Eye Injuries – Including Air Bag Eye Injuries

It’s common for a speck of dirt to get blown into your eye, for soap to wash into your eye, or for you to accidentally bump your eye. For these types of minor eye injuries, home treatment is usually all that is needed.

Some sports and recreational activities increase the risk of eye injuries.
*Very high-risk sports include boxing, wrestling, and martial arts.

*High-risk sports include baseball, football, tennis, fencing, and squash.

*Low-risk sports include swimming and gymnastics (no body contact or use of a ball, bat, or racquet).

Blows to the eye:-
Direct blows to the eye can damage the skin and other tissues around the eye, the eyeball, or the bones of the eye socket. Blows to the eye often cause bruising around the eye (black eye) or cuts to the eyelid. If a blow to the eye or a cut to the eyelid occurred during an accident, be sure to check for injuries to the eyeball itself and for other injuries, especially to the head or face. Concern about an eye injury may cause you to miss other injuries that need attention.

Burns to the eye:-
Burns to the eye may be caused by chemicals, fumes, hot air or steam, sunlight, tanning lamps, electric hair curlers or dryers, or welding equipment. Bursts of flames or flash fires from stoves or explosives can also burn the face and eyes.

*Chemical burns can occur if a solid chemical, liquid chemical, or chemical fumes get into the eye. Many substances will not cause damage if they are flushed out of the eye quickly. Acids and alkali substances can damage the eye. It may take 24 hours after the burn to determine the seriousness of an eye burn. Chemical fumes and vapors can also irritate the eyes.

*Bright sunlight (especially when the sun is reflecting off snow or water) can burn your eyes if you do not wear sunglasses that filter out ultraviolet (UV) light. Eyes that are not protected by a mask can be burned by exposure to the high-intensity light of a welder’s equipment (torch or arc). The eyes also may be injured by other bright lights, such as from tanning booths or sunlamps.

For more information, you may click to see :-> Burns to the Eye.

Foreign objects in the eye:-
A foreign particle  in the eye, such as dirt, an eyelash, a contact lens, or makeup, can cause eye symptoms.

*Objects may scratch the surface of the eye (cornea) or become stuck on the eye. If the cornea is scratched, it can be hard to tell whether the object has been removed, because a scratched cornea may feel painful and as though something is still in the eye. Most corneal scratches are minor and heal on their own in 1 or 2 days.

*Small or sharp objects traveling at high speeds can cause serious injury to many parts of the eyeball. Objects flying from a lawn mower, grinding wheel, or any tool may strike the eye and possibly puncture the eyeball. Injury may cause bleeding between the iris and cornea (hyphema), a change in the size or shape of the pupil, or damage to the structures inside the eyeball. These objects may be deep in the eye and may require medical treatment.

In the case of a car air bag inflating, all three types of eye injuries can occur. The force of impact can cause a blow to the eye, foreign objects may enter the eye, and chemicals in the air bag can burn the eye.

Eye injuries can be prevented by using protective eyewear. Wear safety glasses, goggles, or face shields when working with power tools or chemicals or doing any activity that might cause an object or substance to get into your eyes. Some professions, such as health care and construction, may require workers to use protective eyewear to reduce the risk of foreign objects or substances or body fluids getting in the eyes.

After an eye injury, you need to watch for vision changes and symptoms of an infection. Most minor eye injuries can be treated at home. You may click to See :->the Home Treatment.

EMERGENCIES:-
Call emergency services immediately!
Do you have any of the following symptoms that require emergency treatment? Call 911 or other emergency services immediately.

*An object has punctured and penetrated the eye. Note: Do not bandage or put any pressure on the eye. If an object has penetrated the eyeball, hold the object in place to prevent further movement and injury to the eye.
*An eyeball is bulging out of its socket or looks abnormal after an injury.
*Sudden partial or complete vision loss has occurred in one or both eyes. Note: Treatment is needed within 90 minutes to save vision.

*Severe pain continues after 30 minutes of flushing a chemical from the eye.
*Normal vision is limited to one functional eye.

PREVENTION:-

The following tips may help prevent eye injuries.

*Wear safety glasses, goggles, or face shields when you hammer nails or metal, work with power tools or chemicals, or do any activity that might cause a burn to your eyes. If you work with hazardous chemicals that could splash into your eyes, know how to flush chemicals out, and know the location of the nearest shower or sink.

*If you are welding or near someone else who is welding, wear a mask or goggles designed for welding.

*Wear protective eyewear during sports such as hockey, racquetball, or paintball that involve the risk of a blow to the eye. Baseball is the most common sport to cause eye injuries. Fishhook injuries are another common cause of eye injuries.
Protective eyewear can prevent sports-related eye injuries more than 90% of the time. An eye examination may be helpful in determining what type of protective eyewear is needed.

*Injuries from ultraviolet (UV) light can be prevented by wearing sunglasses that block ultraviolet (UV) rays and by wearing broad-brimmed hats. Be aware that the eye can be injured from sun glare while boating, sunbathing, or skiing. Use eye protection while you are under tanning lamps or using tanning booths. Laser pointers have not been shown to cause eye injury.

*Wear your seat belt when in a motor vehicle. Use child car seats.

Prevention tips for children:-
Eye injuries are common in children, and many can be prevented. Most eye injuries happen in older children. They happen more often in boys than in girls. Toys—from crayons to toy guns—are a major source of injury, so check all toys for sharp or pointed parts. Household items, such as elastic cords, can also strike the eye and cause injury.

Teach your children about eye safety. :-

*Be a good role model—always wear proper eye protection.

*Get protective eyewear for your children and help them use it properly.

*Teach children that flying toys should never be pointed at another person.

*Teach children how to carry sharp or pointed objects properly.

*Teach children that any kind of missile, projectile, or BB gun is not a toy.

*Use safety measures near fires and explosives, such as campfires and fireworks.

Any eye injury that appears unusual for a child’s age should be evaluated as possible child abuse.

Sources: MSN Health & Fitness

Testing by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has shown that when tires are approximately six years old, the chance of tread separation increases substantially.  This means that an aging tire can self-destruct, causing a catastrophic blowout on the roadways.  Under these circumstances, drivers often lose control of their vehicles.  Those vehicles with higher centers of gravity, such as SUVS, are at serious risk for rolling or overturning.

Aging tires are a stealthy hazard because they may still have tread life.  For example, a spare tire that it approximately 6 years old may never have been used; however, it is dangerous nonetheless. 

Watch California Tire Defects Lawyer John Gomez   discuss the dangers of aged tires.

If you or someone you care about has suffered an injury as the result of a scaffolding collapse, call a personal injury attorney  at the Gomez Law Firm today. 

Employment law is often a hot topic of conversation at parties, around the water cooler, or at the dinner table, because almost everyone can relate; we all have a story about a horrible boss or an unfair employment action. At some point in the conversation, someone usually exclaims, “But they can’t fire you for that!” Unfortunately, the truth is, in many circumstances “they” can fire you for “that”—As a general rule, your employer may terminate your employment for any reason, or no reason at all! However, the good news is that there are many exceptions to this general rule. While the list of exceptions is long and very complicated, here are some common ones:

~Retaliation: An employer cannot lawfully fire an employee for engaging in a “protected activity.” “Protected activity” means an act that is protected by federal or state law, such as reporting discrimination or safety violations.

~Contract: For an employee who has executed a contract with an employer that provides for employment over a set time period, a different set of rules applies and the default “employment at will” doctrine is no longer in play. 

~Discrimination: An employer cannot lawfully fire an employee because of that person’s race, gender, national origin, religion, sexual orientation, medical condition, marital status, pregnancy, age, or disability.

 If you feel your employment has been unlawfully terminated, you must contact an employment law attorney immediately. The experienced attorneys at The Gomez Law Firm will evaluate your potential case at no charge. There are various deadlines and statutes of limitations that apply to the filing of lawsuits in California.  Failure to comply with those deadlines may forever bar you from pursuing your claim. 

* This information is not intended to be legal advice and merely conveys general information related to legal issues commonly encountered. You must consult an attorney for legal advice that addresses your particular situation.

More than a dozen pedestrians were injured today in San Diego when a scaffolding collapsed beside a building in East Village.  The individuals were walking near 15th Street and Imperial Avenue when the scaffolding fell from a building that was under construction, according to published reports.   

The Occupational Safety & Health Administration (OSHA) has very rigid standards that construction companies must meet when using scaffolding.  If the OSHA requirements are met when building and using  scaffolding, the agency says the scaffolding will not collapse.  Many scaffoldings collapse under the weight of construction equipment.  

Sixty-five percent of the construction industry works on scaffolds frequently.  Every year, 4,500 construction workers are injured and another 50 are killed in scaffolding accidents.  This does not account for the number of pedestrians and other non-construction workers who are injured by these collapses. 

In 2006, three people were killed in Boston, Mass. when a scaffolding collapsed on a busy street. Two of the deceased were construction workers.  The third victim was driving his car when the scaffolding collapsed, crushing him in his vehicle.

In New York, a 19-year-old was killed when a scaffolding pedestrian shed collapsed, causing fatal head injuries.

If you or someone you care about has suffered an injury as the result of a scaffolding collapse, call a personal injury attorney  at the Gomez Law Firm today. 

We have some recent additions to our team at the Gomez Law Firm. 

Vanessa Ruggles is a new attorney on our team.  Vanessa received her Bachelor of Arts degree from the University of Nebraska in 2000. After receiving several scholarships to attend law school, she graduated magna cum laude from California Western School of Law with a concentration in Labor and Employment Law. While in law school, she served as an extern at the California Court of Appeal for Associate Justice Alex C. McDonald. Vanessa was a member of the California Western Law Review, and the Connecticut Public Interest Law Journal published her comment “The Ineffectiveness of Capped Damages in Cases of Employment Discrimination: Solutions Toward Deterrence.” 

Vanessa prides herself on empathy and concern for clients. In her spare time, Vanessa enjoys traveling to international destinations and trying new ethnic cuisines. Vanessa speaks French and has lived abroad in France and Spain.  Clients love Vanessa and her knowledge of employment law is a real asset for us.

Theresa Bowen is a our new post-bar law clerk.  Theresa is a 2008 magna cum laude graduate of the University of Baltimore School of Law and a 1999 graduate of the University of Virginia.  Before pursuing a career in law, Theresa worked for the Associated Press and as a reporter for various television news organizations in Baltimore and San Diego. 

During law school, Theresa competed in the American Association of Justice trial competition and placed 4th in Region 4 of the National Trial Competition.  She won first place in the 1L Trial Advocacy Competition at California Western School of Law and was twice named a Distinguished Advocate.  In addition, Theresa was selected as a Litigation Fellow of the Steven L. Snyder Center for Litigation Skills at the University of Baltimore School of Law.  During her last year of law school, Theresa worked as a full time law clerk in the General Felony Division of the Baltimore City State’s Attorney’s Office. 

Teresa will transition to a trial attorney position after receiving her succesful bar results in November.

Finally, Sarah Laverone is our new paralegal.  Sarah is a 2006 graduate from Humphreys College in Stockton California, where she earned her first Paralegal Certificate in 2005 and a Bachelor of Arts Degree in Paralegal Studies. Sarah is a current student at University of San Diego in the Paralegal Program with a focus in Business Practices; Sarah has two classes to take before completion of the program. Sarah has worked for attorneys in the past with a focus in their practice on Defective Product, Personal Injury, Medical Malpractice, Wrongful Death and Eminent Domain. Sarah has a background in the Action Sports Retail Business and still enjoys attending the trade shows.

Sarah is excited to be working in the field of Civil Litigation again; she is an analytical thinker and enjoys research in each case she is assigned. Sarah loves meeting clients and the everyday tasks that are required of her.

Sarah enjoys plays, reggae concerts, trips to Lake Tahoe, and snowboarding, spending weekends at the beach with her boyfriend, golfing which was taught to her by her grandmother. Sarah also loves to cook and spending time with family and friends.

We are really excited to have them on board.  Our vision at the Gomez Law Firm is to create the very best team to get the very best results for each and every one of our clients.  We think we are well on our way.

We recently represented a gentleman that slipped and fell in the shower area of his gym.  As a result, he fractured his skull and suffered some damage to his brain.  The defendant claimed that the fall was his fault, and that his complaints were due to pre-existing physical conditions.  Our client had previously been on disability and had attributed a number of complaints to that condition.  With trial pending, the defendant agreed to pay our client $400,000 to resolve the case.  If you or someone you care about has suffered a serious injury as the result of some other person or company’s negligence, call a personal injury attorney  at the Gomez Law Firm today. 

We recently represented a woman who was injured in the lobby of her work.  While waiting for an elevator, a delivery person for an office supply company ran over her with a cart.  As a result, our client suffered a heel fracture and hematoma.  After filing the case on her behalf, we hired a team of professionals to evaluate the full extent of her injuries.  With trial pending, we negotiated the workers compensation lien on her behalf, and obtained her $300,000 in settlement.  If you or someone you care about has suffered a serious injury as the result of some other person or company’s negligence, call a personal injury attorney  at the Gomez Law Firm today. 

We recently had the privilege of representing an out of town visitor who unfortunately was struck by a vehicle while walking.  As a result, he suffered a tibia plateu fracture, requiring surgery.  While the medical expenses were not high in and of themselves, our client was a very successful professional.  He also was an avid runner before the accident.  After the insurance company refused to pay what we demanded, we filed suit.  We demonstrated that his income loss was enormous and that his life activities had been permanently impaired.  With trial pending, we demanded the insurance policy limits of $2.1 million, and the insurance company paid to resolve the case.  Thankfully, we were able to understand and articulate our client’s complex income loss.  We were also ready, willing and eager to try the case before a jury.  After resolving the case for our client, we also resolved all medical liens so that our client owed nothing to his health insurers out of his settlement.  It was our privilege to represent our client and gratifying that we were able to obtain such a favorable settlement for him.  If you or someone you care about has suffered a serious injury as the result of some other person or company’s negligence, call a personal injury attorney  at the Gomez Law Firm today. 

Just this week, we filed suit against Ford Motor Company in Tucson Arizona on behalf of Border Patrol Agent Luis Pena and his family.  Agent Pena was driving his Border Patrol F250 in response to a narcotics call when he went off the road, corrected and rolled over.  During the rolls, the roof of the F250 collapsed completely on top of Agent Pena, rendering him a quadriplegic.  Agent Pena’s case is the second one we have been forced to file in the last six months on behalf of active duty Border Patrol Agents.  Previously, we filed suit against General Motors on behalf of Agent David Webb.  Agent Webb died after the roof of his Border Patrol Issue Chevrolet Tahoe colappsed on top of him following a rollover.  It’s a shame that those who protect us all receive no protection whatsoever in the vehicles they are forced to drive every day.  In our lawsuit against Ford, we week punitive damages.  Ford has known for years that roof crush causes catastrophic injury and death and yet has consistently refused to strengthen the roofs of its vehicles.  What follows are the punitive damage allegations from the Pena family’s complaint:

EXEMPLARY DAMAGES

(FORD MOTOR COMPANY ONLY)

24.                  Plaintiff incorporates the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1-23 of the Complaint. Plaintiff further alleges, as to Defendant Ford Motor Company as follows:

25.                  The conduct of Ford Motor Company was done with fraud, malice and oppression, and with the willful and conscious disregard of Plaintiffs rights and safety and the rights and safety of others, thereby entitling the Plaintiffs to damages in an amount sufficient to punish or make an example of Ford Motor Company.

26.                  Furthermore, Ford Motor Company, through its officers, directors and/or managing agents, authorized, directed, conducted and ratified each of the following acts, and engaged in the following conduct:

a.         In its “1965-66 Roof Collapse Evaluation” study, Ford conducted drop-testing on the roofs of a number of its vehicles to determine whether they would “incur[] subjectively unacceptable collapse” of the roof into the passenger compartment. “Subjectively unacceptable collapse” of the roofs was defined as encroachment of the roof “upon a 30″ rod mounted vertically in the front occupant position with its end at the “H” point with seat full forward.” In other words, Ford recognized roof collapse that left less than 30 inches of “survival space” between the “H” point and the roof was “subjectively unacceptable.”

b.         A second purpose of Ford’s “1965-66 Roof Collapse Evaluation” was to evaluate a roof crush criteria proposed by the SAE Automotive Safety Committee whereby vehicles dropped on their roof from a height of 2 feet would not demonstrate the “subjectively unacceptable” roof collapse defined above as encroachment of the roof to within 30 inches of the “H” point.

c.     As part of the study, Ford dropped a number of its vehicles on their roofs from both 2 and 3 feet.  Every vehicle demonstrated “subjectively unacceptable” roof collapse when dropped from heights of 2 and 3 feet.

d.         In 1967, Ford did a “safety benefit/cost summary” in which it attempted to determine the cost of human lives and serious injuries versus the cost of improving its vehicles to prevent deaths and serious injuries.  In that study, Ford concluded that “totally effective rollover protection cannot be easily justified if it costs more than $26 per car.”

e.         By that time, Ford knew that the “incidence of roof impact [was] significant” in crashes involving its vehicles.  Specifically, and as part of a 1968 roof strength study, Ford concluded that:

People are injured by roof collapse.  The total number of

nationwide deaths and injuries cannot be estimated but it is a

significant number.      

In other words, Ford knew, and at all times relevant to this lawsuit has known, that a “significant” portion of the vehicles that it sold to the consuming public would be involved in crashes where those cars rolled over or otherwise ended up on their roofs.

f.          The same 1968 roof strength study confirms the “subjectively unacceptable” roof collapse criteria recognized in Ford’s 1965-66 Roof Collapse Evaluation and further recognizes that “roof intrusion to 29.4 inches above the ‘H’ point will not interfere with the “depressed head” space of 99% of vehicle occupants.”

g.         The 1968 study also predicts that the use of 3-point seatbelts will increase, leaving occupants more vulnerable to roof crush injuries, and concludes that, for that reason, roof strength must be improved:

It is obvious that occupants that are restrained in upright positions are more susceptible to injury from a collapsing roof than unrestrained occupants who are free to tumble about the interior of the vehicle.  It seems unjust to penalize people wearing effective restraint systems by exposing to more severe rollover injuries than they might expect with no restraints. 

     h.         The 1968 study concluded that Ford needed to change the design of its vehicles to increase their roof strength to withstand “loading of twice the weight of the vehicle.”

i.          On February 1, 1984, Fords President publicly issued a safety directive that required the company to design its products “not only to meet or exceed all applicable laws and regulations, but also to advance the state-of-the-art wherever practicable.” The directive went on to say that “in evaluating potential advances in the state-of-the-art in product safety, the issue of cost should not preclude consideration of possible alternatives.  “In a policy letter three years later, he reiterated the same policy, that cost should not preclude product safety advances and state-of-the-art product safety.

j.          At the same time that the President issued his policy statement publicly, privately he learned that with the increase in seat belt usage, as predicted by the 1967 study, occupants would be retained in vehicles during rollovers and thus the focus on occupant protection needed to shift to the roof structure “to minimize the risk of restrained occupant injury.” He was also warned that “to reduce the probability of roof crush,” Ford needed to “establish[] a guideline that exhibits criteria proportionally better than the 216 requirements, particularly for ductile roof materials.”

k.         Soon thereafter, alarmed by “deteriorating car profits,” the Chairman of the Board officially renounced Ford’s public safety policy, and instead, privately ordered a reduction in costs “related to items designed to achieve or exceed compliance with regulatory requirements to as low a level as possible to maximize our future pricing  flexibility vis-a-vis competition.” It was decided by the Chairman of the Board, the Vice Chairman and the Controller that “all efforts to improve [profit] margins should be pursued … and should be central to our thinking on all programs ….”

l.          Consistent with that new profit-driven policy to reduce spending on safety to the minimal level required by law, Ford not only designed the roofs of its vehicles only to meet FMVSS 216’s antiquated, inadequate and unrealistic roof crush test, it actively resisted any and all efforts to strengthen the requirements of that standard.

m.        Ford likewise tested the roof strength of its passenger vehicles, only to comply with FMVSS 216’s antiquated, inadequate and unrealistic roof crush standards.  At no time did Ford conduct drop testing, dynamic rollover testing, or any other even remotely “real world” tests of the Subject Ford F250 to ensure that its roof would not experience “subjectively unacceptable” collapse in the event of a rollover crash, thereby leaving inadequate “survival space” to protect occupants like Plaintiff from serious injury or death.  Ford failed to perform that necessary testing to save both the costs of improving roof structure and testing itself.

n.         The roof of the Ford F250 fails Fords internal requirement that it withstand “loading of twice the weight of the vehicle”.

Indeed, Ford engineers know that Ford hates to unnecessarily crash vehicles as part of testing.

o.         As a result, and when the F250 was involved in a foreseeable rollover crash, its roof collapsed substantially more than 4 inches and otherwise well beyond the level which Ford itself had previously recognized as “subjectively unacceptable”, leaving Plaintiff, who was trapped upright by his proper use of a 3-point seatbelt with virtually no “survival space” whatsoever, and causing him permanent, catastrophic and crippling injuries.

p.         Ford has been on notice for decades that the reduced track width combined with a high center-of-gravity produces a hazardous combination that often results in catastrophic rollover.  Moreover, Ford has known that anti-rollover technology such as ESC prevents a vehicle from rolling over.  Consequently, auto manufacturers, including Ford, have installed ESC on many makes and models of their vehicles for many years.

q.                  80,000 Americans each year are involved in a rollover.  Over 10,000 die from injuries associated with rollovers.  Ford has known for several decades that when a vehicle rolls over, a weak roof will kill or catastrophically injure a vehicle’s occupants.  Simple, inexpensive reinforcements to the roof pillars and roof rails prevent the roof from encroaching into the occupant space.  Ford is intimately aware of these safer designs because Ford’s engineers design, manufacture, and test vehicles such as the Volvo XC90 that have a far superior roof than vehicles sold under the “Ford” brand, such as agent Pena’s Ford F-250.  Had Ford implemented these safer designs, it would have saved countless consumers from falling victim to the perils of roof crush.  Unfortunately, Ford decided long ago to turn a blind eye to this epidemic and ignore the recommendations of others within the industry and the voices of the victims.

r.                  Because Ford was on notice of prior injuries and deaths associated with these types of failures and failed to act accordingly, Plaintiffs now seek exemplary damages.  Ford’s conduct as described above constitutes acts and/or omissions which, when viewed objectively from Ford’s standpoint at the time of the occurrence, involved an extreme degree of risk, considering the probability and magnitude of the potential harm to others.  Defendant had actual, subjective awareness of the risk involved, but nevertheless proce eded with conscious indifference to the rights, safety, and welfare of others.

27.                  The conduct of Ford Motor Company, as set forth above, constitutes fraud and/or malice and oppression. Therefore, Plaintiff seeks punitive or exemplary damages in an amount sufficient to punish or set an example of Ford Motor Company.

ROOF CRUSH LAWSUIT FILED

AGAINST FORD MOTOR COMPANY

Border Patrol Agent Paralyzed in Rollover Accident

(San Diego) — Lawyers for the family of a Border Patrol agent paralyzed in 2007 during a rollover accident announced the filing of a products liability lawsuit today against Ford Motor Co. in Pima County (Tucson, Arizona) Superior Court.

United States Border Patrol Agent Luis Pena Jr. was on duty near Casa Grande, Ariz. on Oct. 18, 2007.  Agent Pena was driving his Border Patrol-issued vehicle, a 2003 Ford F-250 XL Super Duty Truck, when he received a call for a narcotics violation. As he responded to the call, Agent Pena’s Ford drifted to the right side of the road, and the tires began to leave the paved road surface. Agent Pena attempted to correct the vehicle, but the truck veered to the left into a sideways slide, leaving the roadway and rolling over. 

During the rollover, the driver’s side of the Ford’s roof collapsed onto Agent Pena, causing catastrophic injuries and trapping him in the truck. Agent Pena’s spine was broken, rendering him a quadriplegic. 

Agent Pena was 30 years old at the time of the accident and lived in Arizona with his wife and two young daughters.  He was assigned to the Casa Grande Border Patrol Station in Casa Grande, Ariz.

Agent Pena is a true hero, having responded to New York City in the days following the Sept. 11 attack on the United States. During that time, Agent Pena worked as an officer for the Amtrak Police.  He had also previously worked as a firefighter and was a fourth degree black belt in karate.

Agent Pena, his wife and children are by represented by John Gomez of the Gomez Law Firm of San Diego and John Ramsey of Simon & Luke in Houston. The family is being represented in Arizona by Jeffrey Jacobson of The Law Office of Jeffrey H. Jacobson, PLLC. 

Pena claims that the 2003 Ford F-250 XL Super Duty Truck has a weak roof which caved in as the vehicle rolled, paralyzing Agent Pena. 

The family seeks unspecified damages.

Some of the damages recovered will be used to repay the federal government for medical and disability benefits Agent Pena and his family have received as a result of the rollover. 

Simon & Luke, based in Houston, has represented hundreds of people throughout the United States, Mexico, and Europe who have been victimized by defective products, commercial fraud, aviation, trucking and maritime negligence, and construction accidents. In the past eight years alone, Simon & Luke attorneys have recovered over $240 million for their clients, including numerous settlements in excess of $1 million.  Simon & Luke’s offices are at 2929 Allen Parkway, 42^nd Floor in Houston, Texas. John Ramsey may be reached at (713) 335-4900 or at john@simonluke.com.

The Gomez Law Firm, based in San Diego, represents exclusively plaintiffs in high value business and injury cases. Its founder, John Gomez, has recovered over $130 million in verdicts and settlements since 2000, including the largest wrongful death verdict in California history.  The Gomez Law Firm is located at 625 Broadway, Suite 600, San Diego. For more information, contact John Gomez, 619-237-3490 or go to http://thegomezfirm.com.

The two firms have worked together on numerous cases nationally involving dangerous and defective products.