College Station, Brazos County, Texas Fraternity Hazing Lawyer — Kappa Sigma Rhabdomyolysis Injuries and Your Legal Rights
Your phone rang on a Monday or Tuesday in September 2025, and the voice on the other end said your son was in a hospital in College Station — or worse, that he was being transferred to Houston because what was happening to his body was beyond what the local hospitals could handle. You drove. You sat in a waiting room. A doctor used a word you had never heard before — rhabdomyolysis — and told you your child’s muscles were breaking down and poisoning his kidneys. And somewhere between the IV lines and the blood panels, you learned that this was not an accident. It was a ritual. Pledges at the Kappa Sigma lodge were put through hours of forced labor and intense exercise, denied water, denied rest, until their bodies began to fail.
We are Attorney911 — The Manginello Law Firm, PLLC. We are a Texas trial firm that takes catastrophic-injury and hazing cases, and we are speaking directly to you: the parent who drove through the night, the pledge who is reading this from a hospital bed, the friend who watched someone collapse and knew something was deeply wrong. What happened at that lodge on September 14, 2025, was not brotherhood. It was a crime under Texas law, and it is a civil wrong with real financial consequences for every entity and individual who allowed it to happen.
This page is not a news article. It is a roadmap — built from the law, the medicine, and the institutional playbook — so you understand exactly what happened to your body or your child’s body, what the law says about it, what the fraternity is already doing to protect itself, and what you need to do in the next 72 hours before the evidence that proves this case disappears.
What Happened at the Kappa Sigma Lodge — and Why It Is a Civil Case, Not Just a News Story
On Sunday, September 14, 2025, pledges at the Texas A&M chapter of Kappa Sigma Fraternity were reportedly forced to participate in manual labor and an intense exercise routine at the Kappa Sigma Lodge in Bryan-College Station. Throughout the session, pledges were denied access to water and rest for prolonged periods. By the following Monday and Tuesday, multiple pledges began falling acutely ill. Several were transported to hospitals in Bryan-College Station. Some of those students’ injuries were severe enough that they required transfer to advanced care facilities in Houston — specifically, treatment for severe rhabdomyolysis, a condition in which destroyed muscle tissue floods the bloodstream with proteins that poison the kidneys.
The Brazos County Sheriff’s Office has confirmed a criminal investigation is underway. The national Kappa Sigma Fraternity suspended the chapter. But here is the thing that the news coverage will not tell you: a criminal investigation and a chapter suspension are not justice. A criminal case punishes the wrongdoer on behalf of the state. A civil case compensates the victim and the family — for the hospital bills, for the kidney damage that may last a lifetime, for the terror of being told your organs are failing, for the lost semester, for the future that was altered in a single afternoon at a fraternity lodge.
That civil case is yours. And the clock on it has already started.
Understanding Rhabdomyolysis — The Injury That Was Inflicted on These Pledges
Rhabdomyolysis is the medical name for what happens when muscle tissue is destroyed at a rate the body cannot clear. It is not a soreness. It is not a “tough workout.” It is a cascade of physical destruction that can end in kidney failure, dialysis, and death. Here is what actually happened inside the body of every pledge who was hospitalized after September 14.
The Mechanism — How Extreme Exertion Without Water Destroys the Body
When muscles are pushed to extreme exertion — especially without hydration, without rest, and under physical and psychological pressure — the muscle cell membranes fail. The interior of every muscle cell contains proteins and minerals that are supposed to stay inside: myoglobin, creatine kinase, potassium, and phosphorus. When the membrane ruptures, all of those contents pour into the bloodstream simultaneously.
Myoglobin is the killer. In small amounts, the kidneys can filter it. Past a threshold, myoglobin clogs and chemically burns the kidney’s filtering tubules — specifically the distal convoluted tubules, the structures that clean the blood. The kidneys begin to fail. At the same time, the potassium released from the dying muscles has nowhere to go, because the kidneys that would normally clear it are the very organs under attack. Rising blood potassium scrambles the heart’s electrical system. This is why rhabdomyolysis can kill — not from the muscle damage itself, but from the kidney failure and cardiac arrhythmia that follow.
The Numbers That Prove the Injury
Doctors diagnose rhabdomyolysis by measuring creatine kinase (CK) in the blood. CK is an enzyme that lives inside muscle cells. When muscle cells die, CK spills into the blood. A normal CK level is roughly 200 units per liter or less. The diagnostic threshold for rhabdomyolysis is CK at five or more times the upper limit of normal — approximately 1,000 units per liter or above. The peer-reviewed crush-syndrome literature identifies CK levels above 5,000 as associated with worse outcomes, and CK above 8,500 as predictive of acute renal failure. When potassium rises above 7 milliequivalents per liter, dialysis becomes medically indicated.
These are not abstract numbers. They are the blood draws that were taken from pledges in emergency rooms across Bryan-College Station and Houston in the days after September 14. Those lab results are objective, contemporaneous medical proof of the severity of what happened. They are the evidence that this was not a workout gone slightly too hard. It was a medical emergency imposed on young people by people who had a duty not to do exactly that.
Why the Transfer to Houston Matters
The transfer of multiple pledges from Bryan-College Station hospitals to Houston tells you something the news articles did not spell out. Local hospitals were not equipped to handle the severity of these injuries. The specialized renal and critical care infrastructure needed to treat acute kidney injury from rhabdomyolysis — the kind of care that may include continuous dialysis, nephrology consultation, and intensive monitoring — is found in the Texas Medical Center in Houston. The fact that patients were transferred there means their condition exceeded what the local facilities could manage. That is a measure of how serious this was.
The Long-Term Risk — Why a “Full Recovery” Is Not the End of the Story
Some of these pledges may be told they have recovered. Their CK levels may return to normal. Their kidney function may appear to stabilize. But the medical literature on rhabdomyolysis-induced acute kidney injury is clear: a meaningful fraction of survivors do not fully recover renal function and progress toward chronic kidney disease. The damage to the kidney’s tubules can be irreversible. A pledge who leaves the hospital feeling fine may face years of renal monitoring, and in the worst case, may eventually require long-term dialysis or a kidney transplant.
This is why the true value of these cases depends heavily on the degree of permanent kidney damage — and why a quick settlement offer from the fraternity’s insurance carrier, before the long-term prognosis is known, is one of the most dangerous things a family can accept.
Texas Anti-Hazing Law — The Statutes That Make This a Civil Case
Texas has some of the strongest anti-hazing statutes in the country, and they create both criminal liability and a basis for civil recovery. The legal framework is found in the Texas Education Code, and understanding it is the first step in understanding why what happened at the Kappa Sigma Lodge was not just wrong — it was illegal.
The Texas Anti-Hazing Statutes
Texas Education Code Sections 37.151 through 37.157 define hazing, make it a criminal offense, and establish the civil liability framework. Under these statutes, hazing includes any intentional, knowing, or reckless act directed against a student, by one person alone or acting with others, that involves physical brutality, brutality of a physical nature, or subjecting the student to conditions that would tend to endanger the physical health or safety of the student — including but not limited to any type of physical brutality, such as whipping, beating, striking, branding, electronic shocking, placing of a harmful substance on the body, or exposure to the elements.
Forced exercise to the point of medical emergency, combined with the denial of water, falls squarely within this definition. Endurance tests that result in injury are explicitly what these statutes were written to punish.
“Any member found to violate the Fraternity’s Code of Conduct, which strictly forbids hazing, will be held accountable.”
That statement was issued by the executive director of Kappa Sigma Fraternity after this incident. The gap between that public position and the private reality inside the Kappa Sigma Lodge on September 14 is the heart of these cases. The fraternity says the right things on paper. What happened inside the lodge was the opposite of what the national organization claims to require. That delta — between the anti-hazing policy in the binder and the hazing ritual in the building — is where liability lives.
Consent Is Not a Defense
Texas anti-hazing law includes a critical provision that directly defeats the most common defense in hazing cases: the argument that the pledge “wanted to do it” or “agreed to participate.” Under the Texas anti-hazing framework, the consent of the person subjected to hazing is not a defense to a charge of hazing. A pledge who “agreed” to the exercise, who “volunteered” for the labor, who did not say no — none of that protects the fraternity or its members. The law recognizes that the power dynamic of a pledge process makes meaningful consent impossible, and it refuses to let the fraternity hide behind it.
Civil Liability Under Texas Education Code Section 51.936
Texas Education Code Section 51.936 addresses university hazing reporting requirements and the institutional framework for tracking hazing violations. The regulatory framework requires universities to publish reports of hazing violations, creating a public record of institutional misconduct. Additionally, the Fraternity Executives Association standards, the university’s Student Code of Conduct, and the national fraternity’s own internal risk management policies — including the FIPG (Fraternal Information & Programming Group) guidelines that govern most national fraternities — establish the baseline standard of care that the Kappa Sigma chapter and its national organization were required to follow.
Texas Comparative Fault and Your Right to Recover
Texas follows a modified comparative negligence rule with a 51% bar. This means a plaintiff can recover damages as long as they are not more than 50% responsible for their own injury. In a hazing case, the defense will try to pin percentage points of fault on the pledge — “he chose to participate,” “he could have left,” “he didn’t have to join.” But the anti-hazing statute’s consent-is-not-a-defense provision strips the foundation out of that argument. The pledge’s participation in a ritual designed to strip away meaningful choice is not negligence — it is the very harm the statute was written to prevent.
Exemplary Damages — Punishment for Conscious Indifference
Texas law allows the recovery of exemplary (punitive) damages when gross negligence is proven. Gross negligence in Texas means an act or omission involving an extreme degree of risk, considering the probability and magnitude of the potential harm, of which the actor has actual awareness, and the act is performed with conscious indifference to the rights, safety, or welfare of others.
Depriving young people of water during prolonged extreme physical exertion is textbook gross negligence. Every person involved in running that exercise — every member who handed out the assignments, every officer who knew the plan, every upperclassman who stood by and watched pledges collapse — made a choice. The law lets a jury punish that choice with damages beyond mere compensation. And in a case where the fraternity has allegedly been pressuring pledges to stay quiet, that pattern of post-incident conduct is evidence of consciousness of guilt that makes exemplary damages more likely, not less.
Who Can Be Held Responsible — The Defendant Structure in a Fraternity Hazing Case
One of the first things we teach families is that a fraternity hazing case is almost never one defendant. It is a stack of entities and individuals, each with a different relationship to what happened and a different reason they may owe compensation.
Kappa Sigma National Fraternity
The national organization chartered the Texas A&M chapter. It set the rules the chapter was supposed to follow. It collected dues from the members. Under principles of vicarious liability and negligent supervision, the national fraternity can be held responsible for the actions of its chartered chapter when it failed to implement or enforce adequate anti-hazing protocols — despite industry-wide knowledge that hazing is a persistent, documented risk in Greek life. The national organization’s own Code of Conduct, which it says “strictly forbids hazing,” becomes evidence of the duty it owed and the standard it failed to meet.
The Local Kappa Sigma Chapter at Texas A&M
The local chapter is the entity that directly organized and executed the September 14 activity. The chapter’s direct negligence — in violating the Texas Education Code’s anti-hazing provisions, in failing to provide a safe environment for pledges, in subjecting young people to conditions that endangered their physical health — is the core of the case. The chapter is also where the institutional knowledge of the hazing tradition lives. This was likely not the first time this happened. It was the first time someone was hospitalized badly enough for it to become a criminal investigation.
Individual Fraternity Officers and Members
The students who organized, directed, and enforced the exercise and labor routine face personal liability for intentional torts — assault and battery — and for gross negligence in mandating life-threatening physical activity without hydration. The members who pressured pledges to remain quiet after the incident may face separate liability for witness intimidation and for actions that demonstrate consciousness of guilt. Individual liability matters because it reaches beyond insurance policies — it reaches into personal assets and sends a message that “I was just following the tradition” is not a shield.
Property Owners of the Kappa Sigma Lodge
The lodge where this happened is a physical location with an owner. Under Texas premises liability law, the property owner — whether that is the fraternity chapter itself, a separate property-holding entity, or a landlord — has a duty to maintain the property in a reasonably safe condition and to prevent illegal and dangerous activities from occurring on the premises. Allowing hazing to occur on the property, especially when the activity is designed to push participants to medical emergency, can create direct premises liability for the property owner.
The Evidence Clock — What Exists Right Now and How Fast It Is Disappearing
This is the section that matters more than any other on this page, because the evidence in a hazing case dies faster than in almost any other type of injury case. The fraternity already knows what happened. The article itself reports that the fraternity has been in close contact with pledges and pressured them into remaining quiet. That means evidence is being actively suppressed right now.
Digital Communications — GroupMe, SMS, Snapchat, Instagram
The single most powerful evidence in a hazing case is the digital trail: the GroupMe messages where the exercise was organized, the Snapchat videos of pledges laboring at the lodge, the texts between members about the “routine” and the “code of silence,” the Instagram DMs pressuring pledges not to talk. These messages prove intent — they show the specific plan, who ordered it, and the subsequent pressure to cover it up.
This evidence is HIGH URGENCY. Messages on Snapchat disappear by design. GroupMe messages can be deleted by any participant. Group chats can be “wiped” with a few taps. Once a member is tipped off that an investigation is underway, the instinct — and the instruction from the fraternity — will be to delete everything. If you are a pledge or a parent, the phones need to be secured immediately. Do not communicate further with fraternity members through any channel. Every message you send is a message that can be turned against you, and every message you receive is evidence that can be preserved if the phone is protected.
Lodge Security Footage and Ring Cameras
If the Kappa Sigma Lodge has security cameras, a Ring doorbell, or any surveillance system, the footage from September 14 is the visual evidence of what happened — the manual labor, the exercise, the state of the pledges, who was present, and who was directing. Security camera systems typically overwrite on a rolling cycle of 7 to 30 days. Every day that passes without a formal preservation demand is a day closer to that footage being gone forever.
Blood Lab Results — CK Levels and the Medical Record
The hospital records from every pledge who was treated are the objective, contemporaneous medical proof of the injury. The CK levels, the creatinine levels, the potassium levels, the urine myoglobin — these are the numbers that prove this was not a “hard workout.” These records are preserved in hospital systems and are more durable than digital communications, but they must be formally requested. If your child was treated at a hospital in Bryan-College Station or Houston, the full medical record — including every blood draw, every nephrology consult, every imaging study — needs to be requested and preserved.
National Fraternity Charter and Risk Management Documents
The national fraternity’s charter documents, its risk management policies, its anti-hazing training materials, and any prior incident reports involving the Texas A&M chapter are all obtainable through the discovery process once a lawsuit is filed. These documents establish the duty of care the national organization owed and what it knew — or should have known — about the culture of this specific chapter. These are less time-sensitive because they are institutional records, but the sooner a case is filed, the sooner these can be demanded.
The Preservation Letter — The Single Most Important First Step
The day you call our firm is the day a preservation letter goes out. That letter is a formal demand to the national fraternity, the local chapter, the lodge property owner, and every relevant individual that they preserve all evidence related to the September 14 incident — digital communications, surveillance footage, incident reports, internal communications, and physical evidence. Once that letter is received, the deliberate destruction of any identified evidence becomes spoliation — a separate basis for sanctions, adverse inference instructions to a jury, and in some circumstances, additional liability.
If you or your child has been contacted by fraternity members telling you not to talk, not to report, not to cooperate with the investigation — that instruction is itself evidence. Save it. Do not respond. Call us.
The Fraternity Insurance and Defense Playbook — What They Will Try and How We Counter It
Lupe Peña, our associate attorney, spent years inside a national insurance-defense firm — the rooms where adjusters and their software decided how to deny, delay, and devalue claims from people exactly like you. He sat across the table from the defense. Now he sits on your side. That insider knowledge is how we know exactly what the fraternity’s insurance representatives and defense lawyers are already doing, and it is how we counter every play before it lands.
Play 1 — “The Pledge Voluntarily Participated”
The defense will argue that the pledge chose to join, chose to participate, and assumed the risk of whatever happened during the pledge process. This is the oldest play in the fraternity defense handbook.
Our counter: Texas anti-hazing law explicitly provides that consent is not a defense. The power dynamic of a pledge process — the desire for acceptance, the fear of being dropped, the group pressure — makes meaningful consent impossible. The statute was written to destroy this exact defense. We also deploy experts on fraternity culture to explain to a jury what “voluntary” really means when a 19-year-old is surrounded by older members who control his social standing and his path to membership.
Play 2 — “The Fast Check Before the Medical Bills Come In”
The fraternity’s insurance carrier may move quickly to offer a settlement — a check that looks substantial to a college family but is a fraction of what the case is worth, especially before the long-term renal prognosis is known. The release attached to that check will waive all future claims, including claims for kidney damage that surfaces months or years later.
Our counter: No settlement is accepted before the medical picture is complete. CK levels must trend down. Renal function must be stable. A nephrologist must opine on the likelihood of long-term damage. A life-care planner must project the cost of future monitoring and any ongoing care. The adjuster’s urgency to close the file is the family’s warning sign that the offer is designed to expire before the real cost is known.
Play 3 — “The Code of Silence Pressure”
The article reports that the fraternity has been in contact with pledges, pressuring them to remain quiet. This is not just a tactic — it is a coordinated effort to destroy the evidence and suppress the witnesses before a civil case can be built.
Our counter: Every communication pressuring a pledge to stay silent is preserved as evidence of consciousness of guilt and, potentially, witness intimidation. We instruct every client to stop communicating with fraternity members immediately and to direct all contact through our office. We send preservation letters that put the fraternity on notice that any destruction of evidence after receiving the letter is spoliation. And we use the pattern of pressure itself as leverage — a jury that hears the fraternity tried to silence the victims will draw its own conclusions about what they were trying to hide.
Play 4 — “The National Organization Is Not Responsible for the Local Chapter”
The national fraternity will argue that the local chapter is an independent entity and that the national organization cannot be held liable for the chapter’s conduct.
Our counter: The national fraternity chartered the chapter, set its rules, collected its dues, and represented to the public and to the university that it supervised the chapter’s conduct. The national organization’s own Code of Conduct — which it says “strictly forbids hazing” — is the standard of care it adopted and failed to enforce. Discovery into the national fraternity’s knowledge of prior incidents at this chapter, its training and supervision practices, and its actual enforcement of its own anti-hazing policies will determine whether vicarious liability or negligent supervision attaches. The national organization is not a bystander; it is the entity that put this chapter in place and profited from its existence.
What Your Hazing Case May Be Worth — The Money
The value of a fraternity hazing case involving rhabdomyolysis depends heavily on the degree of permanent kidney damage. We build the number the same way we build it in any catastrophic-injury case — from the ground up, category by category, with every cost sourced and every future need projected.
Economic Damages — The Hard Costs
Economic damages in these cases include past and future medical expenses. For the treatment of rhabdomyolysis, this includes emergency room visits, hospital admission costs, nephrology consultations, laboratory testing, and if kidney failure occurred, dialysis sessions and potentially transfer-to-Houston medical transport. If any pledge requires long-term renal monitoring, future medical costs must be projected through a life-care plan. If chronic kidney disease develops, the cost of ongoing nephrology care, medication, and potential dialysis or transplant can run into the hundreds of thousands or millions over a lifetime.
Lost wages and lost earning capacity are recoverable if the injury caused the student to miss school, delay graduation, or suffer a permanent limitation that affects future earning ability. A semester lost to hospitalization and recovery is a semester of delayed entry into the workforce — and the economic model accounts for that.
Non-Economic Damages — The Human Cost
Non-economic damages include physical pain, mental anguish, and the loss of the college experience. Rhabdomyolysis is extraordinarily painful — the muscle breakdown, the swelling, the burning of the kidneys. The mental anguish of being hospitalized for an injury that was inflicted on you by people who called you “brother” is a separate, compensable harm. The loss of the college experience — the semester derailed, the friendships broken, the trust shattered — is real and recoverable under Texas law.
Exemplary Damages — Punishment for Gross Negligence
Exemplary damages are highly likely in this case because the deprivation of water during extreme physical exertion shows conscious indifference to a substantial risk of serious bodily injury or death. The intentional nature of the conduct — this was not an accident, it was a planned ritual — and the reported post-incident pressure to silence pledges both support an award designed to punish and deter.
Case Value Range
Based on the injury profile and the liability theories available under Texas law, the case value range for these pledges is estimated at $250,000 on the low end (a full recovery without long-term sequelae) to $3,500,000 or more on the high end (permanent kidney damage requiring ongoing care, dialysis, or transplant, combined with the shock value to a jury of intentional water deprivation and the code-of-silence pressure). The exact figure depends on the individual plaintiff’s medical outcome, the specific conduct proven, and the venue.
These figures are honest estimates based on the case profile, not guarantees. Past results depend on the facts of each case and do not guarantee future outcomes.
The First 72 Hours — What You Need to Do Right Now
If you or your child was a pledge hospitalized after the September 14 Kappa Sigma incident, or if you are the parent of a pledge, here is what needs to happen in the next 72 hours — not in the next month, not after the criminal case resolves, now.
Medical First — Why Symptoms Lie
Even if a pledge was not hospitalized, even if they “feel fine now,” anyone who participated in the September 14 exercise routine needs a blood panel — specifically a CK level and a creatinine level. Rhabdomyolysis can present with symptoms that seem minor at first: dark urine (the color of tea or cola, caused by myoglobin), muscle swelling, muscle weakness, and generalized fatigue. CK continues to rise for 24 to 72 hours after the injury. A pledge who felt okay on Tuesday might have been in the danger zone on Wednesday. A CK level drawn on the day of the incident can be deceptively low. The only safe course is a serial CK draw — repeated over days — to confirm the trajectory is downward, not upward.
If your child was discharged from the hospital, make sure you have the discharge instructions, the lab results, and the follow-up plan. If a nephrology follow-up was recommended, keep the appointment. The medical record is the foundation of the case, and gaps in treatment are the defense’s favorite argument.
Secure the Phone — The Single Most Important Evidence Step
The phone is the most important piece of evidence in a hazing case. It contains the GroupMe messages, the texts, the Snapchat screenshots, the Instagram DMs — everything that proves what was planned, who directed it, and what happened after. If you are a parent, take physical custody of your child’s phone. Do not let them continue communicating with fraternity members. Do not let them “clean up” their messages or delete anything. Do not let a fraternity member take the phone for any reason.
If you are the pledge, stop communicating with fraternity members on every platform — GroupMe, text, Snapchat, Instagram, in person. Save every communication you have already received, especially any message pressuring you to stay quiet or not cooperate with the investigation. Take screenshots. Back them up. Then call us.
Do Not Sign Anything
If the fraternity, its insurance carrier, or any representative offers you a settlement, a release, a “medical reimbursement,” or any document that asks you to sign away rights — do not sign it. Do not cash any check. Do not accept any payment. A release signed in the first weeks after a hazing injury, before the long-term renal prognosis is known, is the single most effective way the fraternity can extinguish your case for a fraction of its value.
Do Not Post on Social Media
Do not post about the incident on any platform. Do not discuss it in public. Do not share your experience in a group chat. Anything you post can be taken out of context and used by the defense to minimize the injury or suggest the pledge is doing fine. The defense will monitor social media. Silence is your protection right now.
Call Us — The Clock Starts the Day You Call
The preservation letter goes out the day you call our firm. That letter freezes the evidence — the digital communications, the surveillance footage, the fraternity’s internal records — before the fraternity’s own cleanup operation can destroy them. The longer you wait, the more evidence dies. The fraternity is already in contact with pledges. The code of silence is already being enforced. Every day that passes without a preservation demand is a day the fraternity can claim evidence was “routinely deleted” before anyone asked for it.
Call 1-888-ATTY-911. The consultation is free. We don’t get paid unless we win your case.
How We Build a Fraternity Hazing Case — The Proof Story
Here is how a case like this is actually built, from the first call through resolution.
In the first week, the preservation letter goes out — to the national fraternity, the local chapter, the lodge property owner, and every individual we can identify. That letter names the specific evidence to be preserved: all digital communications from September 14 and the days following, all surveillance footage from the lodge, all incident reports, all internal communications about the investigation, and all risk-management and anti-hazing training records. Once that letter is received, the deliberate destruction of any identified evidence becomes spoliation.
In the first month, we secure the medical records — the full chart from every hospital visit, including the serial CK draws, the creatinine levels, the potassium levels, the nephrology consults, and the imaging. We retain a nephrologist to review the records and to provide an opinion on the likelihood of long-term renal damage. We retain a toxicologist to explain to a jury, in plain language, how depriving a young person of water during extreme exercise turns their own muscles into a poison that attacks their kidneys.
In discovery, we pull the fraternity’s internal records — the charter documents, the risk management policies, the prior incident reports, the disciplinary history of the chapter, the training materials, and the communications between the national organization and the local chapter. This is where we find the delta between the public anti-hazing stance and the private reality. If this chapter has a prior history of hazing complaints, if the national organization was notified and did nothing, if the FIPG guidelines were on paper but never enforced — all of that is discoverable, and all of it builds the case for gross negligence and exemplary damages.
In the depositions, we put the officers and members under oath. Who planned the September 14 exercise? Who directed it? Who denied the pledges water? Who told them to keep quiet afterward? Who sent the messages pressuring pledges not to cooperate with the investigation? The answers — or the refusal to answer — build the record that a jury will hear.
The number at the end is built from all of it — the medical records, the life-care plan, the forensic economist’s present-value calculation, the expert testimony on pain and suffering, and the pattern of conduct that supports exemplary damages. We do not accept a quick check. We build the case until the full measure of the harm is documented, and then we demand the full measure of the compensation.
The Venue — Brazos County and the Community That Protects Its Students
The case will likely be filed in Brazos County, where the incident occurred and where the fraternity chapter operates. Brazos County is home to Texas A&M University, and the community’s relationship with the university shapes how a jury sees a hazing case. Local juries in Brazos County have historically shown significant disapproval of intentional harm or gross negligence involving the mistreatment of the university’s student body. These are, in many cases, jurors who have children at the university, who work alongside the university, and who understand that a fraternity that hospitalizes pledges is not a Texas A&M tradition — it is a danger to the community’s young people.
If jurisdictional hooks allow — for example, if the national fraternity has sufficient contacts in Harris County, or if the severe medical treatment occurred in Houston — venue in Harris County may also be available. The Texas Medical Center in Houston, where the most seriously injured pledges were transferred, is in Harris County. The community’s protective instinct toward students is a powerful force in both venues.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can I sue a fraternity for hazing injuries in Texas?
Yes. Texas law provides both criminal and civil liability for hazing. Under the Texas Education Code’s anti-hazing statutes, hazing is a criminal offense, and the same conduct creates a basis for civil recovery — including medical expenses, pain and suffering, lost earning capacity, and exemplary damages. The consent of the pledge is not a defense. A civil lawsuit can be filed against the national fraternity, the local chapter, individual members, and the property owner of the location where the hazing occurred.
How long do I have to file a hazing lawsuit in Texas?
Texas generally applies a two-year statute of limitations for personal injury claims. In a hazing case, the clock typically starts on the date of the injury — September 14, 2025, in this case. However, the exact accrual date can depend on when the injury was discovered or should have been discovered, particularly for latent injuries like progressive kidney damage. Because the deadline is strict and because evidence disappears rapidly, the safest course is to consult a lawyer immediately rather than waiting to see how the criminal case resolves. The criminal timeline and the civil timeline are separate — waiting for the criminal investigation to conclude can cost you your civil case.
What is rhabdomyolysis and why is it so dangerous?
Rhabdomyolysis is a condition in which damaged muscle tissue releases its contents — including a protein called myoglobin — into the bloodstream. The kidneys, which filter the blood, are overwhelmed by the myoglobin, which clogs and damages the kidney’s filtering tubules. This can cause acute kidney injury, which may require dialysis and can progress to chronic kidney disease. The condition also releases potassium into the blood, which can cause dangerous heart arrhythmias. Rhabdomyolysis is diagnosed by measuring creatine kinase (CK) levels in the blood. It is a medical emergency, not a sore muscle, and it is exactly what happens when a body is pushed to extreme exertion without water or rest.
Is the national Kappa Sigma organization liable for what the local chapter did?
The national fraternity’s liability depends on several factors: whether it chartered the local chapter, whether it set and was responsible for enforcing anti-hazing policies, whether it had knowledge of prior hazing at this chapter, and whether it exercised control over the chapter’s operations. The national organization’s own public statement — that its Code of Conduct “strictly forbids hazing” — establishes the standard it adopted. Whether it actually enforced that standard, and whether it knew or should have known about the culture of this specific chapter, are questions that discovery answers. Vicarious liability and negligent supervision are both viable theories against the national organization.
What if the fraternity told pledges not to talk about what happened?
Any communication pressuring pledges to remain quiet is evidence. It is evidence of consciousness of guilt — the fraternity knows what happened was wrong and is trying to suppress the proof. It may also constitute witness intimidation, which is a separate basis for liability and a powerful factor in supporting exemplary damages. If you have received any message — text, GroupMe, Snapchat, Instagram, or in-person instruction — telling you not to talk, not to report, or not to cooperate with any investigation, save that message immediately and do not respond. Call us. We will tell you exactly what to do with it.
Can I still recover if I “voluntarily” participated in the hazing?
Yes. Texas anti-hazing law specifically provides that the consent of the person subjected to hazing is not a defense. The law recognizes that a pledge process is inherently coercive — the desire for acceptance, the power dynamic between pledges and active members, and the fear of being dropped from the fraternity all make meaningful consent impossible. The defense will try to argue you assumed the risk. The statute was written to defeat that argument. Your participation in a ritual designed to strip away your ability to refuse is not negligence — it is the harm the law was written to punish.
What if I wasn’t hospitalized but I participated in the exercise?
Anyone who participated in the September 14 exercise at the Kappa Sigma Lodge should have a blood test — specifically a CK level and a creatinine level — even if they were not hospitalized. Rhabdomyolysis can develop over 24 to 72 hours after the exertion. A pledge who felt okay on Monday could have been in the danger zone by Tuesday or Wednesday. Dark urine (tea-colored or cola-colored), severe muscle pain, swelling, and weakness are warning signs. The only way to know if you were injured is a blood draw. If your CK was elevated, you have a medical injury and potentially a legal claim, even if you were not admitted to the hospital.
How much does it cost to hire a hazing lawyer?
We work on contingency. That means the consultation is free, and we don’t get paid unless we win your case. Our fee is 33.33% of the recovery before trial and 40% if the case goes to trial. We advance the costs of the case — the filing fees, the expert witnesses, the medical record retrieval — and those costs are repaid from the recovery. You pay nothing out of pocket. We take on the financial risk because we believe in the case, and because we know that families dealing with a hospitalized student should not have to also worry about legal bills.
Should I wait for the criminal investigation to finish before I talk to a lawyer?
No. The criminal investigation and your civil case are separate processes with separate timelines. The criminal case is the state’s case — it punishes the wrongdoer. Your civil case is your case — it compensates you for the harm. The criminal investigation does not preserve evidence for your civil case. The Brazos County Sheriff’s Office is not going to send a preservation letter to the fraternity demanding that digital communications and surveillance footage be saved. That is your lawyer’s job, and the longer you wait, the more evidence dies. The day you call us is the day the evidence gets frozen.
Who We Are — The Firm Behind This Page
We are Attorney911 — The Manginello Law Firm, PLLC. We are a Texas trial firm based in Houston, and we take catastrophic-injury, wrongful-death, and hazing cases across the state. We are not a marketing operation that refers your case to someone else. We are the lawyers who work it.
Ralph Manginello is our Managing Partner. He has been licensed in Texas since November 6, 1998 — more than 27 years. He is admitted to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas. He was a journalist before he was a lawyer, which means he knows how to find the story the other side does not want told. He is the lead counsel in an active $10 million hazing lawsuit against Pi Kappa Phi and the University of Houston — a case that is being fought right now in Harris County. He knows the law, he knows the medicine, and he knows how a fraternity defends itself, because he has been in that fight. Read more about Ralph here.
Lupe Peña is our associate attorney. He was an insurance-defense lawyer at a national defense firm before he joined our side of the table. He sat in the rooms where adjusters and their valuation software decided how to deny, delay, and devalue claims. He knows how the insurance carrier sets its reserve in the first 48 hours, how the recorded-statement call is engineered, how the IME doctor is chosen, and how the quick settlement check arrives with a release printed on the back. Now he uses that knowledge for injured clients. Lupe is a third-generation Texan, he is fluent in Spanish, and he conducts full client consultations in Spanish without an interpreter. Read more about Lupe here.
Our firm has recovered more than $50 million in aggregate for our clients — a marketing figure that represents the collective results of the firm over its history. Past results depend on the facts of each case and do not guarantee future outcomes. What we can tell you is that we have the experience, the resources, and the will to take on a national fraternity and hold it accountable for what its chapter did to pledges in College Station.
If your family has been affected by fraternity hazing — whether at Kappa Sigma, any other Greek organization, a corps of cadets, a marching band, or any other student organization — we can help. Our practice areas include the full range of personal-injury and wrongful-death representation, and we have specific experience in the unique legal and institutional dynamics of hazing cases.
Call Now — The Evidence Is Disappearing
The fraternity knows what happened. The fraternity is already in contact with pledges, pressuring them to stay quiet. The surveillance footage at the lodge is on a 7-to-30-day overwrite cycle. The GroupMe messages can be deleted with a few taps. The Snapchat stories are already gone. Every hour that passes without a preservation demand is an hour the fraternity can use to destroy the proof.
You do not need to have all the answers. You do not need to know the legal theories or the statute sections. You need to pick up the phone.
Call 1-888-ATTY-911 — that is 1-888-288-9911. The consultation is free. We don’t get paid unless we win your case. We are available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week — you will reach a live person, not an answering service.
Hablamos Español. Lupe Peña conducts full consultations in Spanish. Si su familia ha sido afectada por el hazamiento en una fraternidad, llámenos. La consulta es gratuita.
The preservation letter goes out the day you call. That is the day the evidence gets frozen, the day the fraternity’s cleanup operation hits a wall, and the day your family stops fighting this alone.
Call now. The evidence is disappearing, and the clock is already running.
