Latest news with #SenateBill30
Yahoo
4 days 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
27-05-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
New limits for personal injury and wrongful death lawsuits may become a reality in Texas
A proposal to limit how much an accident victim can recover in lawsuits for medical care won preliminary approval from the Texas House on Monday, but not without changes that leave open monetary awards beyond medical bills and preserve the court's ability to decide what evidence is relevant. The bill passed 94-52 on Monday with the support of at least five Democrats. Senate Bill 30, authored by Georgetown Republican Sen. Charles Schwertner, intends to curb 'nuclear verdicts,' or jury rulings that award victims more than $10 million, which proponents say makes doing business in Texas unpredictable. If the proposal becomes law, those who sue in personal injury or wrongful death cases can submit only the amount paid for medical services, and directs juries to limit the amount of damages based on a set of options such as the maximum that can be charged to Medicare. The bill was a priority of Texans for Lawsuit Reform, a well-funded group representing oil and energy companies that has spent the last two decades trying to curb what they see as frivolous lawsuits. For the bill to become law, the House must vote on it again. Then the Senate must agree to changes, or request a committee hash out differences. At a committee hearing in April, business owners shared their experiences of getting sued in accidents where the damage appeared minimal — according to poster-sized photos they brought to the hearing — but the damages sought were in the millions. Opponents argued that there's already an appeals process in the civil lawsuit process that parties can use to reduce the damages owed. The bill overcame resistance from some conservative activists who previously supported the efforts by Texas for Lawsuit Reform's namely, restricting medical malpractice lawsuits. The version of the bill that passed the House removed language that drew concern from opponents, such as a provision that would have barred juries from awarding money for 'noneconomic damages' such as mental anguish. That was raised by some accident victims and sexual assault survivors who said the impacts of their injuries could not be placed neatly into the economic damage categories the previous version of the bill outlined. On the House floor Monday, lawmakers also approved an amendment by Rep. Greg Bonnen, R-Friendsburg, who is carrying the bill in the House, to remove a portion of the bill that would have only allowed damages on services that have health care industry billing codes, which not all services an accident victim needs would have. Another Bonnen amendment changed the requirement for an itemized list by the provider of a plaintiff to a summary list. Lawmakers unsuccessfully tried to further narrow that requirement, though an amendment by Rep. Matt Morgan, R-Richmond, reaffirming privacy protections between doctors and patients, and attorneys and clients was adopted. A pair of amendments by Reps. Mitch Little, a Lewisville Republican, and Joe Moody, an El Paso Democrat, also passed, over the objection of Bonnen, to no longer require some evidence related to medical history be automatically admitted. The amended bill leaves it to a judge to decide whether the evidence is relevant – something Bonnen said defeated the purpose of that part of the bill. The Texas Trial Lawyers Association, which lobbied for months against the bill, said the changes since it was first introduced were a sign of how Texans felt about efforts to curb lawsuits. 'This result sends a clear message that Texans of all walks of life support the fundamental value of accountability embodied in our civil justice system,' Jack Walker, president of the association, said in a statement. Disclosure: Texans for Lawsuit Reform and Texas Trial Lawyers Association have been financial supporters of The Texas Tribune, a nonprofit, nonpartisan news organization that is funded in part by donations from members, foundations and corporate sponsors. Financial supporters play no role in the Tribune's journalism. Find a complete list of them here. First round of TribFest speakers announced! Pulitzer Prize-winning columnist Maureen Dowd; U.S. Rep. Tony Gonzales, R-San Antonio; Fort Worth Mayor Mattie Parker; U.S. Sen. Adam Schiff, D-California; and U.S. Rep. Jasmine Crockett, D-Dallas are taking the stage Nov. 13–15 in Austin. Get your tickets today!
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
Yahoo
30-04-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Tennessee Gov. Bill Lee should veto PEACE Act and protect First Amendment rights
The Constitution demands that Tennessee's government tolerate hateful speech. We might not agree with what someone says, but American civil liberties hinge on us defending the right to say it. The Constitution's threshold for laws restricting speech is quite high, and Tennessee House Bill 55/Senate Bill 30, also known as the Protecting Everyone Against Crime and Extremism (PEACE) Act, needs some work. Gov. Bill Lee should send it back to the drawing board. In 2024, demonstrations by hate groups included distributed anti-Jewish literature to synagogue congregants and holding signs with hateful messages on an overpass. Such speech and behavior in question deserve our condemnation, but we should be cautious about government restraint. The PEACE Act, sponsored by State House Majority Leader William Lamberth, R-Portland, and State Sen. Mark Pody, R-Lebanon, creates a new Class A misdemeanor for littering and trespassing with hateful intent to 'unlawfully intimidate another from the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured by the constitution or laws of the state of Tennessee.' I spoke to Lamberth about his motives for introducing the measure. 'Tennessee is a law-and-order state, and we're committed to protecting our citizens' safety,' he said. 'The PEACE Act aims to deter hate crimes by giving law enforcement additional tools to ensure that individuals who harass or target others based on their identity or beliefs are held accountable.' The PEACE Act criminalizes conduct that is somewhere between common misdemeanors and a full-blown felony. The endeavor walks a fine line between content-neutral laws that limit political protests to certain times, places and manners and content-based restrictions that rarely survive legal review. Opinion: NYT's Thomas Friedman is wrong. Don't let politicians steal American optimism. | Opinion Littering and trespassing are already crimes because they infringe on the right to enjoy public spaces and own private property. Lamberth insists that legislators must address a gap in Tennessee law. 'Yes, littering and trespassing are already criminal offenses,' he said. 'The PEACE ACT simply adds a Class A misdemeanor offense when the act is deliberately intended to intimidate or prevent someone from exercising their civil rights, such as religious freedom or ability to vote.' If the aggravating factor for enhancing litter and trespass into another crime is speech, then speech is effectively being criminalized. That won't pass constitutional muster. As drafted, one discarded flyer with hateful intent might be enough to charge the enhanced crime. A better path would be creating a civil cause of action for individuals who are victimized by such hateful conduct to sue the perpetrators and anyone who might be backing them financially for damages. It's a fair way to compensate folks for harm and determine the difference between littering and activity that is far more insidious. HB55 also creates the right for law enforcement to create a 25-foot buffer zone 'in the execution of the officer's official duties after the officer has ordered the person to stop approaching or to retreat.' The original language was so broad that any on-duty officer would have the ability to create a 25-foot buffer zone at will. The amended bill before Lee adds the requirement that the official duties involve a traffic stop, investigation of a crime, or an ongoing and immediate threat to public safety. This change is a major improvement. Officers shouldn't have to worry about crowd control while arresting an individual or issuing a citation. Opinion: She took on Neo Nazis and hate groups. Nashville Council Member Zulfat Suara is a boss 'You can be present, say and record anything you want - that is your constitutional right,' said Lamberth, 'but you can't hinder or interfere when a police officer is carrying out their official duties.' The last provision of the bill that warrants discussion is criminalizing 'attaching a sign, signal or other marking to a bridge, overpass, or tunnel.' The offense would become a Class B misdemeanor. Obviously, the state has the constitutional power to regulate signage, but the provision seems focused on a particular fact pattern instead of general applicability. Do Tennesseans need government permission to welcome home a veteran with a banner along a bridge? Lamberth's perspective on such signage is clear. 'Hanging signs over bridges and overpasses can cover existing signage and only serves as a distraction that puts everyone on the road at risk,' he said. The PEACE Act undeniably improved over the legislative session, but lawmakers and the governor have an obligation to protect our civil liberties over our momentary discomfort. The state government cannot and should not insulate us from speech which makes us uncomfortable or with which we disagree. As such, the Peace Act needs another look before becoming law. USA TODAY Network Tennessee Columnist Cameron Smith is a Memphis-born, Brentwood-raised recovering political attorney raising four boys in Nolensville, Tennessee, with his particularly patient wife, Justine. Direct outrage or agreement to or @DCameronSmith on Twitter. Agree or disagree? Send a letter to the editor to letters@ This article originally appeared on Nashville Tennessean: Tennessee PEACE Act is misguided bill and quells free speech | Opinion
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
