Plaintiff, a father of three young children, died as a result of heat stroke at a construction site. Plaintiff claimed that proper heat protection protocols were not in place. Defendants argued that they provided proper protections, that no other workers were negatively affected by the heat that day, and that plaintiff’s death was due solely to his numerous underlying medical conditions. If the case went to trial, we would have presented testimony from a construction safety expert saying that employers have an obligation to screen their employees to determine whether they were at increased risk for heat-related illness and to make accommodations to ensure that such workers receive adequate rest time, cooling, shade, and hydration. We would have presented medical testimony that decedent had several risk factors for heat-related illness such as diabetes, obesity, and hypertension, as well as being on a medication which can cause hyperthermia, and that defendants should have taken additional precautions to prevent him from developing heat stroke. William and Jason were able to obtain a great result on a relatively novel theory. It should also be noted that another prominent plaintiff’s personal injury firm rejected this case before we were retained.