Latest news with #SB30
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Business
- Yahoo
Last-ditch attempt at tort reform in Texas falls short as second bill fails
The last-ditch attempt that the Texas trucking industry had at tort reform in the now-ended legislative session died in a House committee earlier this week. After seeing one other bill die in committee last week, the Texas Trucking Association had hopes that one other piece of legislation – SB30 in the Senate and its companion bill in the House, HB 4806 – might make it through the last few days of the biennial legislative session that ended Monday. But the push came up short. While SB30 was passed by the full Senate, HB 4806 ended the session still on the agenda in the House Judiciary & Civil Jurisprudence failure meant that the Texas Trucking Association (TTA) and other Texas groups went zero for two in tort reform efforts this session. The original version of SB 30 would have made significant changes in the financial penalties that could be levied against a defendant in a lawsuit involving injury. But in a report on the bill from the San Antonio Express News, the newspaper said the death of SB30/HB4806 'came after it already had been pared down to an unrecognizable version that only required disclosure of referrals between lawyers and health care providers. It also would have expanded the options for what evidence could be admitted to estimate damages.' John Esparaza, the CEO of the TTA, issued his second statement in just a few days expressing his disappointment at the outcome of the legislative push.'While the outcome is a setback for all of us who are committed to protecting Texas businesses from abusive litigation practices, TXTA and our partners at the Lone Star Economic Alliance plan to continue to fight for a fair and balanced legal system in Texas,' he said. 'The fact is that fraud in our state continues to grow, enriching a handful of unethical plaintiff attorneys and complicit medical providers who exploit their own clients. As long as the legislature permits it, the miracle of the Texas economy will keep fading. The greatest irony? Highway safety declines as drivers and companies who built careers on making our highways safer leave the industry and are replaced by those unqualified to operate a big rig.' Besides the Texas Trucking Association, another organization that had been deeply involved in the efforts at tort reform in the just-completed session was Texans for Lawsuit Reform, which is part of the Lone Star Economic Alliance mentioned by Esparaza. It released a statement following the end of the session, lamenting the demise of both SB30 and SB39 a week earlier. SB30 dealt mostly with damages, while SB39 was more focused on various rules of the road in litigation. The reforms in the bill, the organization said, 'would have been an essential step toward curbing the meritless lawsuits plaguing Texas businesses of all sizes, across all sectors, by preventing unjustified damage awards, and restoring fairness and transparency to the courtroom.' Noting the similar path of both bill pairings – passed by the Senate, stuck in a House committee – the organization said 'disagreement on final language in the conference committee kept the bill from making it over the finish line.' 'We urge the Texas Legislature to prioritize this issue in the 90th Texas Legislative Session, and to put an end to the blatant fraud on the legal system which jeopardizes Texas's longstanding reputation as the best place in the nation to do business and create jobs,' TLR said in its prepared statement. More articles by John Kingston Georgia tort reform aims to change practices in judicial 'hell hole'A Lego approach helps prepare Manhattan Associates' TMS for tariff chaos BMO's Q2 earnings show no improvement in credit conditions for trucking The post Last-ditch attempt at tort reform in Texas falls short as second bill fails appeared first on FreightWaves.
Yahoo
a day ago
- Business
- Yahoo
Personal injury, trucking lawsuit bills die
AUSTIN (KXAN) — A pair of bills backed by Texans for Lawsuit Reform, aimed at reducing large jury verdicts in personal injury and trucking accident cases, died this legislative session. Senate Bill 30 — filed with the goal of 'curbing nuclear verdicts' — and Senate Bill 39 were two of Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick's priority bills for this legislative session. Under SB 30, a jury would have heard if an attorney referred their client — and others over the past two years — to a specific doctor. That provider would have had to submit an affidavit that treatment was reasonable and disclose any agreement guaranteeing they are reimbursed for treatment costs in a settlement. Medical expenses would be reimbursed based off rates paid by Medicare and workers' compensation insurance. Critics said the bill would have required victims to introduce evidence unrelated to their case or care and could have unintentionally made it harder for sexual assault survivors to hold abusers accountable. Deadly truck crash foreshadows fight between business, safety at Capitol The bill was amended in the House, but those changes were not approved by the Senate. 'Today, a kind of fraud is occurring in courtrooms across Texas, as personal injury attorneys and collaborative doctors manufacture medical bills and present them to jurors as if they are legitimate,' said TLR President Lee Parsley. 'This unethical activity is increasing insurance premiums for every business operating in Texas. Ultimately, the increased cost of doing business is being paid by every Texan. We are disappointed the legislature did not enact laws necessary to stop this well-documented, barely hidden abuse of our legal system.' Another bill, SB 39, took aim at commercial vehicle lawsuits. Patrick said the bill was about 'protecting Texas trucking.' Critics said it would have presented new legal hurdles to make it harder for injured victims to introduce evidence about a company's alleged negligence. Debate about the bill occurred at the same time a truck driver was arrested for causing an 18-vehicle pileup on Interstate 35 in north Austin, killing five people and injuring 11 others, according to Austin Police. Last year, a KXAN investigation first revealed the intention of TLR and a coalition of businesses to back bills this legislative session aimed at lawsuit reforms as a way to stop what it called 'nuclear verdicts' and bring down rising insurance rates. 'For four decades, Texans' legal rights have been under constant assault by corporate lobbyists at the Texas Capitol. This session, lawmakers said 'no more,' rejecting SB 30 and SB 39,' countered consumer advocate Ware Wendell, with the nonpartisan group Texas Watch. 'The bills' backers sought to undermine the Rules of Evidence, putting their thumbs on the scales of justice. Juries deserve to hear the whole truth upfront, and judges deserve to rule on these matters. Our independent judiciary was protected when these bills died.' Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
4 days ago
- Business
- Yahoo
Texas bill, a trucking priority for tort reform, dies in House committee
Legislation that passed the Texas Senate last month and that the trucking industry believed would bring about 'much-needed reforms' in trucking-related lawsuits has died in the House. But another piece of legislation backed by the industry, SB30, and its companion bill, HB 4806, are still considered alive as the Texas state legislative session races toward its Monday conclusion. The companion House bill to SB39, approved in April, was HB 4688. It was referred to the Committee for Judiciary & Civil Jurisprudence. While the House of Representatives' docket for the legislation shows several steps at the committee, including public hearings, there is no vote on the list of no action taken on the bill in recent days, barring a miraculous turn of events, the bill is considered dead in the Texas Legislature, which meets every two years. When the bill passed in the Senate, it was hailed by the Texas Trucking Association. In a prepared statement released at the time, TTA President John Esparaza said the legislation 'marks a significant step forward in protecting the integrity of our legal system and Texas trucking industry.' 'This bill introduces much-needed reforms to how commercial motor vehicle collision cases are handled in Texas courts,' he said at the time. 'These reforms will establish fair, consistent, and statewide standards, helping to ensure that justice is applied equally across the state.' But in a statement released to FreightWaves Thursday, Esparaza conceded defeat for this session.'SB 39 was an important piece of our tort reform package …,' he said in the statement. 'As a priority…we are disappointed that SB 39 died in the House Judiciary & Civil Jurisprudence Committee and will not become law this session.' In a commentary about what SB39 and its companion House bill would have accomplished, attorneys for the law firm of Lewis Brisbois touched on several key points. One change would have minimized questions about the background of the driver, according to the law firm. 'Where defendant trucking companies have already stipulated to their drivers being in the course and scope of employment, plaintiffs' attorneys can no longer inflame juries with arguments about the trucking companies' actions when they have no causal/legal relationship with the harms alleged,' Lewis Brisbois said. 'In other words, if a case goes on to trial, then the jury should solely be focused on the actions of the drivers involved in the incident.' SB39 also was the vehicle that the TTA spoke of last year in trying to complete the unfinished work of HB 19, passed in 2021 but generally seen as not providing the relief in litigation that trucking attorneys had expected. In an interview last year with FreightWaves, Lee Parsley, general counsel for Texans for Lawsuit Reform (TLS), said one of the goals of HB 19 was to give new emphasis to the 'admission rule.' Last year, Parsley said of that rule: 'It basically says that if I, as the employer, agree to accept responsibility for my employees' actions that may have caused the injury, it is supposed to simplify the trial. You don't need to go down the rabbit hole of figuring out things like negligent hiring and negligent training. It's supposed to simplify it so that in the trial, you're just focused on who actually caused the accident and what the damages are at that point.' The Lewis Brisbois commentary said SB39 would have 'recognized the admissions rule by eliminating key exceptions.' Quoting a precedent involving Werner Enterprises (NASDAQ: WERN), the attorneys said the admission rule clarifies that an 'employer's admission that an employee was acting in the course and scope of their employment when the employee allegedly engaged in negligent conduct bars a party allegedly injured by the employee's negligence from pursuing derivative theories of negligence against the employer.' That citation quoted by the attorneys is from the case of Blake vs. Werner, the nuclear verdict initially handed down in 2018 and which now awaits a decision by the Texas Supreme Court following oral arguments in December. The original verdict, less than $90 million, has ballooned to more than $100 million with case involves the death and injuries in a family that crossed the median strip in bad winter weather in West Texas and collided with a Werner truck headed the other direction. The jury verdict that the Werner driver should have been going slower in that weather and would therefore not have been in position to slam into the oncoming vehicle has been a particular source of anger within trucking. But the Blake family involved in the crash won at trial and on appeal before it headed to the state's highest court. The Lewis Brisbois commentary said the critics of SB39 'have voiced concerns that this change will further stifle plaintiffs' abilities to ensure that juries consider all parties and trucking companies' own liability in the harms by alleged company misdeeds.' There is still hope at the TTA for SB30, which seeks to limit various types of payouts in crashes involving trucks through a variety of steps. Like SB39, SB30 passed the Senate. It is considered to have life as HB 4806 before the end of the legislative session. 'We will continue to pursue tort reform in SB30, however, as we head into the weekend and our final day of session on Monday, June 2,' Esparaza said. HB 4806, is still listed as being in committee in the House. In a blog post from the law firm of Varghese Summersett, which among other activities represents plaintiffs suing trucking companies, the firm summed up the key points in the legislation. It would place caps on economic damages, the firm said. It restricts payouts only to amounts paid by the plaintiffs rather than what was billed by the providers of health care services to the plaintiffs. It makes changes in rules of evidence and also changes various liability standards. A jury must be unanimous in settling on noneconomic standards. There is also a shift in defining interest charges. In a summary of SB30 published by TLS, the organization said the combined SB30/HB 4806 'guides jurors with fair and consistent rules for awarding noneconomic damages, ensuring they are truly compensatory.' Among the provisions in the bill, according to TLS, are that the legislation 'gives jurors understandable definitions of pain and suffering and mental anguish and clear instructions that those damages should be based on the plaintiff's injury — not the defendant's conduct that is unrelated to the incident being litigated — and cannot be used to punish a defendant.' More articles by John Kingston Georgia tort reform aims to change practices in judicial 'hell hole' A Lego approach helps prepare Manhattan Associates' TMS for tariff chaos BMO's Q2 earnings show no improvement in credit conditions for trucking The post Texas bill, a trucking priority for tort reform, dies in House committee appeared first on FreightWaves.
Time Business News
23-05-2025
- Health
- Time Business News
Texas Tort Reform & Your Rights: What Recent Legislative Changes Mean for Injury Victims
Texas has a long and complex history with tort reform, legislation aimed at limiting the ability of individuals to file lawsuits and the amount of damages they can recover. While proponents argue such reforms curb frivolous lawsuits and control insurance costs, opponents contend they often strip away crucial rights from injured Texans, making it harder for victims to receive full and fair compensation. For anyone dealing with the aftermath of an accident, understanding these legal shifts is paramount. Recent legislative discussions and changes, particularly around measures like House Bill 4806 (HB 4806) and Senate Bill 30 (SB 30) from the 89th Legislative Session, highlight an ongoing push to modify the landscape of personal injury claims. These bills, and the broader trend they represent, significantly affect how medical expenses are recovered, the caps on non-economic damages, and the process of proving claims in Texas. Key Areas Impacted by Recent Tort Reform Measures Medical Expense Recovery:One of the most contentious areas targeted by recent tort reform efforts, including HB 4806 and SB 30, is how medical expenses are calculated and recovered in personal injury lawsuits.5 Traditionally, injured parties could seek the 'reasonable and necessary' cost of medical care they received. However, these proposed changes aim to limit recovery to: Amounts Actually Paid: Instead of the total amount billed by healthcare providers, plaintiffs might only be able to recover what was actually paid by their health insurance or other third-party payers. This can be significantly less than the billed amount, leaving uninsured victims or those with high deductibles/co-pays in a precarious position. Market-Based Rates: Some proposals tie recovery to a 'median reimbursement' rate from a state database or a multiple of Medicare rates (e.g., 150% or 300%). This could prevent injured individuals from recovering the full cost of their care, especially if they received treatment from providers who don't accept insurance or whose rates exceed these arbitrary caps. Challenges to Affidavits: Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code Section 18.001 historically allowed medical providers to submit affidavits to prove the reasonableness and necessity of medical bills, streamlining the process. Recent proposals, like those in SB 30, would change this, allowing defendants to challenge these claims more easily with a simple 'notice of intent to controvert' rather than a counter-affidavit signed by a qualified expert. This shifts the burden back to the plaintiff to bring the treating provider to court for live testimony, adding significant cost and complexity. Non-Economic Damages:Non-economic damages compensate for subjective losses like pain and suffering, mental anguish, disfigurement, physical impairment, and loss of enjoyment of life.7 While Texas already has caps on non-economic damages in medical malpractice cases (generally $250,000 per defendant, up to $750,000 total), recent reform efforts aim to extend similar, and sometimes even more restrictive, caps to general personal injury and wrongful death cases. For example, HB 4806 proposed capping emotional damages in wrongful death cases at $1 million, with much lower caps for non-fatal bodily harm, and even eliminating entire categories of non-economic damages like physical impairment, disfigurement, and loss of companionship. These changes also seek to redefine 'mental or emotional pain or anguish' to require 'objectively verifiable' evidence or a 'grievous and debilitating' impact on daily life, making it harder to prove these deeply personal, yet very real, losses. Process of Proving Claims:Beyond specific damage categories, tort reform also seeks to alter procedural rules and evidentiary standards, making it more challenging for plaintiffs to build and prove their cases: Increased Burden of Proof: New definitions for damages and stricter evidentiary requirements can increase the burden of proof on injury victims, demanding more 'objectively verifiable' evidence for subjective losses. Restrictions on Expert Testimony: Proposals may introduce stricter rules on who can provide expert testimony regarding medical billing or causation, potentially limiting the plaintiff's ability to present a comprehensive case. Unanimous Jury Requirement for Non-Economic Damages: Some proposals, like elements of HB 4806, have even pushed for a unanimous jury agreement on non-economic damages, a significant departure from the current 10-out-of-12 juror agreement, making it substantially harder to secure compensation for pain and suffering. Scott Callahan: An Advocate for Injured Texans These legislative changes are not merely abstract legal concepts; they have tangible, often severe, consequences for individuals and families facing injuries. They shift the balance of power, often favoring large corporations and insurance companies at the expense of everyday Texans. This is precisely why having an attorney with an up-to-date understanding of Texas tort reform and a commitment to protecting injured Texans' rights is invaluable. Scott Callahan & Associates actively monitors these legislative shifts. They understand how these laws might be interpreted and applied, and more importantly, how to strategically navigate them to achieve the best possible outcome for their clients. Whether it's meticulously documenting actual medical expenses to circumvent restrictive caps, building an undeniable case for non-economic damages with expert testimony, or effectively challenging defense tactics designed to exploit new procedural hurdles, a knowledgeable attorney can counteract these legislative disadvantages. In a state where tort reform is an ongoing reality, having a legal advocate who is not only aware of these changes but also dedicated to fighting for justice despite them, is essential. Scott Callahan demonstrates leadership and knowledge within the legal community by consistently advocating for the rights of the injured and ensuring they receive the full and fair compensation they deserve, even in an increasingly challenging legal landscape. TIME BUSINESS NEWS
Associated Press
25-04-2025
- Business
- Associated Press
The Myth of Nuclear Verdicts: Why Senate Bill 30 Is an Unnecessary Response to Judicial Self-Regulation in Texas
Benson Varghese shares insights into why SB30 benefits corporate interests rather than ordinary citizens FORT WORTH, TX, April 24, 2025 (EZ Newswire) -- Benson Varghese, founder and managing partner of Varghese Summersett, a Texas law firm that represents clients in significant wrongful death and injury cases, examines the proposed Senate Bill 30 (SB30) in Texas, which purports to address the issue of 'nuclear verdicts' in civil litigation. Through analysis of Texas Supreme Court precedents and empirical evidence from previous tort reform efforts, this paper argues that the existing judicial framework already provides sufficient safeguards against excessive verdicts, making legislative intervention unnecessary and potentially harmful to injured plaintiffs. The article concludes that SB30 primarily benefits corporate interests rather than ordinary citizens and recommends against its passage. Introduction In the current Texas legislative session, Senate Bill 30 (SB30) and its companion House Bill 4806 (HB4806) have been presented as necessary reforms to rein in 'nuclear verdicts' and reduce costs for Texas businesses and consumers. A nuclear verdict is generally defined as an award that exceeds $10 million, particularly when it includes substantial non-economic or punitive damages ( Behrens & Silverman, 2017 ). Proponents argue these bills are essential to protect Texas from excessive litigation costs, employing rhetoric similar to that used to justify medical malpractice reforms passed in 2003 ( Silver et al., 2008 ). However, such legislation is unnecessary given the Texas judiciary's demonstrated willingness and ability to address excessive verdicts through established legal principles and appellate review. Moreover, based on evidence from previous tort reform efforts, there is reason to doubt that SB30 could deliver its promised consumer benefits ( Black et al., 2005; Paik et al., 2012 ). The Texas Supreme Court's Effective Framework for Reviewing Verdicts While large verdicts may capture headlines, the empirical reality is that such verdicts rarely survive appellate review intact when they are deemed excessive or inadequately supported by evidence ( Hyman et al., 2007 ). The Texas Supreme Court has systematically developed a robust framework for reviewing damage awards that effectively addresses concerns about excessive verdicts without requiring legislative intervention. Well before the landmark Gregory v. Chohan decision, the Texas Supreme Court established clear precedents requiring that damages—both economic and noneconomic—must be grounded in evidence rather than speculation or arbitrary figures. In Saenz v. Fidelity & Guar. Ins. Underwriters, 925 S.W.2d 607 (Tex. 1996), the Court held that plaintiffs must present evidence not only of the existence of compensable mental anguish but also evidence to justify the amount awarded. This principle has been consistently reinforced in subsequent cases such as Bentley v. Bunton, 94 S.W.3d 561 (Tex. 2002) and Gunn v. McCoy, 554 S.W.3d 645 (Tex. 2018). The Texas Supreme Court further strengthened these principles in its landmark decision in Gregory v. Chohan, 670 S.W.3d 546 (Tex. 2023). The Court explicitly rejected the notion that damages awards should be upheld merely because they do not 'shock the conscience,' instead requiring a rational connection between the evidence presented and the amount awarded. The Court specifically condemned the use of 'unsubstantiated anchors,' such as comparing the value of human life to the price of fighter jets or famous paintings, and prohibited arguments encouraging juries to 'pick a number' without a logical basis tied to the facts of the case. As Justice Devine noted in his concurring opinion in Chohan, 'the jury system holds its own cure' for excessive verdicts through the existing appellate review process. This judicial framework provides a nuanced, case-by-case approach to evaluating damages that rigid statutory caps or formulas cannot match. The Unfulfilled Promises of Previous Tort Reform Proponents of SB30 claim it will reduce costs for Texas consumers, echoing arguments made for medical malpractice reforms enacted in 2003. However, empirical research demonstrates that those earlier reforms failed to deliver their promised benefits. A comprehensive study by Silver et al. (2008) found that despite significant reductions in medical malpractice claims and payouts after the 2003 reforms, healthcare costs in Texas continued to rise at rates equal to or higher than the national average. The researchers concluded there was 'no evidence that Texas spending levels or growth in spending declined relative to other states' following tort reform ( Silver et al., 2008, p. 1867). Similarly, Paik et al. (2012) found that Texas's healthcare spending actually increased faster than the national average in the years following tort reform. Their research showed Medicare spending in Texas rose 1-2% faster than in comparable states without similar reforms, directly contradicting claims that limiting litigation would lower healthcare costs. Black et al. (2005) found that while medical malpractice insurers benefited substantially from the 2003 reforms through reduced claims and payouts, these savings were not passed on to consumers through lower healthcare costs or insurance premiums. This history of unfulfilled promises provides substantial reason to be skeptical of similar claims being made about SB30. How SB30 Would Restrict Access to Justice SB30 would create several significant barriers to justice for injured Texans that go well beyond addressing truly excessive verdicts. Restricting Evidence of Medical Expenses The bill would severely limit what evidence can be presented regarding medical expenses. Currently, injured plaintiffs can present evidence of the full amount billed for their medical care. Under SB30, they would be limited to presenting evidence of the amount actually paid (often reduced rates negotiated by insurance companies) or amounts capped at 300% of Medicare rates—which are typically far below market rates for many services ( Hyman & Silver, 2006 ). This change fails to account for the reality that many Texans receive care under 'letters of protection,' where medical providers agree to treat patients and wait for payment until their case resolves—arrangements particularly important for Texas's large uninsured population ( Hyman et al., 2015 ). Intrusive Disclosure Requirements SB30 would require plaintiffs to disclose detailed information about medical treatment and referrals, including whether their attorney referred them to a healthcare provider. These provisions raise significant privacy concerns and could create barriers to obtaining necessary medical care after an injury ( Baker, 2005 ). Narrowing Definitions of Compensable Harm The bill introduces restrictive definitions of 'mental or emotional pain or anguish' and 'physical pain and suffering,' setting high thresholds that would make it more difficult for injured plaintiffs to receive compensation for genuine harms. For example, the definition requires that mental anguish be 'debilitating' and cause 'substantial disruption in a person's daily routine"—a standard significantly more stringent than current Texas law ( Finley, 2004 ). The Myth of the Nuclear Verdict Crisis While proponents of SB30 point to high-profile, large verdicts as evidence of a crisis requiring legislative intervention, empirical research demonstrates that such verdicts are statistical outliers that rarely survive appellate review ( Vidmar & Wolfe, 2009 ). According to data from the Bureau of Justice Statistics, the median awards in personal injury trials have remained relatively stable over time when adjusted for inflation, and only a tiny fraction of cases result in what might be termed 'nuclear verdicts' ( Cohen & Smith, 2004 ). Moreover, as demonstrated in the previous section, the Texas Supreme Court has already established effective mechanisms for reviewing and, when appropriate, reducing excessive verdicts. The focus on these exceptional cases diverts attention from the thousands of legitimate claims that would be harmed by the proposed changes. For every headline-grabbing verdict, numerous injured Texans struggle to obtain even modest compensation for genuine harms caused by corporate negligence (Baker, 2005). Who Benefits from SB30? The evidence from previous tort reform efforts suggests that SB30 would primarily benefit corporate defendants and their insurers, not ordinary Texas consumers (Black et al., 2005). By making it more difficult for injured plaintiffs to recover fair compensation, SB30 would effectively shift costs from negligent corporations to injured individuals and, ultimately, to taxpayers through increased reliance on public assistance programs (Finley, 2004). The 2003 medical malpractice reforms provide a cautionary tale. While those reforms succeeded in dramatically reducing medical malpractice claims and payouts to injured patients, the promised benefits to consumers in the form of lower healthcare costs and insurance premiums never materialized (Silver et al., 2008). Instead, the primary beneficiaries were insurance companies, which saw substantial increases in profitability without passing those savings on to consumers (Black et al., 2005). Conclusion The Texas civil justice system already possesses robust mechanisms for addressing excessive verdicts through the appellate review process. The Texas Supreme Court has consistently demonstrated its willingness and ability to reduce or reverse verdicts that are not supported by evidence or that are deemed excessive. SB30 represents an unnecessary and potentially harmful legislative intervention that would primarily benefit corporate defendants and their insurers at the expense of injured Texans seeking fair compensation. Rather than protecting consumers, the bill would shield negligent actors from accountability and shift costs to individuals and taxpayers. Based on the evidence from previous tort reform efforts and the Texas Supreme Court's established framework for reviewing damages awards, this article concludes that SB30 is an unnecessary solution to a largely fictional problem. As Justice Devine aptly noted in Chohan, 'the jury system holds its own cure' for truly excessive verdicts. Rather than enacting SB30, Texas lawmakers should trust in the judiciary's demonstrated ability to address excessive verdicts through existing legal principles and appellate review. Benson Varghese is the founder and managing partner of Varghese Summersett, a Texas law firm that represents clients in significant wrongful death and injury cases. He is also the creator of Lawft, a law practice management platform built for growth, and the author of Tapped In, a soon-to-be-released book on law firm growth. He can be reached at[email protected]. References About Varghese Summersett Varghese Summersett is a premier personal injury, criminal defense, and family law practice dedicated to helping people through life's greatest challenges. The firm's roster is comprised of experienced, award-winning attorneys committed to providing exceptional legal services. Varghese Summersett has been named a fastest-growing law firm by Inc. 5000. It has also been named a 'Best Law Firm,' a 'DFW Favorite,' a 'Best Place to Work' and a 'Best Places for Working Parents,' among numerous other accolades. The firm has locations in Fort Worth, Dallas, Southlake, and Houston, allowing clients throughout Texas to access top-tier legal representation. For more information, visit Media Contact Melody Lanier [email protected] ### SOURCE: Varghese Summersett Copyright 2025 EZ Newswire
