Direct answer · depth-50 consumer intelligence

Compare Workers' Compensation law firms in Tampa, FL

Dan Newlin Injury Attorneys (85.3/100), Mickey Keenan, P.A. - Tampa Personal Injury Attorneys (83.5/100), Boohoff Law, P.A. - Auto Accident Lawyers (79.3/100) have the three highest Review Evidence Scores among 16 qualified offices in Law Leaderboard’s fixed Tampa workers' compensation cohort. The score compares public-review evidence; it does not measure legal ability, credentials, outcomes, or fit.

16qualified offices
5,952review texts analyzed
71.8median evidence score
32%of discovered offices qualified

Release 2026.08.12-r4 · fixed cohort · published 2026-08-12 · minimum publication gate: 8 qualified offices

Fast comparison

Top five by Review Evidence Score

Open side-by-side comparison →
Top five Tampa workers' compensation offices by Review Evidence Score
Rank / officeScoreRatingTracked reviewsTexts analyzedPractice evidenceMaps visibility
#1Dan Newlin Injury Attorneys 85.3 5 1,364 430 Published practice evidence #41
#2Mickey Keenan, P.A. - Tampa Personal Injury Attorneys 83.5 5 510 452 Published practice evidence #45
#3Boohoff Law, P.A. - Auto Accident Lawyers 79.3 5 608 347 Explicit public profile #38
#4Armando Personal Injury Law 78.2 4.9 215 201 Profile + review context #31
#5Pencheff and Fraley LPA Injury and Accident Attorneys 76.9 5 70 63 Explicit public profile #32

Maps visibility is shown separately and is never used to calculate the Review Evidence Score.

Leading office profiles

Each profile combines score depth, practice-signal basis, and a separate visibility observation. Read the office page before making a shortlist.

#6 in this cohort

Winer Law Group

76.7score
Rating
4.8/5
Analyzed
65
Maps
#50

Practice basis: Published practice evidence. Evidence depth: minimum. These are observed public signals, not a specialization or outcome finding.

Review full office evidence →

#7 in this cohort

Franco Law Firm

72.6score
Rating
4.8/5
Analyzed
64
Maps
#27

Practice basis: Explicit public profile. Evidence depth: minimum. These are observed public signals, not a specialization or outcome finding.

Review full office evidence →

#8 in this cohort

RTRLAW

72.3score
Rating
4.8/5
Analyzed
149
Maps
#5

Practice basis: Published practice evidence. Evidence depth: moderate. These are observed public signals, not a specialization or outcome finding.

Review full office evidence →

#10 in this cohort

Burnetti, P.A.

68.8score
Rating
4.8/5
Analyzed
272
Maps
#8

Practice basis: Published practice evidence. Evidence depth: strong. These are observed public signals, not a specialization or outcome finding.

Review full office evidence →

What this market reveals

Market depth

Evidence beyond the first 20 results

10 qualified offices were observed beyond Maps position 20, while 6 were observed within the first 20. Discovery visibility and review evidence can tell different stories.

Review concentration

Top five hold 22.4%

The five most-reviewed qualified offices account for 22.4% of tracked reviews. The review-volume HHI is 3276, a descriptive concentration measure rather than a quality score.

How practice and review evidence differ

For workers-compensation comparisons, the practice-evidence gate links included profiles to public practice language or sufficient context-classified review evidence after the review input gate. This supports consistent market comparison from available public signals. It does not show specialization, credentials, legal ability, expected results, or whether an office is suitable for a specific worker’s situation.

The practice gate decides whether an office belongs in this comparison. The Review Evidence Score then compares public-rating, depth, recommendation, communication, public owner-response, consistency, and low-concern signals. Neither step evaluates legal skill or likely results.

Maps visibility stays separate

“Best observed position” is the strongest discovery position captured across the fixed query collection. Multiple offices can show the same value when observations came from different queries or backfills. It is never a score input.

Read the complete methodology →

Complete published cohort

All 16 qualified offices

Explore this market’s data →
All qualified Tampa workers' compensation offices in Review Evidence Score order
RankOfficeScoreRatingTrackedAnalyzedEvidenceMaps
#1Dan Newlin Injury Attorneys85.351,364430strong#41
#2Mickey Keenan, P.A. - Tampa Personal Injury Attorneys83.55510452strong#45
#3Boohoff Law, P.A. - Auto Accident Lawyers79.35608347strong#38
#4Armando Personal Injury Law78.24.9215201moderate#31
#5Pencheff and Fraley LPA Injury and Accident Attorneys76.957063minimum#32
#6Winer Law Group76.74.88665minimum#50
#7Franco Law Firm72.64.89164minimum#27
#8RTRLAW72.34.8160149moderate#5
#9The Pawlowski Mastrilli Law Group71.34.6210173moderate#46
#10Burnetti, P.A.68.84.8355272strong#8
#11Berlin Law Firm68.74.9244192moderate#33
#12Catania & Catania Injury Lawyers63.44.71,151976strong#3
#13WorkInjuryRights.com62.94.813092minimum#2
#14Carlson Hayslett P. A. | Tampa DUI & Criminal Defense Attorneys61.54.9267156moderate#7
#15The Florida Law Group614.8136108moderate#29
#16Morgan & Morgan52.14.76,7752,212extensive#1

Questions about this comparison

Which Tampa workers' compensation firms lead this review-evidence comparison?

Dan Newlin Injury Attorneys (85.3/100), Mickey Keenan, P.A. - Tampa Personal Injury Attorneys (83.5/100), Boohoff Law, P.A. - Auto Accident Lawyers (79.3/100) have the three highest Review Evidence Scores among 16 qualified offices in Law Leaderboard’s fixed Tampa workers' compensation cohort. The score compares public-review evidence; it does not measure legal ability, credentials, outcomes, or fit.

How many Tampa offices qualified for this comparison?

16 of 50 discovered office profiles passed both the review-evidence and practice-signal gates. Law Leaderboard requires at least 8 qualified offices before publishing a market page.

Does Google Maps position affect the Law Leaderboard score?

No. Maps visibility is reported as a separate discovery observation and never enters the Review Evidence Score.

Does appearing here prove that a firm specializes in workers' compensation matters?

No. Practice inclusion requires explicit public-profile language or sufficient context-classified review evidence. It is not a credential, specialization certification, endorsement, or outcome claim.

Sources, freshness, and limitations

Source research release llb-depth50-research-2026-08-11-r1 was materialized 2026-08-12T08:00:43Z. Practice classification uses practice-signal-v1.0.0; scoring uses review-evidence-v1.0.0. The public consumer release was published 2026-08-12.

  • The fixed discovery cohort is not a census of every law office in the market.
  • Google Maps discovery positions are captured observations, may repeat across queries, and are not scoring inputs.
  • Public reviews are incomplete, can change, and do not establish legal skill or predict a case outcome.
  • Practice evidence reflects explicit public-profile language or classified review context; it is not a credential or specialization finding.

More Workers' Compensation markets

View every published workers' compensation market →