MINNEAPOLIS PERSONAL INJURY ATTORNEY  
attorney Michael E. Douglas Attorney at Law
  Personal Injury Attorney
  St. Paul Workers Compensation Lawyer work comp attorney
 > About Me
   :: My Commitment
   :: Our Community
   
 > Legal Practice Areas
  twin cities comsumer lawPersonal Injury
   :: Traffic Accidents
   :: Medical Malpractice
   :: Social Security Disability
   :: Premises Liability
   :: Wrongful Death
   :: Dog Bite
   :: Back/Spinal/Neck Injuries
   :: Whiplash
   :: Defective Medical Devices
   :: Defective Drugs
  Minnesota Personal InjuryWorkers Compensation
  St. Paul personal injuryConsumer Law
   :: Debt Collection
   :: Repossessions
   :: Foreclosures
   :: Loan, Credit, Banking
   :: Arbitration Agreements
   :: Deception and Fraud
   :: Auto Fraud / Lemon Law
   :: Warranties
   :: Predatory Lending
   
 > Contact Us
   :: Contact Us
 

Law Offices of Michael E. Douglas
P.O. Box 251551
Woodbury, Minnesota 55125-6551
   

 Saint Paul Lawyer
 
 mdouglas@injurylawtwincities.com

 

Animal Protection Institute v. Holsten: US District Court : ENVIRONMENTAL LAW | ANIMAL LAW - 'incidental' trappings of lynx violating Endangered Species Act

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Animal Protection Institute and
Center for Biological Diversity,
Plaintiffs,
v. MEMORANDUM OPINION
AND ORDER
Civil No. 06‐3776 (MJD/RLE)
Mark Holsten, in his official
capacity as Commissioner of the
Minnesota Department of Natural
Resources,
Defendant,
and
Minnesota Trappers Association, et al.,
Defendant ‐ Intervenors.
_____________________________________________________________
Marc D. Fink and John Buse Center for Biological Diversity and James J.
Tutchton, Environmental Law Clinical Partnership for and on behalf of Plaintiffs.
David P. Iverson and Nathan J. Hartshorn, Assistant Minnesota Attorney
Generals for and on behalf of Defendant Mark Holsten, Commissioner of the
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources..
Gary R. Leistico, Rinke Noonan Attorneys at Law, William P. Horn and
James H. Lister, Birch, Horton, Bittner & Cherot, and Laurence J. Lasoff and
Barbara A. Miller, Kelly Drye & Warren for and on behalf of Defendant
Intervenors.
2
Kirk A. Schnitker and Jon Morphew, for Minnesota Outdoor Heritage
Alliance, Douglas S. Burdin and Anna M. Seidman for Safari Club International
as Amici Curiae.
_________________________________________________________________
In their Amended Complaint, Plaintiffs Animal Protection Institute (“API”)
and Center for Biological Diversity assert that Defendant Mark Holsten, in his
official capacity as Commissioner of the Minnesota Department of Natural
Resources (“DNR”) has and is violating Section 9 of the Endangered Species Act
(“ESA”), 16 U.S.C. § 1538, by authorizing and allowing trapping and snaring
activities that “take” Canada Lynx, which is listed as protected under the ESA.
Amended Complaint ¶ 1. Plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief to stop
these ongoing violations. Id.
Before the Court are cross motions for summary judgment.
Background
API is a national, non‐profit organization that is dedicated to the advocacy
of the protection of animals from cruelty and exploitation. Approximately 494
API members live in Minnesota, and regularly use Minnesota land for
recreational and other purposes. Plaintiff Center for Biological Diversity is a nonprofit
corporation with over 35,000 members that are dedicated to the
3
preservation, protection and restoration of biodiversity and ecosystems
throughout the world.
The focus of this case is the Canada Lynx; a medium sized cat with long
legs, large, well‐furred paws, longs tufts on their ears and a short, black‐tipped
tail. The lynx’s features make it highly adapted for hunting in deep snow. The
lynx are highly specialized predators whose primary prey is the snowshoe hare.
The lynx habitat extends into four different regions: 1) the Northeast; 2) the
Great Lakes; 3) the Southern Rocky Mountains; and 4) the Northern Rocky
Mountains/Cascades. Plaintiffs Ex. B., p.2. In 1982, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (“FWS”) proposed listing the lynx as a threatened species under the ESA.
Id. p. 3. In March 2000, the lynx was formally designated as a threatened species.
Id.; 65 Fed.Reg. 16052 (March 24, 2000). Despite its designation as a threatened
species entitled to protection under the ESA, there have been at least 13 reported
instances of the trapping or taking of Canada Lynx in Minnesota since 2002 that
have resulted in either injury or death to the subject lynx. Plaintiffs’ Ex. M.
Endangered Species Act
Section 9 of the ESA prohibits any person from taking an endangered
species. 16 U.S.C. § 1538 (a)(1)(B). This prohibition applies to threatened species
1ESA defines “person” to include an individual, and an officer, employee, agent,
department or instrumentality of a State. 16 U.S.C. § 1532 (13).
4
as well. 50 C.F.R. § 17.31(a). The term “take” is defined broadly, and it means to
“harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to
attempt to engage in any such conduct.” 16 U.S.C. § 1532 (19). Furthermore, a
take need not be intentional. Babbit v. Sweet Home Chapter of Communities, 515
U.S. 687, 704 (1995).
Under certain terms and conditions, the taking of a threatened or
endangered species that is incidental to the purpose of otherwise lawful activity
may be allowed. 16 U.S.C. § 1539 (a)(1)(B). To escape liability under ESA,
however, the person1 must have received an Incident Take Permit (“ITP”). 16
U.S.C. § 1536 (b)(4), (o)(2). As a prerequisite to receiving an ITP, the applicant
must submit a habitat conservation plan that specifies “(i) the impact which will
likely result from such taking; (ii) what steps the applicant will take to minimize
and mitigate such impacts, and the funding that will be available to implement
such steps; (iii) what alternative actions to such taking the applicant considered
and the reasons why such alternatives are not being utilized; and (iv) such other
measures that the Secretary may require as being necessary or appropriate for
2The Humane Society of the United States et al. v. Gene Merriam, as Commissioner of
the Minnesota Dept. of Natural Resources, No. 06‐2922 (D. Minn. Feb. 1, 2007).
3To date, the Court has not received word from the parties as to whether the DNR has in
fact filed its application for at ITP.
5
purposes of the plan.” 16 U.S.C. § 1539 (a)(2)(A).
In a related action filed in this District2, the DNR agreed to file an ITP.
Plaintiffs’ Ex. H. The DNR asserts that it plans to submit this permit by March
2008.3 Once filed, it may take up to 10 months for the FWS to process the permit.
See Doc. 77 (Magistrate Erickson’s Order Denying Motion for Stay).
In this action, Plaintiffs argue that the DNR is liable for the taking of lynx
in Minnesota since 2002 as the DNR oversees the licensing and regulation of
trapping in Minnesota. These regulations consist of annually publishing a
hunting and trapping regulations handbook. Plaintiffs Ex. A. As provided in the
handbook, no person may trap wild animals in Minnesota without first obtaining
a trapping license from the DNR.
The DNR’s oversight of trapping includes the establishment of trapping
seasons for certain animals; such as bobcats, fisher, and pine marten. Minn. Stat.
§ 97B.605‐35, Minn. R. 6234.1300‐2000; Ex. A., p. 43. The trap types most
commonly used by trappers in Minnesota are: 1) “foothold” or “leghold” traps
6
that have a spring loaded jaw that is designed to clamp down and hold the
animal by the leg or foot; 2) “killer” or “conibear” traps that are designed to kill
the animal; 3) “snares” consisting of a loop, wire or cable designed to catch an
animal by the foot, neck, or body, which tightens when the animal tries to free
itself. Plaintiffs Ex. B, p 11‐18. The DNR has established regulations with respect
to the type of trap used as well. For example, a killer trap may not have a
maximum jaw opening of greater than 7 ½ inches on land, and traps that are not
intended to kill must be checked once every third day. Ex. A., 47‐48. Certain
regulations have also been promulgated regarding snares. Id. p. 50. For
example, the loop of a snare may not be set higher than 16 inches above ground,
and the diameter may not exceed 10 inches. Id.
Once an animal is designated as a threatened species, ESA provides that
regulations should issue to provide for the conservation of such species.
Whenever any species is listed as a threatened species pursuant to
subsection (c) of this section, the Secretary shall issue such regulations as
he deems necessary and advisable to provide for the conservation of such
species. . . .
16 U.S.C. § 1533(d). Drafts of regulations, referred to as 4(d) Rule, were
circulated, but never formally adopted. Plaintiffs Ex. D.
7
The FWS did issue a pamphlet in 2003, entitled “HOW TO AVOID
INCIDENTAL TAKE OF LYNX, While Trapping or Hunting Bobcats and other
Furbearers.” Plaintiff Ex. E. The pamphlet includes recommendations, such as
not setting traps where lynx tracks have been identified, and was sent to
approximately 1,520 Minnesota trappers in 2003. Id.; Doc. 68; Affidavit of
Michael DonCarlos ¶ 10. The DNR has not incorporated these recommendations
into its regulations. The DNR did, however, include a warning as to the
protected status of the lynx in the DNR Hunting and Trapping Handbook. Said
warning has been placed in a colored box, and it warns the reader that the
Canada Lynx had been listed as a threatened animal, and that any taking, even
an accidental taking, is a violation of federal law. Ex. A., p. 51.
In November 2006, the FWS formally designated critical habitat for lynx,
which includes Voyaguers National Park. See 71 Fed. Reg. 66008. This
determination is under reconsideration, however. Plaintiffs’ Ex. K.
Plaintiffs have moved for summary judgment, seeking a declaration from
this Court that the DNR has violated and remains in violation of Section 9 of ESA
by authorizing trapping and snaring within the range of Canada Lynx in
Minnesota. Plaintiffs also seek injunctive relief requiring the DNR to take all
8
action necessary to insure no further taking of Canada Lynx by trapping or
snaring in Minnesota.
The DNR and Defendant‐Intervenors, which consist of associations of
trappers as well as individual trappers, also move for summary judgment on
both liability of the DNR and as to the requested injunctive relief. For the reasons
stated below, the Court will grant Plaintiffs’ motion as to liability, and order
further proceedings as to the requested injunctive relief.
1. Mootness
It is the DNR’s position that once the ITP is issued, Plaintiffs’ requests for
relief will be moot. As Magistrate Erickson noted in his Order denying a stay,
however, such permit will not likely be issued for another year, and Plaintiffs
have a right to seek relief until such time as the permit is issued. Doc. 77, p. 14.
The Court finds that the requested relief is not moot.
2. Proximate Cause
The Defendants also argue that the DNR is not liable under ESA for the
incidental taking of lynx by virtue of the fact that the DNR allows trapping
through proper licensing. To prove liability, the Defendants assert that Plaintiffs
must show proximate cause between the DNR’s action and the incidental taking
9
of lynx. In support, Defendants assert that the United States Supreme Court has
held that the ESA “take” prohibition and the “harm” regulations incorporate the
ordinary requirements of proximate cause and foreseeability. See, Sweet Home,
515 U.S. at 700 n. 13. The Defendants assert that Plaintiffs cannot make such a
showing because the conduct of the trappers is an independent, intervening
cause that relieves the DNR of liability.
The position asserted by the Defendants is not supported by controlling
case law. First, the Court notes that the footnote in the Sweet Home decision
relied upon by Defendants is dicta, as the issue involved in Sweet Home was a
facial challenge to the Secretary’s definition of “harm”, rather than a liability
determination. See Loggerhead Turtle v. Council of Volusia Cty, Fla., 148 F.3d
1231, 1251, n. 23 (11th Cir. 1998) (finding that the Court’s discussion of proximate
cause in note 13 is dictum). Second, the Sweet Home decision actually lends
support to the Plaintiffs’ position.
In a 6‐3 decision, the Supreme Court in Sweet Home held that the Secretary
reasonably construed Congress’ intent when defining the word “harm” to
include habitat modification. Id. at 695. In so finding, the Court rejected the
respondents’ argument that the regulation should be limited to direct
10
applications of force against a protected species. Id. at 697. The Court further
determined that “the broad purposes of the ESA supported the Secretary’s
decision to extend protection against activities that cause the precise harms
Congress enacted the statute to avoid.” Id. at 698. Finally, the Court determined
that as Congress authorized the Secretary to issue permits for incidental takings,
“Congress understood § 9(a)(1)(B) to prohibit indirect as well as deliberate
takings.” Id. at 700.
Cases issued before and after the Sweet Home decision also recognize the
broad purposes of ESA, and support a finding of DNR liability in this case. The
Eighth Circuit has held that government agencies cause a taking under ESA if
such agency authorizes activities that result in said taking. Defenders of Wildlife
v. Environmental Protection Agency, 882 F.2d 1294, 1300, 1301 (8th Cir. 1989). At
issue in Defenders was the registration, by the EPA, of strychnine in pesticides.
Plaintiffs argued that the use of such pesticides by farmers caused the incidental
taking of animals that were protected or threatened under the ESA. The plaintiffs
further argued that by registering such pesticides, the EPA was liable for such
taking under the ESA. The Eighth Circuit agreed. Id.
First, the record shows endangered species have eaten the strychnine bait,
11
either directly or indirectly, and as a result, they have died. The district
court noted that defendants did not seriously dispute these poisonings
occurred. . . . Second, strychnine can be distributed only if it is registered.
Consequently, the EPA’s decision to register pesticides containing
strychnine or to continue these registrations was critical to the resulting
poisonings of endangered species. The relationship between the
registration decision and the deaths of endangered species is clear. We
thus conclude the EPA’s registrations constituted takings of endangered
species.
Id.
Similarly, the First Circuit held that the state of Massachusetts, through its
licensing scheme of commercial fishing, was liable under the ESA for the
incidental taking of Northern Right whales. Strahan v. Coxe, 127 F.3d 155, 163
(1st Cir. 1997) cert. denied, 525 U.S. 830 (1998). The court found that “a
governmental third party pursuant to whose authority an actor directly exacts a
taking of an endangered species may be deemed to have violated the provisions
of the ESA.” Id. The state had argued that the statute was not intended to
prohibit state licensure activity because such activity cannot be the proximate
cause of the taking. Id. The court rejected the state’s position, noting “[w]e do
not believe . . . that an interpretation of ‘cause’ that includes the ‘indirect
causation’ of a taking by the [state] through its licensing scheme falls without the
normal boundaries.” Id. See also, Seattle Audubon Society v. Sutherland, No.
12
06‐1608MJP, 2007 WL 1577756 at*2 (W.D. Wash. May 30, 2007) (by regulating
logging on private lands, the State has injected itself into a position in which it
may be the proximate cause of an ESA take); Pacific Rivers Council v. Oregon
Forest Indus. Council, No. 02‐243‐BR, 2002 WL 32356431 at *11 (D. Ore Dec. 23,
2002) (finding that state forester’s authorization of logging operations that are
likely to result in a take is itself a cause of a take).
Defendants argue these cases are factually distinguishable, because the
courts found a direct relationship between the registration or licensing
determination and the death or injury to the endangered species at issue. In this
case, however, the taking of lynx occurs through the action of the trapper and
“there is ample opportunity for trappers to trap while complying with the laws
and recommendations from federal and state authorities.” State Brief in Support
of its Motion for Summary Judgment, p. 13. Thus, where government regulation
leaves private parties free to act in ways that do not pose a threat to endangered
and threatened species, other courts have not held the governmental agency
liable. To accept this argument, this Court would have to find that the conduct of
the trappers is an independent intervening cause. The record does not support
such a finding, however.
13
An independent intervening cause “is one the operation of which is not
stimulated by a situation created by the actorʹs conduct. An act of a human being
or animal is an independent force if the situation created by the actor has not
influenced the doing of the act.” Restatement (Second) Torts § 441. Rather than
prohibit trapping altogether, Minnesota has allowed trapping activities within its
borders. In order to legally engage in trapping in Minnesota, however, one must
obtain a license and follow all governmental regulations governing trapping
activities. Thus, for purposes of determining proximate cause, the DNR’s
licensure and regulation of trapping is the “stimulus” for the trappers conduct
that results in incidental takings. Accordingly, the trappers conduct is not an
independent intervening cause that breaks the chain of causation between the
DNR and the incidental takings of lynx.
Defendants argue the trapping regulations at issue here are analogous to
the permits issued by the Coast Guard in Strahan v. Linnon, 187 F.3d 623 (Table),
1998 WL 1085817 (1st Cir. July 16, 1988). In Linnon, the court found that the
“Coast Guard’s issuance of Certificates of Documentation and Inspection is
analogous to the licensure of automobiles and drivers.” Id., at *4.
However, the liability determination depends on whether a risk of taking
14
exists if trappers comply with all applicable laws and regulations in place, not
whether it is possible to avoid a taking if the laws and regulations are followed.
This argument was addressed, and rejected by the court in Coxe.
[W]hereas it is possible for a person licensed by Massachusetts to use a car
in a manner that does not risk the violations of federal law . . . it is not
possible for a licensed commercial fishing operation to use its gillnets or
lobster pots in the manner permitted by the Commonwealth without risk
of violating the ESA by exacting a taking.
Coxe, 127 F.3d at 164 (emphasis added).
The evidence is undisputed that from 2002 through November 2005, there
have been thirteen reported takings of lynx by traps. Plaintiffs’ Ex. M. Of the
thirteen, the DNR indicated in its response to Interrogatories that 10 takings
involved traps that were legally set. Plaintiffs’ Ex. L. Thus, despite the DNR’s
regulations and the setting of trapping seasons, a risk exists that a taking of lynx
will occur even when traps are set pursuant to existing regulations.
The DNR also argues that Plaintiffs have put forth no evidence
demonstrating that a lynx taking occurred when the trapper was following the
relevant state and federal laws and regulations. This argument is misleading,
however, as the DNR has not issued regulations to assist in the avoidance of lynx
takings. Rather, the DNR has simply issued recommendations. As Plaintiffs
15
point out, the fact that a trapper may not have followed the discretionary,
unenforceable recommendations that are included in the DNR handbook should
not exempt the DNR from liability. Trappers are not even required to read the
DNR handbook on hunting and trapping.
The Court thus finds that the licensure of trapping, and the regulations
concerning trap uses, are analogous to the commercial fishing operations at issue
in Coxe, not the licensure of automobiles. The Court further finds that Plaintiffs
have met their burden of demonstrating that additional takes of lynx will occur
in the future. Since the lynx were designated as threatened under the ESA, the
DNR has not issued new regulations implementing FWS recommendations
concerning lynx and did not take steps to apply for an ITP until after litigation
commenced over six years after the lynx was designated as a threatened species.
Thus, until such time as additional measures are taken, the risk remains that
incidental takings of lynx will occur.
3. Section 6 of ESA
Defendants argue that Congress, in Section 6 of ESA, provides that ESA
“shall not otherwise be construed to void any state law or regulation which is
intended to conserve migratory, resident, or introduced fish or wildlife, or to
16
permit or prohibit the sale of such fish or wildlife.” 16 U.S.C. § 1535(f).
Defendants argue that this section demonstrates Congress’ intent that ESA
should not be read to invalidate any state regulatory program.
Plaintiffs respond that they are not arguing that the DNR has violated ESA
by failing to do more to protect Canada lynx. Rather, they are arguing that the
DNR is in violation of Section 9 of ESA because its authorization of trapping
within lynx habitat has resulted in the incidental taking of lynx. The differences
between Section 6 and Section 9 of ESA have been resolved in Plaintiffs’ favor by
other courts. See Seattle Audobon Society, 2007 WL 1300964 at *8 (the fact that
Congress made state participation in a regulatory program voluntary is a
separate issue from whether Congress intended to make states liable when they
authorize others to take endangered species.); Coxe, 127 F.3d at 164 (noting the
Commonwealth was not being compelled to enforce ESA, rather, the plaintiffs
sought, and the district court issued a ruling to end the Commonwealth’s
continuing violation of ESA).
4. Injunctive Relief
Injunctive relief is available for a violation Section 9 of ESA. Defenders of
Wildlife, 882 F.2d at 1301; Coxe, 127 F.3d at 166; 16 U.S.C. § 1540 (g)(1). Such
17
relief must be precisely tailored to remedy the precise violation of the DNR.
Defenders of Wildlife v. Administrator, EPA, 688 F. Supp. 1334, 1354 (D. Minn.
1988).
Defendants argue that prospective injunctive relief is not warranted as
there have been no reported incidental takings since the winter of 2005. While it
is true that no takings were reported for the winter of 2006, and no data has been
received concerning this past winter, the Court is not persuaded that the risk of
incidental takings of lynx has disappeared. Given the fact that 13 takings have
been reported since 2002, and that the DNR has not taken substantial steps to
further protect lynx from takings, the Court finds it likely that additional takings
may occur unless further regulations are implemented. See National Wildlife
Fed. v. BNR, Inc., 23 F.3d 1508, 1512 (9th Cir. 1994).
5. Tenth Amendment
The DNR also argues that the Tenth Amendment bars the remedy that
Plaintiffs seek in this case. The Tenth Amendment provides that “[t]he powers
not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the
States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” The DNR argues
that nothing in ESA indicates that Congress intended to impose a duty upon the
18
states to take specific actions to assure that third parties do not take a listed
species, relying on New York v. United States, 505 U.S. 144 (1992) and Printz v.
United States, 521 U.S. 898 (1997). This argument was considered, and rejected,
by the First Circuit in Coxe, as the cases relied upon by the Commonwealth,
which are the same cases cited by the DNR here, were distinguishable. Id. 127
F.3d at 167‐170,
The defendants’ argument ignores the distinguishing facts of those cases.
First, the states in those cases were not found to be in violation of a
congressional act passed pursuant to its constitutional authority. Second,
the states in those cases were directed to take positive action with respect
to a particular field. Here, the defendants are not being ordered to take
positive steps with respect to advancing the goals of a federal regulatory
scheme. Rather, the court directed the defendants to find a means of
bringing the Commonwealth’s scheme into compliance with federal law.
Id. at 170.
This Court finds the Coxe opinion persuasive, and directly applicable in
this case. To the extent that Plaintiffs seek an order directing the DNR to bring its
trapping scheme into compliance with federal law, Plaintiffs are not barred by
the Tenth Amendment.
19
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. No. 80] is GRANTED.
Defendant Mark Holsten, in his official capacity as Commissioner of the
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, has violated and remains in
violation Section 9 of the Endangered Species Act by authorizing trapping and
snaring within the range of Canada Lynx in Minnesota.
2. Plaintiffs’ Motion for Injunctive Relief [Doc. No. 80] is GRANTED as
follows: The DNR shall promptly take all action necessary to insure no further
taking of threatened Canada Lynx by trapping or snaring activities within the
core Canada Lynx ranges, including, but not limited to: applying for an
incidental take permit for Canada Lynx on or before April 30, 2008 if, as of the
date of this Order, such an application had not yet been made; and developing
and preparing a proposal, to be submitted to the Court on or before April 30,
2008, to restrict, modify or eliminate the use the incidental taking of Canada Lynx
through trapping activities in the core Canada Lynx ranges. The Court will hold
an evidentiary hearing if necessary to determine the appropriateness of said
proposal.
20
3. The State Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. No. 78] is
DENIED.
4. The Defendant‐Intervenor’s Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. No.
105] is DENIED.
Date: March 28, 2008
s / Michael J. Davis
Michael J. Davis
United States District Court
Civil No. 06‐3776
 

 
 
 

  What day were you injured?

  / /


  What caused your injuries?
Traffic/Bicycle Accident
Work-Related Injury
Wrongful Death
Dog Bite
Slip and Fall
Other:


  How have your injuries affected

  your life?

 


  What kinds of medical care
  professionals have you seen?

 


  What has your treatment cost?

 

  Is Insurance Involved?
My insurance may cover
        this.

Someone else's insurance
        may cover this.

I already filed a claim.
I rejected a settlement
        offer.

I accepted a settlement
        offer.

  Were there any witnesses?
Bystanders Witnessed This.
Police Responded and Filed
        a Police Report

Police Responded but Did
        Not File a Police Report


 

 

          By visiting this page or clicking the
  "submit" button above, you agree
  that you have read and accept this   "disclaimer".
 
Copyright © Michael E. Douglas, Attorney at Law, Saint Paul MN. All Rights Reserved.
Minnesota Law Firm representing Personal Injury, Car / Auto Accident, Workers Compensation, Medical Malpractice, Social Security Disability claims.
Dedicated to Injured Workers, Victims of Negligence, Car Accidents, Victims of Fraud, and those in need of legal assistance.