Andy Lucero was a professional truck driver doing his job when another semi changed lanes into him, altering the course of his life. The crash ended his trucking career, severely damaged his vision, and left him with lasting injuries. A jury heard what happened and awarded him $2.25 million.
Then the other side appealed, challenging nearly every decision made in that courtroom. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed every argument STI Trucking and its driver put forward, and affirmed the verdict in full. Tawney, Acosta & Chaparro P.C. (TAC) built a case that held up not just at trial but also under federal appellate scrutiny, and Andy’s justice prevailed.
What Lucero vs STI Trucking Was About
Alexander Kim, driving for STI Trucking Inc., made an unsafe lane change that struck Andy’s truck on an Arizona roadway. The collision left Andy with a mild traumatic brain injury, which is a form of brain damage that affects cognitive function, and doctors frequently underestimate its long-term impact, along with blurred vision in his left eye and neck and back injuries.
Before the accident, Andy had 20/30 vision in his left eye. Within a month of the crash, that vision had deteriorated to 20/300. He could no longer meet the vision requirements for his commercial license, so the crash forced him to retire from the career he had built his life around.
Why the Case Was Hard to Win
STI Trucking and Kim did not make things easy. The initial emergency room records focused on Andy’s eye injury and downplayed the head trauma, which gave the defense a foothold to argue that no significant brain injury had occurred. The defense brought in their own experts who attributed Andy’s symptoms to a pre-existing condition and argued the crash did not carry enough force to cause a concussion. They offered $250,000 to settle, a figure reflecting the defense’s confidence that they could minimize Andy’s case.
The team at Tawney, Acosta & Chaparro P.C. refused that number and took the case to trial. They assembled neurologists, a brain injury specialist, and an economist who documented the full scope of what the crash had taken from Andy.
Most critically, they introduced DTI MRI imaging, a form of advanced brain imaging that detects white matter damage invisible on standard MRI scans, which directly countered the defense’s claim that Andy had not suffered a brain injury.
The jury awarded $2.25 million.
What the Ninth Circuit Decided in Lucero vs STI Trucking
STI Trucking and Kim appealed, challenging multiple rulings from the trial. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed each one and affirmed them all.
Here is what most case result posts won’t tell you: an appellate affirmance is not automatic. The Ninth Circuit examines whether the trial court made legal errors, whether the evidence supported the jury’s conclusions, and whether procedural decisions were sound. When an appellate court affirms every ruling across an entire case, it means the trial record was built correctly from the ground up. Specifically, the court found:
- The jury’s conclusion that the crash caused Andy’s blurred vision received support from proper medical evidence, including an ophthalmologist’s differential diagnosis and the documented timeline of Andy’s vision deterioration immediately following the accident;
- The defense’s attempt to introduce a comparative fault instruction failed because they did not request it on time and then affirmatively approved jury instructions that excluded it; and
- The defense’s challenge to a remark TAC made in reference to “who pays,” during closing, taken in context, did not prejudicially imply that insurance would cover the judgment, and therefore did not meet the standard required to warrant a new trial.
The punitive damages claim was the only area in which the appellate court agreed with the trial court’s ruling against Andy, finding that Kim’s negligence, while serious, did not rise to the level of outrageous or intentional conduct required by Arizona law for punitive damages. That outcome did not affect the $2.25 million compensatory verdict.
Why This Result Matters Beyond the Dollar Amount
A verdict that survives a federal appeal tells a specific story about how TAC built the case. The defense identified every weakness it could find and brought them all to the Ninth Circuit. The court found none of them sufficient to disturb the outcome. That is not a reflection of luck. It is a reflection of a trial record prepared with appellate review in mind, medical evidence strong enough to withstand expert challenge, and a legal strategy that held up at every stage of the process.
Why TAC Is the Right Firm When the Stakes Are This High
Tawney, Acosta & Chaparro P.C. has spent years fighting for victims of serious injury and wrongful death across Arizona, Texas, and New Mexico, building a record that goes well beyond a single verdict. The firm has secured results including a $30 million settlement for a 22-year-old after a distracted truck driver destroyed her spine in a rear-end crash, a $21 million settlement in a heat death case at a New Mexico oilfield, and a $4.715 million verdict for a client the defense tried to discount because of her age.
Partners James Tawney and Alejandro Acosta are both Board Certified in Truck Accident Law by the National Board of Trial Advocacy. This distinction reflects the depth of their preparation in every trucking case.
The firm holds a 4.9 out of 5 stars rating from more than 380 third-party reviews, recognition from Super Lawyers, The National Trial Lawyers Top 40 Under 40, and the El Paso Bar Association’s Outstanding Lawyer Award, among many others.
When the other side appeals, TAC is ready for that too.
Andy’s Victory Is Final. Yours Could Be Next.
If you or someone you love is seriously injured and the other side is telling you the case is not worth what you know it is, call Tawney, Acosta & Chaparro P.C. at (575) 222-1000 or contact us online for a free case review. Our team provides aggressive advocacy, personalized attention, and experienced representation in high-stakes injury cases throughout Arizona, Texas, and New Mexico.
Legal References Used to Inform This Page:
To ensure the accuracy and clarity of this page, we referenced official legal and other resources during the content development process:
- Tawney, Acosta & Chaparro P.C. Secures Landmark Victory In A Phoenix Truck Accident Lawsuit, June 17, 2024.
- Lucero v. STI Trucking Incorporated, No. 25-688 (April 30, 2026).
Daisy Chaparro
Daisy Chaparro is an El Paso native committed to serving her community through compassionate and effective legal representation. After graduating from El Dorado High School, she earned her Bachelor of Arts in Political Science with a minor in Philosophy from St. Mary’s University. Daisy went on to earn her Juris Doctor (magna cum laude) from Texas Tech University School of Law in 2015. She proudly represents clients with a dedication rooted in her deep ties to the border region.
Rate this Post
Loading...