OUR CLIENT (LOUISIANA RESIDENT) WAS INJURED IN AUTOMOBILE ACCIDENT WHEN STRUCK BY AN 18 WHEELER. HE (THE PLAINTIFF) SUFFERED SEVERE BRAIN DAMAGE.

OUR CLIENT (LOUISIANA RESIDENT) WAS EXPOSED TO TOXIC CHEMICALS WHILE WORKING AS A CONTRACTOR AT AN INDUSTRIAL FACTORY.

OUR CLIENT (LOUISIANA RESIDENT) SUFFERED BRAIN AS WELL AS OTHER SEVERE INJURIES. INSUFFICIENT LIABILITY INSURANCE: THUS, PURSUED AND OBTAINED RECOVERY FROM EMPLOYER'S UM (UNDERINSURED/UNINSURED) INSURANCE COMPANY.

OUR CLIENT (LOUISIANA RESIDENT) SUFFERED SEVERE BRAIN INJURY AND DESPITE SUFFICIENT PROOF OF LOSS, THE LIABILITY INSURANCE COMPANY NEGLIGENTLY AND IN BAD FAITH REFUSED TO PAY ITS 1 MILLION DOLLAR LIABILITY LIMITS TO OUR CLIENT. BAD FAITH SUIT WAS FILED AGAINST THE LIABILITY INSURER, WHO ULTIMATELY SETTLED FOR 10.5 MILLION DOLLARS.

OUR CLIENT (LOUSIANA RESIDENT) WAS INJURED WHILE WORKING AS A CONTRACTOR AT AN INDUSTRIAL PLANT, AND HE SUFFERED SEVERE BRAIN INJURY

IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTISE CASE, OUR CLIENT (LOUISIANA RESIDENT), A 14 YEAR OLD CHILD, HAD HER LEG AMPUTATED AS A RESULT OF THE NEGLIGENCE OF BOTH AN ORTHOPEDIC AND A VASCULAR SURGEON

OUR CLIENT (LOUISIANA RESISDENT) WAS EXPOSED TO TOXIC CHEMICALS THAT CAUSED PERMANENT DAMAGE TO PLAINTIFF'S LUNGS.

OUR CLIENT (LOUISIANA RESIDENT)WAS INJURED IN AN OFFSHORE ACCIDENT.

OUR CLIENT (LOUISIANA RESIDENT) WAS INJURED IN AN AUTOMOBILE ACCIDENT, AND SUFFERED MUTIPLE DISC INJURIES.

OUR CLIENT (LOUISIANA RESIDENT) SUFFERED BRAIN AND CERVICAL INJURIES IN AN AUTO ACCIDENT. A CONSENT JUDGMENT WAS ENTERED INTO BY THE DEFENDANT IN THE AMOUNT OF 1.4 MILLION DOLLARS (INCLUDING LEGAL INTEREST).

OUR CLIENTS (LOUISIANA RESIDENTS) WERE EXPOSED TO TOXIC CHEMICALS.

OUR CLIENT(A LOUISIANA RESIDENT AND AN ELDERLY WOMAN) WAS SEVERELY INJURED IN AN AUTOMOBILE ACCIDENT WHEN STRUCK WALKING ACROSS A ROADWAY.

OUR CLIENT (LOUISIANA RESIDENT) WAS INJURED IN AN AUTOMOBILE ACCIDENT, AND SUFFERED THORACIC & LUMBAR DISC INJURIES.

OUR CLIENT (LOUISIANA RESIDENT) WAS INJURED IN AN AUTOMOBILE ACCIDENT, AND THE DEFENDANT DID NOT HAVE ENOUGH LIABILITY INSURANCE TO FULLY COMPENSATE OUR CLIENT.