Posted on Wednesday, April 24th, 2013 at 4:24 pm by Williams Hart
Armi Easterby, a member of the Williams Hart legal team, has been helping business owners to pursue claims for compensation as part of the BP class action settlement, relating to the devastating oil spill in 2010 which heavily affected business activity in the Gulf region. Easterby helps business owners to determine whether or not they may qualify for compensation for damages their business may have suffered in the immediate aftermath of the disaster.
It is important to note that business owners aren’t required to provide specific documents demonstrating particular losses resulting from the oil spill. Instead, a part of the class action settlement mandated that BP establish a formula to examine businesses’ revenue both before and after the oil spill to determine whether any losses may have been attributable to the spill. Armi’s work in Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Florida, and Texas is helping business owners to understand that they, too, may be eligible for compensation. The entire states of Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama are in the zone, so if a business owner in those states is far from the Gulf Coast, they still may have a claim.
To see a recent news story on a Town Hall Armi led in Shreveport, read the full story here.
At Williams Hart, we’ve been helping victims of the BP oil spill since the very beginning of the claims process, and we know what it takes to help a claimant secure the compensation they need. For the experienced, knowledgeable representation you need on your side, contact an experienced Oil Spill claims lawyer from Williams Hart at (713) 352-7071 to take the first step towards protecting your financial stability and your future.
Posted on Wednesday, April 17th, 2013 at 9:22 pm by Williams Hart
Late this evening, a fertilizer plant in West, Texas, a town outside of Waco, exploded, resulting in several home fires and trapping residents of a nearby apartment home in their facility. The explosion was so massive that it could be felt as far away as Dallas, Texas, which is almost 100 miles away from West. According to officials with the Department of Public Safety, several people have suffered severe injuries. At this time, it is unknown what caused the explosion or how severe the damage from the explosion is.
We will be sure to follow this story closely and will post updates as more information becomes available.
Posted on Tuesday, April 16th, 2013 at 11:56 am by Williams Hart
Recently, Williams Hart partner Jim Hart and attorneys Jim Soto, Eloy Gaitan, and Margret Lecocke conducted a steward training presentation for local electrical workers to help explain some legal areas of interest for the group. Jim Hart explained the grievance process and how best to prepare a grievance file for arbitration. Jim Soto covered critical aspects in developing an effective will. Eloy Gaitan covered workers’ comp, changes in the law, and what people need to know to protect their rights. Finally, Margret Lecocke gave an update on pharmaceutical and medical device recalls. The meeting was well attended, and our presenters answered questions from the audience throughout the session. Williams Hart is proud to show our support of unions.
Posted on Tuesday, April 16th, 2013 at 9:53 am by Williams Hart
John Eddie Williams and John Boundas will be featured speakers at the first TTLA (Texas Trial Lawyers Association) Seminar dedicated solely to pharmaceutical and medical device litigation on April 25th and 26th. John Eddie and John are proud to join other TTLA Legends to discuss and debate a variety of mass tort topics that are central to this important and constantly-changing area of the law.
Posted on Tuesday, March 5th, 2013 at 10:53 am by Williams Hart
On Monday afternoon, around 1pm, an explosion at a local chemical plant called AkzoNobel in La Porte, Texas resulted in a fire.
Smoke clouds could be seen from miles away, according to reports on the incident. These smoke clouds prompted emergency responders to arrive and evacuate the building quickly. The fire took 45 minutes to be brought under control by responders. The chemical company employs between 80 and 100 workers, all of which were evacuated.
One worker was injured in the accident, and was taken to a local hospital to receive treatment. Further information on the worker’s condition is not known at this time.
Representatives for the chemical plant say that “it’s too early” to determine the cause of the fire, though it has been confirmed that the burning material was magnesium oxide, which is not toxic. Workers returned to their jobs later in the afternoon.
This event comes less than one month after another explosion in LaPorte resulted in the death of one worker.
Posted on Wednesday, February 13th, 2013 at 11:41 am by Williams Hart
An explosion at the Air Liquide plant in La Porte has left one employee seriously injured and another dead, according to officials investigating the accident. The body of the employee who had been reported missing, Javier Ortiz, was identified by investigators Sunday. Ortiz was a chemist at the plant, and leaves behind a wife and three children.
Our thoughts and prayers go out to the Ortiz family as they deal with this tragic loss.
Posted on Saturday, February 9th, 2013 at 7:06 pm by Williams Hart
An explosion at an Air Liquide gas factory in LaPorte, Texas seriously injured one employee, and rescue workers are currently searching for another missing employee. According to the Houston Chronicle, the explosion occurred at 7:38 a.m. on Saturday at the plant, which mixes industrial gases like argon, nitrogen, and oxygen for use in containers that are used in the processing of electronics, beverages, and food products.
Our thoughts are with the families of the injured and missing individuals, and we wish them a speedy recovery. Please continue to check Williams Hart’s legal blog for updates on this developing story.
Posted on Tuesday, January 8th, 2013 at 4:28 pm by Williams Hart
Researchers at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) are working on a new form of technology which could help identify certain cancers earlier and may mean a major breakthrough for cancer research and treatment.
This technology, which is in the beginning stages of development, is based on nanoparticles, which work to amplify or augment certain proteins found within cancer cells, allowing doctors and medical professionals to more easily detect mesothelioma and other types of cancer through simple urine tests. As mesothelioma is well known for being extremely difficult to detect, especially early on, this new system of biomarker detection could be a major medical development.
As of yet, there are no reliable ways to easily identify mesothelioma early on. In most cases, when the disease is finally diagnosed, it has progressed to the point that it is no longer treatable. If you or someone you love has developed mesothelioma as a result of negligent exposure to asbestos, you should call a mesothelioma attorney of Williams Hart at (713) 352-7071 to discuss your legal options.
Posted on Wednesday, January 2nd, 2013 at 10:45 am by Williams Hart
Four attorneys from Williams Hart, Margaret Lecocke, James Soto, Harry Potter, and Margot Trevino, will be volunteering at LegalLine on Wedneday, January 2, providing free legal advice to those who are unable to pay for legal services.
LegalLine is a free outreach program provided by the Houston Bar Association, a nonprofit organization, that operates on the first and third Wednesday of every month. This program, started in 1986, is available to all residents of Harris County, and operates from 5:00 pm to 9:00 pm. The service is staffed by licensed attorneys who volunteer their time to provide answers to legal questions, offer legal referrals, and give assistance to individuals who are in need of free legal advice.
The attorneys at Williams Hart are honored to have an opportunity to give back to their community, and are thankful to the Houston Bar Association for sponsoring this important program.
Posted on Tuesday, December 11th, 2012 at 2:20 pm by Williams Hart
The law regarding a run of the mill two-party breach of contract case is fairly straightforward in Texas. A plaintiff must prove: (1) there is a valid, enforceable contract; (2) the plaintiff is the proper party to sue for the breach of contract; (3) the plaintiff performed, tendered performance, or was excused from performing its obligations under the contract; (4) the defendant breached the contract; and (5) the defendant’s breach caused the plaintiff injury. West v. Triple B Servs., 264 S.W.3d 440, 446 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2008, no pet.); Mandell v. Hamman Oil & Ref. Co., 822 S.W.2d 153, 161 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1991, writ denied). As such, the plaintiff’s discovery should focus on showing: (i) the parties formed an agreement that is valid and legal; (ii) the plaintiff fulfilled his obligations; (iii) defendant did not and has no valid excuse; and (iv) plaintiff suffered some injury as a result of defendant’s actions. I don’t advocate using standard discovery requests in any case, but the following concepts should get you thinking about the kind of evidence you will need to prove the elements of the claim.
Consider attaching a copy of the contract and asking the defendant to describe all of his factual contentions regarding:
Whether the contract is valid
What, if any, relationship the defendant has with the plaintiff
Any prior agreements between the parties
The material terms of the agreement
Whether plaintiff breached or did not comply with his/her requirements
Why the defendant did not breach the contract
Whether the defendant was excused from performing his obligations and why (i.e, impossibility, rescission, mutual mistake, etc)
Whether the contract was against public policy, illegal, or unconscionable
Whether defendant believes that the plaintiff performed compensable work related to the agreement
Defendant’s challenges to plaintiff’s claims for damages
Whether defendant believes the plaintiff failed to mitigate his damages
Consider requesting the following documents from the defendant:
Drafts of the contract
Working notes regarding the contract
Communications between plaintiff and defendant
Internal communications about the agreement
Documents showing the parties intent to modify the terms of the agreement
Other case specific documents that might show the harm plaintiff suffered (i.e., invoices, checks, receipts, shipping bills, etc.)
Consider attaching a copy of the contract and asking the defendant to admit the following:
That a contract existed
That the specific attached contract was the operative agreement
That the attached contract is a true and correct copy
That the signature is the defendants
That the contract was executed
That the defendant had the mental capacity to enter into an agreement
That the defendant could have complied with the obligations
That the parties never modified the agreement
That the plaintiff performed its obligations
That the defendant did not perform its obligations