Featured Review
"After I suffered severe injuries to my back and knee in a fall at a construction site, Brad Crosta successfully pursued a novel legal theory on my behalf. My employer, a subcontractor on the job site, was immune from liability under workers..." "After I suffered severe injuries to my back and knee in a fall at a construction site, Brad Crosta successfully pursued a novel legal theory on my behalf. My employer, a subcontractor on the job site, was immune from liability under workers compensation laws, but Brad believed that the general contractor owed a duty of safety to all workers on the site. The Superior Court disagreed, and dismissed my case. The judge ruled that the general contractor was not responsible for enforcing Washington State safety regulations. Brad appealed to the Washington State Court of Appeals, which agreed with the judge’s ruling, without even holding a hearing. Fortunately, Brad Crosta was able to convince the Washington State Supreme Court to hear my case. In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court ruled that general contractors have primary responsibility for the safety of all workers on the job site, including employees of subcontractors. Thanks to Brad’s great work on my case, not only was I able to go to trial and recover fair compensation for my injuries, but thousands of injured workers since then have been able to receive compensation for injuries they have suffered on construction job sites. I cannot say enough good things about the outstanding work Brad Crosta did for me, and I highly recommend him. Andre Stute,"
Reviews
Customer Reviews for Crosta Law Office, PLLC
5.0 out of 5
12 Reviews
Some reviews may not include star ratings. Learn more about our review guidelines.
12 Reviews
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Disclaimer
Your Profile? Update Now
When viewing a listing, consider the state advertising restrictions to which lawyers and law firms must adhere, as well as our FindLaw.com Legal Directory disclaimer. Some lawyers publish comparative information regarding the services that they provide which may be subject to specific comparative communications restrictions.