saw the man staring directly down at Mr. Vasquez. The elderly father, who had a history of strokes said he had no memory of the events. Depositions, however, revealed that the homeowner had specifically requested her frail father get up on the roof and inspect the work before Mr. Vasquez left. Depositions and the physical evidence also revealed that the father must have leaned on Mr. Vazquez as he finished the final touches on the roof. This is what likely caused Mr. Vasquez to fall. Finally, after two year of litigation, the insurance carrier paid the full $300,000 policy.

Mr. Vasquez and his family are thrilled since it seems to have relieved him of feeling responsible for the fall and the money will help him as he has struggled financially ever since this incident. We are honored to have represented Mr. Vazquez and never hesitate to do what is in the best interest of the client including co-counseling (when it makes sense) with other law firms. This allows us to take more risk on more challenging cases.

She sustained a displaced trimalleolar fracture, requiring two surgeries and the implantation of hardware. She had a couple of beers prior. We argued a large light on the parking deck that shines on the steps did not illuminate the bottom few steps making it appear when walking down that the last couple of steps were not there at all. We retained a highly respected engineer who inspected the steps and found code violation regarding the rise and run of the steps and the illumination. After allowing our client to give an informal statement and disclosing our theories and the engineer’s findings, the property owner agreed to resolve the case for $275,000. We regularly utilize experts as necessary to put the best possible case forward and to demonstrate that we are prepared to litigate cases if necessary.

... consequently dragging Mrs. G several feet until the car finally came to a stop. Mrs. G was ultimately able to free her foot, and started dragging herself away from the car and sat down.

Mrs. G was diagnosed with fractures on several of her toes, contusions, abrasions, and friction burns on her left foot and toe. Mrs. G then went back to her native Spain where she was treated. Through our guidance, she was examined by doctors of many different specialties. These reports from multiple specialists, coupled with a comprehensive presentation of her claim and aggressive legal representation, resulted in a $250,000 settlement. The client and her husband were extremely satisfied with the result and not to have to litigate the matter in court.

There is no fee or cost to you to have your case evaluated by our qualified staff and attorney. In cases such as the one described, your personal injury attorney is very familiar with the disabling nature of many injuries. Your choice of legal representation can make a big difference in the outcome of an accident case. Each case is unique with particular circumstances and factors and you need a lawyer who will treat your case individually, with the expertise and years of experience to provide you with skilled representation and a successful conclusion. Call Attorney Spencer G. Morgan at 1-866-667-4265 to speak with him today.

Mr. Harris had previously passed out and fallen the day before due to anxiety from personal issues he was having, and he has a prosthetic leg. Further as a chef, he had used the same shoulder he injured repeatedly in the past for work. It was also not clear who had left the water there as there were up to 3 cleaning companies that could have been involved. Mr. Morgan presented pre-suit demands to the building owner, a maintenance company, and then a second maintenance company after ruling out a third maintenance company. All denied the claim disputing they were responsible, arguing Mr. H didn’t slip as a result of the water, that he had just gone through the door where the mats were and stepped on them and didn’t fall, many others had walked on the mats and hadn’t fallen as seen in the video, that he did not need the surgery, if he did need the surgery it was due to his prior repeated use of his shoulder, and that he had pre-existing shoulder problems. Upon the denials, Mr. Morgan teamed up with another trial lawyer and filed suit. Working the case together, they investigated the scene twice and discovered that a particular cleaning company did overnight cleaning at the restaurant and water had seeped underneath the door into the hallway before. And all it would have taken to prevent the seepage would be to place commercial “socks” under the hallway door. In fact, it was learned that the same cleaning company had flooded the elevators located in the kitchen several months before which resulted in the elevators being shut down for several weeks. After much investigation and discovery, the taking of many depositions, attendance at multiple medical exams, the retention of medical experts, and preparing the case for trial, they attended mediation. While receiving a substantial offer at mediation, Mr, Morgan and co-counsel decided it was not good enough and kept preparing for trial. With trial fast approaching, the Defendants buckled and finally settled the claim for $225,000 The bulk of the settlement funds came from the cleaning company and the rest from the building owner. The cleaning company had also tried to argue they got off work at 2:00 a.m. and the accident was at 8:30 am and it couldn’t have been them. The client was thrilled with the result and our efforts. After negotiating his medical bills and liens substantially down, he was left with a significant portion of the recovery. Further, Mr. Morgan was able to get him an additional recovery by referring him to a workers compensation attorney since he was clocked in to work. At Spencer Morgan Law, we will do whatever we can to help our clients, including teaming up with other lawyers, and doing whatever it takes in terms of investigation and discovery to obtain the maximum recovery for our clients.

Mr. M was diagnosed with neck and back injuries as well as headaches. He was placed on a course of conservative treatment. Afraid of having medical bills he couldn't pay for, and wanting to continue working, Mr. Maldonado had stopped treatment for some time. Many months later, due to his continuing pain, Mr. Maldonado returned to the spine surgeon he had seen after the accident and that Doctor recommended that a back disc be removed and the discs fused. Over a year after the accident on June 22, 2017, the surgery was performed.

The truck's insurer argued that his occupation of drywall finisher requires him to stand on stilts which are anywhere between 5-12 feet high and his continual bending and walking on stilts after the accident was the real cause of the need for surgery. Nonetheless, we aggressively pursued the claim and were able to secure a $225,000 settlement with the client getting over $100,000 in his pocket after attorney's fees. This requires us to get the medical bills massively reduced. We did all of this without filing a lawsuit.

The restaurant, the owner of the parking lot, and the property management company, all denied liability, stating that the pothole was an open and obvious condition that Mrs. Y should have seen. They claimed that Mrs. Y had been to the restaurant many times before and was familiar with the parking lot. In addition, it was learned that she had previously had a hairline fracture in the same shoulder and the restaurant and property management company argued that her condition was pre-existing.

As a result, a lawsuit was filed against four parties, including a valet company that did not have applicable insurance. Through aggressive and thorough discovery, The Law Offices of Spencer G. Morgan, P.A. were able to secure testimony from the property management company and property owner that the condition was, in fact, dangerous and with a trial date set, convinced the Defendants to decide between themselves their share of responsibility. In due course, they conferred and agreed to pay a total of $225,000. Ultimately, the Defendants admitted that they were 100 percent at fault and that our client did not share responsibility for the unfortunate accident.

Clients need to know that they have the ability to challenge the findings of insurance companies. Once challenged, claimants frequently receive coverage that was previously denied, as well as being found to have no liability in an accident. Anyone who has been involved in a slip and fall accident or any other type of personal injury matter should contact our experienced lawyers for a free consultation to determine if an insurance company is treating them fairly. Our experienced lawyers can negotiate, settle, or litigate with the powerful insurance companies on behalf of clients to ensure that they receive fair compensation for their injuries. If there is no recovery, The Law Offices of Spencer G. Morgan, P.A., charge no fees or costs to clients.

The Defendant building was in the middle of designating defects for its county required forty year certification but there was no warnings regarding the defects that caused Mr. C to fall., Spencer Morgan Law immediately retained an expert engineer expert and performed a site inspection indicating many defects. The building denied the claim advising there were no defects in the area and Mr. C was trespassing, and his description of the fall was suspect. They made a "nuisance" offer of only $15,000. We then filed a lawsuit on behalf of Mr. C. alleging the building failed to maintain a level floor, repair it, waited until the 40 year recertification to start any kind of effort to maintain the floor and keep the surrounding area safe, that they left distracting garbage and debris in the area, implemented a negligent mode of operation in the monitoring and maintaining of the garage floor, violated portions of the Americans with Disabilities Act, and they were aware of the dangers.

Defendant filed a Motion for Summary Judgment as well that we had to fight through. After voluminous litigation including many depositions, the building agreed to pay $200,000. Our client, a retired veteran and humble Texan was extremely grateful for the result and how hard and successfully we labored to get his medical bills and liens reduced.

Ms. K was traveling with her sister then 16-year-old Ms. J who was in the front passenger seat and her friend who was behind the driver's seat. Her car seemed to be overheating and she purposely drove off the right shoulder 4 or 5 feet inside the v-shaped patch of grass between the road and the exit ramp and stopped the car and put her flashes on. She got out and checked the engine, realized it had overheated, and then got back inside the car. The next thing she remembered was a violent high-speed crash into the rear of her car. Her airbags deployed. They later learned they had been struck by an Acura TLX that had traveled off of the roadway and crashed violently headlong into the rear of her car. His airbags deployed as well. Ms. J and Ms. K were injured.

Ms. J and K's mother, Ms. J's friend, Ms. K, Ms. K's friend and a cousin, went to visit the at fault driver at the hospital because he was in the same hospital because they heard he was seriously injured. He said he had come from a party and had been drinking alcohol and the hospital told him he was above the limits. His said mother was very upset with him. He started crying and was very remorseful and apologized profusely to them.

We attended a pre-suit mediation and provided photographs of the x-rays indicating Ms. J's fracture and the insurer agreed to pay the $100,000 almost immediately.

Ms. K's claim was more challenging because she had soft-tissue type injuries and moved out of state after the accident. We found her a medical provider who would see her and not charge until the injury claim was resolved as she did not have insurance. However, she did not treat very much. We forcefully argued that while there was no medical evidence at this point that the at fault driver was drunk, that we had multiple witnesses who would testify about what the at-fault driver stated at the hospital. We argued we would be able to prove he was drunk and that would increase the damages award significantly.

Even though Ms. K had less than a dozen treatments and fortunately did not sustain a serious injury, the insurance company agreed to pay $87,500 to resolve her claim. Both clients were thrilled. We are also in the process of guiding Ms. J through the Court system for approval since she was a minor. Every case is different and finding the "right buttons to press" can make all the difference in maximizing the recovery for clients.

Ms. J sustained a revealed a distal 1/3 humeral shaft (upper arm) fracture with butterfly fragments medially. They splinted her with a cuff and a collar at 90°. She has not been healing well and may have a displaced fracture and apparently, she was advised at Jackson that they now recommend surgery where they want to insert plates and screws. Basic internet research shows the last growth plates to close those of the long bones at 16 to 17 years old in girls and that is a concern here. Ms. K was diagnosed with neck back and hip problems including but not limited to sprained ligaments and a concussion with loss of consciousness as well as a cute posttraumatic headaches and restricted range of motion. She also suffered scarring close to the temple of her right eye and has headaches that are focused a couple inches right above where that scar is. She has 21 treatments to date. She had a lumbar MRI in North Carolina which showed disc bulges at L3-4, L4-5, and L5-S1. At L3-4 she had neural foraminal narrowing, facet hypertrophy at L4-5, and at L5-s1 facet hypertrophy and neural foraminal narrowing.

She has ringing in her ears and needs to be evaluated for tinnitus, Her neck hurts and bending and picking up her nieces are difficult for her. She is extremely unhappy with the permanent scarring by her eye. She is having trouble with headaches and forgetfulness. She will need to see an orthopedic surgeon and a neurologist and clearly needs a brain, thoracic, and cervical mris. She is a senior and takes online courses at Miami Jackson. she had been on the track team all throughout high school and middle school and had been considering returning to the track team which could have possibly led to a scholarship. She is having a lot of pain and discomfort and that has to be sidelined for now. She has almost $20,000 in bills to date including over $13,000 with Jackson. Her pip canceled on June 3, 2018 for nonpayment so all of the bills are outstanding. She was prescribed a back brace and a cervical collar which she wears regularly.

She is currently back living with her mother in South Florida where she plans to obtain additional medical care and it will also allow her mother to attend her since while she is technically an adult she is still young and needs her guidance.

Each of these claims is clear 100k tender. Drea the 1 year old never saw a pediatrician and her mother has not presented a claim to date.

The rehabilitation center tried to claim she had a “drop foot” and could not walk anyway but this was not accurate. Ultimately, after vigorous investigation and taking the statement of the negligent nurse, they settled the matter without the need for a lawsuit for $175,000. This money will enable her to obtain better care and home-health care in the future. Mr. Morgan teamed up with another lawyer who routinely handles these types of claims to achieve these results and will regularly do so when it is in the best interest of the client.

Notwithstanding these arguments, Mr. Morgan aggressively pushed the case and threatened a potential “bad-faith” claim against the insurance company if they did not tender the insurance policy limits. The insurance company elected to pay the $100,000 policy limits rather than face a lawsuit from Mr. Morgan. Mrs. A was very pleased with the result, and what she ended up with after Mr. Morgan negotiated the medical bills down. Further, Mr. Morgan was able to secure $60,000 for her husband, Mr. A, who sustained neck, back, and wrist injuries. The insurance company made the same arguments about his advanced age and physical work history. Fortunately he was feeling much better at the end of his treatment, he did not have surgery, and he was extremely pleased with the $60,000 settlement. Collectively, the settlement was $160,000 which will enable this older couple to enjoy their golden years.

Liability was very, very bad since she had walked up the stairs on the way up in the dark and was the first one to go down the stairs. The stairs had a railing and she didn’t use her cell-phone flashlight. She is also obese which could have contributed to the fall. She also was presumably rushing since she was turning 21 that night and was excited to go to the bars. We also had no evidence the landlord knew the light was out and her friend who was living there would not cooperate. Another tenant says it wasn’t even out. The Defendant was corporate owned and they testified they inspected weekly.

However, Mr. Morgan was not deterred. Due to Mr. Morgan’s aggressive investigation and zealous representation, Mr. Morgan was able to resolve the matter without the need for a lawsuit for $155,000. Young Ms. B was thrilled and the money allowed her to pay her medical bills and get a jump start on her adult life.

As a result, Mr. M sustained a tibia/fibula fracture which are fractures of the two main bones in your leg. Due to claim denials from the company that he worked for ("his employer") and the company that hired the company he worked for, ('the event company"), a lawsuit was filed. We co-counseled with another law firm and we both actively worked the case together. We retained an expert on "mules" and whether they constitute a dangerous instrumentality which would make the lessor, in this case the event company, responsible even if the driver who worked for his employer was responsible for the accident.

We filed a summary judgment on this issue to pressure them complete with affidavits. We performed a site inspection at the beach itself where the event happened. We went to a store that leases mules to better understand them. We even went as far as picking up a witness and driving them to a deposition when they needed transportation. We also had Mr. M's phone downloaded to try to retrieve potentially helpful photographs. The Defendants tried to claim Mr. M and the mule driver stole the vehicle and they weren't responsible for the negligent driving or that Mr. M was not properly belted on the mule.

Due to our persistence, on the eve of trial, Defendants agreed to pay $150,000. The client was extremely satisfied with our dogged effort and what he put in his pocket after fees and all expenses. When it seems logical for Spencer Morgan Law to do so, we will not hesitate to work with other seasoned lawyers to share the risk, time, and expense to get the best possible results for our clients even on very challenging cases such as this one.

As she stepped on the rug, her foot sunk causing her to lose her balance. Unfortunately her knee struck a concealed raised metal border causing her to injure her knee and ultimately causing her to undergo arthroscopic knee surgery. The area under the rug was lower than the surrounding flooring. We then proceeded with claims against the financial institution, a general contractor, and a sub-contractor. The claim was initially denied due their arguing the lower area was only ¼ of an inch lower than the surrounding floor, and video allegedly showed her walking in circles for 30 minutes not paying attention. We argued that they purposely concealed the lowered area for the sake of looks and chose aesthetics over safety. We further argued customers should be able to walk freely without having to worry about a concealed uneven surface and people walk around and talk on their phones all the time. We reminded them under Florida law, a non-delegable duty exists to maintain property for business invitees such as Ms. G and to warn of latent (hidden) dangers. The removed tile concealed by the throw rug coupled with the sharp, metal edging, certainly constituted a concealed danger. Further customers were invited to walk in that area by the presence of furniture including a chair. We reminded them the area was under construction and should have been cordoned off with tape or cones or signs placed to warn of latent dangers. Cones were available as one was placed after the fall. We also had an independent witness who was willing testify Ms. G did not walk in an abnormal manner prior to the fall. After determined effort, we were able to secure a settlement of $150,000.00 for Ms G. who was thrilled with the result.

After conservative treatment, including pain management, failed, Mr. M ultimately elected to undergo a minimally invasive back surgery. The insurance company attempted to say the surgery was not necessary and the procedure itself did not even rise to the level of it being called a surgery. Ultimately, the insurance company elected to settle the case without a lawsuit having to be filed for $125,000 than go to Court. This settlement left Mr. M, who was uninsured, in a position to pay his medical bills off and to retain significant money for his pain and suffering. He was very pleased with the result.

Even though the scarring is minimal he will live with it for the rest of his life.

Because of the physical injuries that occurred in the accident, he was compelled to see an Orthopedic physician who recommended an arthroscopic decompression of his left shoulder. The physician recommended a follow up with a neurologist, a plastic surgeon, and possibly a psychiatrist. Mr. X failed to follow up with any of the medical providers that were suggested to him.

The Law Offices of Spencer G. Morgan, P.A. through aggressive representation and the willingness to litigate and try the case, secured a settlement of $125,000. This was an outstanding result because the client refused to follow the doctor’s advice, visit the suggested physicians and have the recommended surgery. Fortunately, he is able to continue his job as a furniture upholsterer. He has no plans to see any more medical providers for his injuries related to the accident and was quite pleased with the settlement.

Mr. S initially was diagnosed with sprained ligaments in his lumbar spine, and injuries to his left hip, left shoulder and he had headaches. After two visits and with his left shoulder still hurting, he was referred for a left shoulder MRI which showed post-surgical changes in the greater tuberosity related to a prior supraspinatus tendon repair as well as a recurrent full-thickness tear in the distal anterior fibers of the tendon, some AC joint arthritis and bursitis as well as mild bicep swelling.

Importantly, while Mr. S had a left shoulder surgery 15 years before the accident, we argued that he had been pain free ever since his routine recovery. Mr. S was referred to a well-respected board-certified orthopedic surgeon we work with. He diagnosed him with left shoulder moderately severe tendonitis, impingement with an anterior supraspinatus rotator cuff tear, biceps synovitis (acute/new re-tear), as well as left lumbar / pelvic sprain and tendonitis as well as some synovitis, and some spondylosis aggravation.

Due to his continuing pain, he had surgery. On November 8, 2018, he underwent surgery which consisted of a left shoulder arthroscopic complex double-row plus multi-cuff repairs including large 3+ cm retracted supraspinatus re-tear and partial infraspinatus tear with removal of scar tissue and prior suture material including synovectomy, labral fraying, debridement, acromioplasty, subacromial decompression, formal closed manipulation under anesthesia and platelet-rich plasma autologous grafting as well as humeral head chondroplasty of local traumatic-appearing 8-mm grade 2 to 3 OCD surface lesion.

We argued while the surgery has helped him, he continues to experience pain at the extremities of his range of motion, and cooler and inclement weather also cause him some discomfort. He also tends to “guard” his shoulder in crowds. When he drives, he now places the shoulder strap under his shoulder to avoid pain. We also argued Mr. S comes across very candidly.

While the insurer did not contest liability, they did argue the impact was minimal and could not have caused a need for surgery. They also argued he was 70 and his prior shoulder surgery was why he was having problems. They also disagreed the MRI showed a re-tear. Nevertheless, due to our aggressive representation, the quality of the medical providers he saw due to our relationships, the insurance carrier agreed to pay $120,000.00. Mr. S was thrilled and was not expecting the magnitude of the outcome.

When MS. Y was a 15 year old girl, she was at WalMart with her parents shopping. Part of the reason they were in the store, was to collect cardboard boxes from Wal-Mart. The store has a policy of allowing people to rake rheir boxes without charge, and since her parents were in the landscaping business, they used the boxes to store their supplies. While collecting the boxes, MS Y slipped and fell in the employee section of store and injured herself 1-Marr had a video ofMS Y going back and forth with the boxes in a rapid manner and slipping and falling in that section of the store. One of the reasons that she fell, was that there was liquid on the floor. The store conceded that there was liquid on the floor, but argued that it was clear, clean and couldn’t have caused the fall.

Wal-Mart alleged that because she was rushing to collect the boxes, she wasn’t paying attention to the liquid, and shouldn’t have been in the employee section of the store. What made this case difficult and challenging, is there was no hard evidence to suggest that the store knew or should have known about the liquid. Fire-rescue was summoned to Wal-Mart and their report indicated no signs of visible trauma or any body parts that were injured. However, her primary care physician, shortly thereafter prescribed treatment for her left knee. Her: MRI, which was taken shortly thereafter, showed a dislocated kneecap with a small fracture fragment. This problem and the fact that she was found to have a high patella was questionable concerning the slip and fall, and the recent trauma. It may have been pre-existing, and she underwent a knee procedure 8 months after the accident. Wal-Mart had a strong argument because MS Y didn’t have health insurance, and used this incident to have surgery on her knee.

Mr. Williams ultimately underwent a right shoulder surgery. Initially the at-fault driver’s sub-standard insurance company disputed that Mr. W was even in the car. We prepared a detailed affidavit for Mr. W to execute and asked him to go to the police department and try to add his name. This ultimately convinced the at-fault driver’s insurance he was in the car and to tender (pay) their $10,000.00 policy limits. We then made a demand against the insurance company for the car Mr. W was in at the time under the underinsured motorists coverage portion of that insurance policy. They ultimately agreed to pay another $100,000.00 after we pushed aggressively and threatened to take them to court. This resulted in a total settlement of $110,000.00 for Mr. W. Mr. W did not have health insurance and we negotiated his medical bills down for him as much as possible. Mr. W felt much better after the surgery and was very happy about the amount of money he ended up with in his pocket.

Due to the very serious nature of the injuries without any of the medical records, Mr. Morgan immediately demanded the two policy limits of $10,000 and $100,000 and advised the insurance companies if they didn’t pay promptly by a certain deadline, the limits would not be accepted again, and he would sue them for “bad-faith.” He advised them they could meet the client at the hospital and that he didn’t need to send them any proof of her injuries given the publicly known facts due to the accident’s coverage on tv and the news. The insurance companies both “caved” and paid their full policy limits by the deadline. Then Mr. Morgan and his team managed to negotiate down and resolve the high medical bills. After doing so, the client ended up with a substantial amount of the proceeds to attempt to re-start her life. Ms. D was as pleased as she could be with the results.

The impact caused Ms. V to land hard on her knees and the container ended up basically on top of her. We argued the employee failed to make sure the path was clear, and, he also likely lost control of the container on a sloped garage entrance area leading to the hotel. She was injured due to the trauma.

Due to our relationships with an outstanding and credible surgeon, she ultimately underwent a needed arthroscopic knee surgery with the chief orthopedic surgeon of a prestigious and highly rated hospital. The surgeon agreed to perform the surgery on a letter of protection basis wherein he would agree to wait to get compensated after the claim was resolved due to his trust in our abilities. As she did not have health insurance, this was critical.

The commercial cleaning company initially denied the claim and argued they had cordoned off the area. They argued Ms. V actually walked into their designated work area and Ms. V caused the accident. They also contested the need for the knee surgery. We aggressively investigated the claim by interviewing witnesses, obtained the helpful 911 audio, and scene pictures. Due to our diligence and aggressiveness in proving liability, combined with the credibility of the treating surgeon, they agreed to resolve the claim for $105,000.

The client was thrilled and this provided significant needed funds for Ms. V after to paying her accident related medical bills.

She was transported to a local hospital where she had surgery consisting of an open reduction where hardware was implanted. Given the severity of her injury, she decided to pursue a claim against the homeowner’s insurance of her friend. She then retained our firm.

We immediately secured the right to have our investigator go to the scene. He investigated the landing above the stairs where she fell with a leveler and his senses. What we learned is that the edge of the landing where it meets the top step is not seamless and it depresses, causing it be unlevel, and a trip hazard. When we learned of this, the homeowner advised the friend. The friend told Ms. C, she had some work done there recently and she herself had tripped there before.

We argued the homeowner knew of the dangerous condition and failed to advise Ms. C. causing the accident. The homeowner’s insurance was skeptical of the claim in part because Ms. C’s hospital lab tests showed xanax in her system, as well as medication for a bipolar disorder, and alcohol. The labs also showed trace amounts of cocaine. Our client had last done cocaine several days before the fall. We argued that it was not in her system at the time of the fall and not relevant. She also has a long history of mental disorder and recreational drug use.

We permitted the homeowner’s insurance to take our client’s unrecorded statement and let them explore her drug use and medical history. Afterwards, we gave them a time limit demand to pay the insurance policy limits as well as the sometimes overlooked $2,000 in medical payments coverage.

Due to our diligent investigation, aggressiveness, transparency, and willingness to take the case to court, the insurance company agree to pay their full $100,000 insurance policy limits and the medpay coverage. This was done without a lawsuit and within 5 months of the accident. Ms. C who has had a very tough life was thrilled and this money can help her with future medical care and living expenses.

When she looked to see what caused her to fall, there was a white-sand like substance that seems to have turned into a gel that was all over her body. The white substance seems to have extended from 5 – 10 feet. She was wearing sandals. An incident report was prepared. After conservative treatment failed she ended up having arthroscopic surgery to her knee. The defense argued a cone was nearby and the substance was open and obvious. They also contested the need for the surgery. After filing suit and aggressive advocacy the hotel agreed to pay Ms. M $100.000.00. Ms. M was very content.

He then collected myself, exited, and got out of his car. To his shock and disgust, he saw the driver of what he learned was a Honda Pilot zig-zagging. It had apparently run the stop sign directly to the West of his house. Another driver saw what had happened and followed the Honda Pilot, eventually blocking the driver, causing her to stop. His neighbor who is an undercover police officer called out to his son who came out of his house after hearing the neighbors yelling. He then ran on foot to where the Honda Pilot driver was blocked and assisted in ensuring that she would not continue to try to flee the scene. He remained where he was struck until Fire Rescue arrived. He later learned that the Honda Pilot's driver was speeding and was drunk. His right shoulder was injured and did not resolve and he ended up having right shoulder surgery.

We argued the Honda Pilot driver was 100% responsible for this accident and we believe she would have likely struck the vehicle even with the door fully closed. The insurance company argued that Mr. P would not have been struck if he had simply stayed in the car and that he clearly didn’t look before he exited causing the impact. They also argued due to his physical work history and age his shoulder was already compromised and the shoulder surgery was not related to the accident. We responded that their insured refused a sobriety test and fled the scene and a jury would side with Mr. P and punish their insured if the case went to trial. Rather than face a lawsuit, the insurance company agreed to pay the $100,000 policy limits. Mr. P and his wife were very happy with the full recovery and that justice had been served.

He then looked in his side view mirror as he was sitting in the driver seat and didn’t see any vehicles approaching. He then began to open the door with his left hand and used his left elbow to begin to push the door open. The driver’s side door was approximately 12 inches open when he stuck his left leg out onto the street. The next thing he knew he felt a strong crash and his body was launched across the two front seats and his right shoulder forcefully struck the automatic gear shifter in the center console. He immediately felt pain in his right shoulder. He then collected himself, and gout out of the car. He saw the driver of what he learned was a Honda Pilot zig-zagging. It had apparently run the stop sign directly West of his house.

Another driver saw what had happened and followed the Honda Pilot, eventually blocking her, causing her to stop. Mr. L’s neighbor who is an undercover police officer called out to Mr. L’s son who came out of his house after hearing the neighbors yelling. He then ran on foot to where the Honda Pilot driver was blocked and assisted in ensuring the zig-zagging driver would not try to continue to flee the scene. Mr. L remained where he was struck until Fire Rescue arrived. Mr. L later learned that the Honda Pilot’s driver was speeding and was drunk. Mr. L’s right shoulder injury did not resolve, and he was forced by the drunk driver’s irresponsible actions to have a complicated right shoulder surgery.

The insurance company initially denied any responsibility for the accident and did not acknowledge their insured drove erratically or was drunk. They argued Mr. L opened his car door into their insured’s car causing the accident. We promptly and aggressively obtained a witness statement and we obtained the charges against the zig-zagging driver. They showed she refused to submit to a breathalyzer and was being charged with a DUI. We convinced the insurer Mr. L would have been struck and injured even without opening the door. The insurer also argued due to his age he likely had pre-existing medical conditions, due to our detailed description of how his shoulder was struck we convinced them he was injured due to the accident.

The insurer paid the full $100,000 policy limits at the deadline rather than face a lawsuit. The key was early investigation. Mr. L was thrilled with the result.

Shortly after the insurer’s response, Mr. G was in a life-changing incident. He was riding a motorcycle when a second motorcyclist struck him causing him to sustain massive and horrific injuries. In addition to other injuries, he sustained an above the knee and below the knee amputations on both of his legs. Shortly thereafter, we demanded the insurer pay the full $100,000 limits on our June 25, 2018 accident, arguing due to the condition he now found himself in, his recovery would be much more challenging since his right shoulder hurt him and he needed multiple other surgeries before he was stable enough to potentially have the right shoulder surgery. The insurer initially contested this stating they should haven’t to pay for any hardships due to the injuries sustained in the subsequent accident and there was no indication he was planning on having the shoulder surgery.

However, due to the sympathetic figure he presented and our arguing they were responsible for consequential damages involving the second, non-related accident, they agreed to pay the $100,000 limits. Given all the expenses and hardships Mr. G was now facing we felt good about being to provide him with additional resources.  Mr. G was very pleased about this unexpected, prompt financial recovery.

Ms. C had an MRI of her left ankle and right wrist. The MRI of her right ankle revealed a nondisplaced fracture in the distal fibula and a partial tear of the anterior inferior tibiofular ligament. She treated with an ankle specialist we recommended. He indicated she may need arthroscopic repair with ligament repairs. Ms. C’s MRI of the right wrist revealed degeneration and a tear of the scapholunate ligament. The wrist specialist confirmed the accident is most likely responsible for the scapholunate widening secondary to the scapholunate tear. Surgical arthroscopic debridement and RASSL type of procedure and screw fixation of the scapholunate interval was recommended and occurred following placement in a cast.

Due to the extent of her injuries and treatment, Ms. C was unable to drive for three months. She required transportation from her children, to and from work and doctor’s appointments. Due to her being a florist and working primarily standing and with her hands, she had to turn down multiple independent events as she was unable to work them through the holidays. Her injuries also affected her quality of life which had allowed her to be active and exercise. Ms. C was an avid gym goer who would exercise 4-5 times per week.

The insurer argued she chose to step out of her car, walk across the median, wasn’t looking where she was walking, and the depression was in the grass where she was not supposed to be as she could have walked on the cement on the edge of the island and walked to the parking lot. We argued it was foreseeable Ms. C could injure herself. In this instance, we argued the parking lot was full and Ms. C parked in the last available parking space. And when you exit the parking space, the more safe and foreseeable way to walk is through the island. The depth of the depression was deep, and we also learned through investigation and discovery that a tree had been removed and dthe earth has not been refilled evenly. They also argued her surgery was due to her degenerative condition and not this accident. Rather than defend the case through trial, the insurer agreed to pay $100,000! Mrs. C was thrilled with the outcome and the medical treatment she had received due to our recommendation as she did not have health insurance. And, due to our relationships with medical providers she received top medical care and has made an excellent recovery.

Unfortunately, the surgery did not relieve his back issues and as of December 5, 2017 (7 weeks later), he was complaining of some neck and mid-back pain. His low back pain was still constant, he felt achy and stiff, along with right and left wrist, left rib, left calf and right calf pain. Importantly, he was also experiencing radiating pain from his lumbar spine to his legs. The orthopedic surgeon recommended a fusion surgery at L4-5 and L5-S1. The responsible insurance company argued the impact should not have caused the need for any surgery and they would not take into account any subsequent surgery he underwent. They then made an offer of only $23,500.00. We rejected this offer. Mr. T then underwent a second minimally invasive surgery, not a fusion surgery. We then submitted a second demand packet demanding the full $100,000.00 policy limits. Knowing our intent was to go to trial if necessary and because of our credible “bad-faith” threats, the insurance company agreed to pay the $100,000.00 policy limits without a lawsuit being filed. Mr. T was thrilled as he was physically better and received more in his pocket quicker than he was expecting after the medical providers were paid back.

After many letters were written, conversations, and threats of taking them to court for not being reasonable, we were able to successfully get the hospital to reduced its bills to just $15,000. This enabled Mr. R to walk away with over $50,000 after fees and medical bills without a lawsuit. He was thrilled with the outcome given the circumstances. Negotiating medical bills down is extremely important to obtaining the best possible results for the client and something we pride ourselves on.

The surgeon subsequently recommended a second surgery where reconstruction would be performed. We also put together a lost wages claim which would have been challenging to prove at trial but we though very legitimate. Given this, we re-submitted a second demand and after applying a lot of pressure, the insurance company agree to pay their full $100,000 policy limits. After negotiating the medical bills down, the client walked away with $45,000 tax-free dollars. He was very satisfied. Mr. O never underwent the second surgery.

The paramedics only noted that she tripped and splashed some soup onto her hand and there was only a sore spot noted on her forearm. The paramedics also said that there was no deformity on her left knee and she had good range of motion.

At the hospital the next day, Mrs. Y only complained about abdominal pain and nothing in the notes related it to the fall at all. The chiropractor who treated her noted that she is only 5’1” and 150 pounds and that she had slipped, not tripped. He noted that she only missed two days of work and that she had some very minor bruising. When he finalized his treatment, he did not even mention her knees and noted no nerve involvement in her back. Without nerve involvement there is little evidence that she should be experiencing any back pain at all. He gave her minimal impairment rating. Her knee MRI did not show a tear. As a result, there was no clear evidence that she medically needed a knee surgery or that her knee or back issues were related to the case.

Mrs. Y had spent many, many years cleaning houses, commercially cleaning hotels, and several years picking tomatoes in the fields. These repetitive motions performing hard physical labor would certainly cause significant wear and tear on her joints. There was a large concern that the defense would relate all of her medical issues to her work history and age at trial. Her back MRI showed an undated small tear and small herniation without nerve involvement. In addition, the way she fell would not necessarily have caused whatever was going on in her back.

The medical records were clear that she had full range of motion in her knee and could extend fully prior to the knee arthroscopy and the orthopedic surgeon only agreed to her knee surgery due to her subjective complaints. The surgeon never related any of her knee issues to the accident.

The bottom line is that due to her very physical work history, her physique, the mechanics of her fall, the minimally helpful diagnostic and inconclusive tests, and the medical records, the case would be challenging. The evidence was not in her favor to obtain a significant verdict in her favor, if she won at all.

Notwithstanding the challenges, Attorney Spencer G. Morgan pressed the case forward aggressively. Experience, unique litigation skills, knowledge, and trial work enabled a $100,000 settlement with the defendant’s insurance company.

As Ms. T began her approach and arm swing, and while finishing her delivery, her momentum carried her left foot over the foul line. After she released the ball, she slipped and landed on her left elbow. She sustained a hairline fracture of tip of her elbow. The fracture healed up on its own after a few months without surgery. A manager arrived to the scene and advised Ms. T that they had recently oiled the lanes. Earlier, the family had seen an employee tip-toe down an adjacent lane to retrieve a ball. We argued the entertainment center knew they had created a dangerous condition and was negligent in failing to warn of the known danger and that Ms. T would not have reasonably known the operations of how a bowling alley works and that the lanes were even oiled at all. We suspected as the entertainment center had not been open long, and was not primarily a bowling alley, that the bowling operations side likely had insufficient experience. And that they had likely made the mistake of over-oiling the lanes. We also argued the shoes she rented also did not have sufficient anti-slip traction. The entertainment center argued they post large signage stating not to go over the foul line, that Ms. T was negligent in falling, and that her injury was not permanent. We continued to argue the points above as well as the possible arthritis and complications that could arise from her injury given her profession. Ultimately, the entertainment center resolved the claim without need for a lawsuit for $100,000. The client was extremely satisfied and felt made whole. At Spencer Morgan Law, we do not shy away from challenging cases and are creative and tenacious on behalf of our clients.

He had surgery on his back which he believed was related to the accident. We then filed suit. Through investigation, we believed that Defendant driver had hastily merged into Mr. R’s lane and struck his vehicle and that they shared or were responsible for the accident. We then compiled a thorough demand packet and demanded the policy limits of $100,000. Rather than go to trial against us, the insurance company agreed to pay the $100,000 policy limits. Mr. R was absolutely thrilled with the result.

Usually when auto insurance companies see minimal car damage they are very suspicious of major injury claims.

Due to our relationships, she ultimately underwent a needed hand surgery with a very credible surgeon of a prestigious and highly rated hospital. The surgeon agreed to perform the surgery on a letter of protection basis wherein he would agree to wait to get compensated after the claim was resolved due to his trust in our abilities. As she did not have health insurance, this was critical.

While the insurance company initially made a low-ball offer, we persuaded them that she needs a follow up procedure to remove a surgical screw which she does and then the claim value may exceed the policy limits. We also reminded them legally of their obligations under insurance law to try to resolve claims within the policy limits, protect their insured, or risk a later bad-faith case. Ultimately, they agreed to pay the full insurance policy limits of $100,000.

The fall caused him to sustain a fracture to his humerus which led to surgery. We made a claim against the condominium association for failing to maintain the premises. The condominium association argued Mr. D must have been rushing and if the urine was there for a short period of time they weren’t responsible as they wouldn’t have had an opportunity to clean it, and if it was there a long time it would have been dry and it shouldn’t have caused him to fall. We vigorously argued that the association encourages unit owners to have dogs and to utilize the doggy park. We provided them many pictures of urine-stained steps in the stairwell leading to the doggy park and pictures of subsequent incidents of dog urine present in that stairwell. We argued they knew, or should certainly should have known, that urine was routinely present in the stairwell leading to the doggy park. As such, proper procedures should have been in place such as frequent inspections and cleanings and wet floor signs when applicable and they weren’t. Rather than go to trial, the association ultimately offered $98,000.00. I kept encouraging Mr. D to hold out for more money as he was in a hurry to settle. He was very glad he waited and was extremely satisfied with the result in this challenging case.

As her attention was focused ahead of her on possible two way car traffic on the street, she tripped on an unleveled surface which was caused by the street and the sidewalk being at slightly different heights. She landed hard on her knee.

Due to our relationships, she ultimately underwent a needed knee surgery with the chief surgeon of a prestigious and highly rated hospital. The surgeon agreed to perform the surgery on a letter of protection basis wherein he would agree to wait to get compensated after the claim was resolved due to his trust in our abilities. As she did not have health insurance, this was critical.

The Mall denied responsibility arguing the condition was not dangerous since thousands of people had walked through there without falling. They also argued if there was dangerous condition, it was open and obvious and she should have seen it. As such, I involved trusted co-counsel and we sued the mall and worked the case together. We investigated the liability portion of the claim thoroughly involving an engineer, and took many photographs of other parts of the mall where the walkways and streets met seamlessly. We also deposed the general manager of the mall which went exceedingly well. We even attended the medical examination of the client performed by a Doctor hired by the insurance company.

The Mall, after initially offering nothing, agreed after litigation and the noticing of the case for trial to resolve the claim for $95,000. This was a very challenging case and the client was very pleased by the result.

It was held in place by the frame and cloth and our investigation revealed the large metal object had fallen from approximately 31 or 32 floors up from a construction site; and the construction company was negligent in not extending safety nets sufficiently or closing the street during construction.

Ms. C did not initially think she had been injured but later that evening she began experiencing discomfort to her neck, back, arm and shoulder. When the pain did not resolve, she visited a clinic and was diagnosed with a sprained neck, back pain and elbow pain.

She then began a conservative course of physical therapy. A neck MRI demonstrated a disk herniation. At the conclusion of her care she was diagnosed with a permanent injury. Due to emotional functioning issues she was having due to nearly being struck in the accident, she sought an evaluation with a psychologist. He found she had adjustment disorder with anxious mood and nightmares, anxiety, driving, depression, restlessness, fatigue and pain.

The insurance company believed since she was never actually struck by the object and it was a near miss, she could not have been hurt in the accident. Further, they argued her psychological issues were mostly due to a marital separation she was undergoing. Nevertheless, due to our making sure she received proper medical attention and aggressive advocacy, the insurance company resolved the claim for $72,500 without a lawsuit.

After the incident, the little boy complained of headaches and was having problems at school. However, a brain MRI came back normal. Another attorney originally brought the claim, which was denied by the apartment owner’s insurance policy. The Law Offices of Spencer G. Morgan, P.A. had a consultation with the mother and after evaluating the facts we decided to try to help the family.

The Landlord had blamed the mother for allowing her child to go outside unsupervised and claimed that the boy was not injured. Attorney Spencer G. Morgan, a strong advocate for thorough medical care, made sure that the boy saw another specialist to help him. After receiving additional medical care, the little boy ultimately recovered from his injuries caused by the fall.

After extensive negotiations and presentation of the new medical evidence, a settlement of $50,000 was reached on behalf of the boy. When you are a client at THE LAWOFFICES OF SPENCER G. MORGAN, P.A., there is no reason to feel as if you are alone, or that you have to accept an insurance company doctor’s evaluation that finds that you do not need any care. The firm takes on many challenging cases that other attorneys do not want and is happy to do so.

For more information on our services and successes, to refer a case, or arrange a complimentary legal consultation, please contact The Law Offices of Spencer G. Morgan, P.A. at (866) 667-4265. We are always available, with a free consultation, to advise you on your specific rights as a tenant and your expectation that the property you are in will be in a safe condition at all times.