8.4 million dollar CRPS electrocution verdict against national energy company Q3 who hooks up power for Xcel in 9 states. Denver Jury found that Q3 negligently left three live electrical wires hidden in a power pedestal that provides power to mobile home park. Plaintiff Jon Valaer was an electrician who was working on the site five months later and was electrocuted when he touched the energized pedestal. 143,000 in past meds.

The shock was a 120v shock and D hired the electrical shock bioelectric scientist expert out of Minnesota to opine that this shock was .1 of a second and could never hurt anyone. They also had a handful of comparative fault arguments (failing to wear gloves and test for power) that the defense lawyer from Orange County told me worked on all five of his focus groups at 30% comparative.

Jury found 0% comparative fault and awarded 3 million for future meds, 1 million for pain and suffering (cap in CO is a million) and 4.4 in impairment (uncapped).

Kurt Zaner

$8.4M CRPS Electrocution Verdict - Kurt Zaner

In December 2014, Dalas Gundersen was terminated from his job at the Edward Jones office in Willows, California. Lisa Rodriguez, another Edward Jones employee, was moved to the Willows office to replace Gundersen.

Soon thereafter, Gundersen began setting up his own financial planning business in the area – hanging out his own shingle. Rodriguez and Edward Jones felt threatened by the competition and decided to do something about it. In the months following, Rodriguez and another Edward Jones employee, Paul Betenbaugh, began a campaign of harassing and defaming Gundersen.

Rodriguez made false statements about Gundersen to his former customers, insinuating that Mr. Gundersen broke the law by embezzling money from customers.

Betenbaugh, who felt that Rodriguez was like a sister to him, began posting ads on Craigslist requesting homosexual dating, including references to pedophilia. The ads listed Gundersen’s name and, despite it being against Craigslist policy, his personal phone number. Gundersen then started to regularly receive lewd photos, messages, and calls at all hours of the day. At the time, Gundersen did not know the source of the ads.

In light of his reputation being slandered throughout the community, thereby destroying the family name he had worked to build, and the constant harassment resulting from the Craiglist ads, Gundersen retained legal counsel, who was able to trace the source of the Craigslist ads to Betenbaugh. Gundersen then filed a lawsuit against Edward Jones, Lisa Rodriguez, and Paul Betenbaugh, alleging internet impersonation, interference with prospective economic relations, unfair business practices, false light, defamation, and intentional infliction of emotional distress.

The matter went to trial in August 2021, at which a jury awarded Gundersen $38 million. The jury awarded an additional amount in punitive damages against Lisa Rodriguez just under $1 million.

John Garner

Og Gavrilov

Gundersen v. Edward Jones et al - $38M Defamation/Cyber bullying - John Garner and Og Gavrilov

Ulysses Cruz was a 48-year-old United Airline ramp service agent working at George Bush Intercontinental Airport in Houston, Texas on September 7, 2019. He was serving as a pedestrian wingwalker backing out a plane from the terminal at 7:30 in the morning when he was struck by an Allied Aviation Fueling van on the tarmac. The impact threw Mr. Cruz about 15 feet and he was immediately paralyzed from the chest down. Following spine surgery two days later, Mr. Cruz suffered a massive stroke effecting the whole right side of his body and left side of his brain. Suit against Allied Aviation and its driver resulted in a $352.7 million actual damages award – the largest actual damages verdict for an injured worker in Texas history. There were no punitive damages awarded. The defense (who had a $500 million insurance policy) was represented by the national law firm of Jackson Walker and Rusty Hardin & Associates. Famed Houston lawyer Rusty Hardin was the lead defense lawyer.

2. In person voir dire with social distancing protocols in place; 3. Opening statements with PowerPoints; 4. Presentation of non-economic damages with a catastrophic injury including paralysis; 5. Closing arguments – asking for a nine-figure damage award.

Randy Sorrels

Alex Farias-Sorrels

Cruz v. Allied Aviation - $352.7M Verdict for Paralyzed Airport Worker - Randall Sorrels & Alex Farias-Sorrels

In January 2018, a highway patrolman crashed into the rear of an SUV that was stopped in traffic waiting for a school bus. The SUV driver, 34 year old Brandon Reinsch, felt minor discomfort at the scene; the SUV wasdamaged but drivable. Brandon drove himself and his 11 year old daughter to the ER later that day; x-rays were taken but no acute findings were noted. Three weeks later Brandon went to his first chiropractic appointment. He was then referred to a primary care doctor and went on to have conservative therapy for the next year. He complained of headaches, neck pain, back pain, and radicular symptoms into his hands. That first year Brandon was offered ESI’s and RFA’s but declined. He was offered cubital tunnel surgery but declined. During this time he continued to work but his job performance declined and he eventually lost his job. Two and a half years after the crash Brandon decided to go back to pain management and have the CESI’s and RFA’s. His bills went from about $45k to $210k. He finished treatment five months before trial and his pain was down to a 1/10 with occasional flare ups. The defense offered $40k at mediation stating in their mediation memo that Brandon was malingering. At trial the defense went after Brandon hard, claiming this was a minor impact, that Brandon’s MRI’s and EMG’s were normal for his age, and that Brandon was malingering. The defense asked the jury to award $10k.

Montana Thompson

Justin Wyatt

Reinsch v State of Arizona - $854,000 Verdict for Client Suffering from Auto Collision Injuries - Montana Thompson & Justin Wyatt

Facts: A regular night in October 2018, the plaintiff was coming home from the grocery store. She was about a ½ mile or less from her house when the defendant crossed the center line and struck our client head on. Because of that, our client’s right radius and ulna were busted. Because of that, she had surgery 3 days later to place 2 plates and 12 screws in her right forearm, her dominant hand. She had a total of 12 PT visits and 4 Surgeon visits. She cancelled her final surgeon visit and never returned. Her discharge from PT said she had 0 out of 10 pain and was able to do everything. Some records said she was able to paint an entire room with her arm and return to normal function. She totaled 2.5 months of treatment.

The defense conceded liability at trial but wanted to qualify their concession by saying the defendant’s son was vomiting in the back seat so that was why the defendant took his eyes off the road. We had eyewitness testimony that attributed a different statement to the defendant.

Original offer was $50,000. Defense suggested $20,000 at trial. Unanimous Verdict was $750,000 after 15-20 minutes. The policy was $100,000. We made 3 attempts to settle for the limits. The highest the defense would go was $70,000.

1. Shorter is Better: our trial lasted 1.5 days. We had 6 witnesses and did 1 hr 45 min of jury selection—bulk of our time was talking to the jurors.

2. Healthy Body in Trial equals a Healthy Mind: We spent time leading up and during trial taking care of ourselves and getting the sleep we needed. No late nights. Being fresh was important. So was trusting ourselves. We didn’t need to be perfect but we needed to be prepared.

3. Connection above all else: We wanted to connect with jurors and our client, no matter the time and effort. We didn’t want powerpoints or too much flowery testimony. We also didn’t want to engage in any unnecessary bickering or fights with the defense. If it wasn’t a big deal, we let it go.

4. Honesty with Jurors: We wanted the jurors to know why we did something or why were asking things. If we had a chance to explain even the smallest thing we did so and why we were doing it. We let them know what to expect from us and what we would expect from them. Talked about staying inside The Box when it came to damages. Designed the alliance as Sari De La Motte says. Also addressed the power they had.

5. Burden of Proof is still important in Non economic cases: We spent a good chunk of time with the jurors on the burden of proof and millions of dollars for non-economic damages. We explained to them the different cases—some for medical and lost wages and some for non-economic. This is a non-economic and more likely true than not. We told the jurors the med specials were paid by health insurance.

6. The best story wins: We tried to find interesting and captivating starting points for the story of our case. How could we make a run of the mill auto case rise to the level of such importance as to justify a large dollar amount? How could we make it interesting? We left the best parts out of our opening—let the story arc progress upward as the case went on.

Chris Finney

Alex Ledbetter

Elizabeth Button v. Michael Gerleman - $750,000 Verdict - Chris Finney & Alex Ledbetter

In 2010, Dr. Anis Chalhoub told a 39 year old Kevin Wells that he needed a pacemaker and he was a risk of death without one. Chalhoub also told Kevin he had a 60-80% blockage in his heart that may need to be stented. The following year, with no additional testing, Chalhoub told him Wells he needed the stent now. Wells wanted a second opinion and the second cardiologist told Wells he did not need a stent because the blockage was only 10%, and he also did not need the pacemaker Chalhoub installed. The second physician basically turned it off because attempting to remove it involved a risk of infection or death. The Poppe Law Firm discovered that the physicians in London, KY (including Chalhoub and several others) were engaged in a business arrangement with Catholic Health Initiatives. The systems incentivized the doctors to perform as many cardiology procedures as possible and eliminated any oversight as to medical necessity. The complex financial scheme resulted in cardiology procedures skyrocketing in the community. The Poppe Law firm filed over 400 cases alleging unnecessary cardiology procedures. After these case were filed CHI conducted their own independent review of 12 of his cases as and determined all 12 were medically unnecessary. The first two cases to go to trial resulted in defense verdicts; however, in the third trial a civil jury unanimously determined Dr. Chalhoub implanted an unnecessary pacemaker in Kevin Wells and caused him substantial injuries.

Following this civil verdict, a federal criminal jury found Chalhoub criminally guilty of Medicare healthcare fraud under 18 U.S.C. § 1347 and sentenced him to 42 months in prison In 2016, ALM VerdictSearch Top 100 Verdicts of 2016 recognized the $21,274,786 verdict in Wells v Catholic Health Initiatives, Inc as the 94th largest verdict in the United States. The Wells case was one of over 400 cased filed by the Poppe Law Firm in London, KY alleging unnecessary cardiac procedures were performed in order to boost profits. Three more cases went to trial and ultimately all the cases were globally settled the night before the verdict in the Owens v. CHI trial. The work done by Hans and his team also contributed to a $16,500,000 Medicare qui tam recovery from the hospital and $380,000 from two doctors. Additionally, the work done by the Poppe Law Firm helped lead to the arrest and federal conviction of two other cardiologists for Medicare fraud. Chalhoub was sentenced to 42 months and the other was sentenced to 30 months.

Dogged determination is required to win mass tort cases. You have to be willing to get punched in the mouth a few times. Never let them see you sweat.

Keeping clients informed at every stage of the litigation is paramount in getting buy in for global mass tort settlements.

Organize, organize, organize. Build out your infrastructure.

Remove everything you don’t need from the case, including defendants. KISS GO higher in the food chain to find responsibility. Follow the money.

Hans Poppe

Wells v. Catholic Health Initiatives, $21.3M Verdict in a Pacemaker Case - Case Analysis by Hans Poppe

If you missed the live webinar with Hans Poppe and his case analysis on February 4th, register for this session to watch the recording.

(REWATCH) Wells v. Catholic Health Initiatives, $21.3M Verdict in a Pacemaker Case - Case Analysis by Hans Poppe

Justin Heim of Law Offices of Justin R. Heim, and Travis Davis and Sevy Fisher of The Simon Law Group, represented the father and mother in a wrongful death action for the tragic death of a 21-year-old boy who was the victim of a drunk driving incident. The decedent, Arnold Mena, was killed when Defendant, Luis Humberto Herrera, drove into him at an incredibly high speed and then fled the scene. Herrera later burned the car in an attempt to conceal the evidence.

Initially, coverage issues stood in the way of the true case value. However, after the Defendant’s insurance company unreasonably refused to tender a mere $15,000 liability policy, the Plaintiffs pursued the action to trial.

The case presented many novel issues. Herrera was imprisoned for killing Arnold Mena, and with Covid-related shutdowns his deposition and trial testimony were difficult to secure. At trial, Hererra’s defense counsel tried on multiple occasions to exclude evidence of the arson. The trial court denied such requests, ruling that it went directly to issues of liability and credibility of the Defendant. Finally, the interplay between the criminal case (and pleas resulting therefrom) and the civil case was a constant contention.

Ultimately, the jury valued Plaintiffs’ non-economic damages (economics had been waived) at $10 million. They found Herrera sixty percent at fault for Arnold Mena’s death and the resulting injuries to Plaintiffs.

Another novel issue presented by this trial revolved around having two separated parents as distinct and separately represented plaintiffs.

The separation of the parents, and the distinct difference in their relationship with decedent created an opportunity for defense. Specifically, we knew that defense would attack one of the parents as being a sort of “absentee parent.” Cutting this defense off required that we collectively address it and stand unified from voir dire to closing. By the time of defense’s closing, the defense was left stating that they weren’t suggesting that the love of one parent wasn’t worth any more or less than the other.

When to waive economic damages in a WD case.

Not mentioning Defendant’s bad behavior facts in mini opening and voir dire when you know Defense counsel will do the same Using relevant time periods of your trial to tell your damages story (i.e. November/December trial and Family Holidays).

Getting a willful suppression of evidence instruction even though the incident was on video Presenting your case with two separate law firms representing separate plaintiffs for the same incident

Justin Heim

Travis Davis

Sevy Fisher

Dan Kramer

Mena v. Humberto Herrera, $10M Verdict, Wrongful Death - Case Analysis by Justin Heim, Travis Davis & Sevy Fisher; Webinar Hosted by Daniel Kramer

Listen to Keith Mitnik present at TLU Live Vegas 2021 as he walks you through the processes he uses to try and win cases. Take away tips on how you can create your own winning approaches to trying personal injury cases.

Mitnik discusses how to establish the true value of your cases. He goes over the structure for damages in all kinds of cases and explains how to remove obstacles to the biggest just verdict or settlement that you can get.

Keith Mitnik 

REPLAY - TLU Live Las Vegas 2021 - Deeper Cuts by Keith Mitnik (Part 1 of 4)

Keith Mitnik speaks about case preparation and wanna-be problems you think you have in your cases that aren’t actually problems. He shows you that concerns such as priors, going to the doctor or emergency room right away, and treatment gaps are not reasons to see your case as compromised. Mitnik also discusses the aggravation of a pre-existing condition and shows you how the baseline, reserves, and coping work.

Keith Mitnik

REPLAY - TLU Live Las Vegas 2021 - Deeper Cuts by Keith Mitnik (Part 2 of 4)

Keith Mitnik focuses on depositions where cases are often won or lost. He shows you how to put an end to universal defense strategies that belittles your client’s pain just because no one can see it. Mitnik uses examples from one of his “slip & fall” cases.

REPLAY - TLU Live Las Vegas 2021 - Deeper Cuts by Keith Mitnik (Part 3 of 4)

Keith Mitnik goes over the maximum justice matrix and the three parts to it:

-Putting an end to belittling pain you can’t see (as discussed in Part 2) -Dignity of damages -Audacity to ask (for full value)

REPLAY - TLU Live Las Vegas 2021 - Deeper Cuts by Keith Mitnik (Part 4 of 4)

A rear-end auto v. Motorcycle collision. Officer Bejar was attempting to pull over a third party for speeding. As he activated his lights and sirens, the individual he was pulling over rapidly applied his brakes and turned left onto the shoulder. Officer Bejar rapidly slowed his motorcycle to follow the speeding vehicle. The defendant rear-ended him causing him to be ejected from the motorcycle. He fractured his orbital socket when his face hit the pavement. This caused him to sustain a traumatic brain injury. The defendant claimed that the forces were insufficient to sustain a traumatic brain injury because the officer was wearing a helmet. The defendant also claimed that the speeding motorist and Officer Bejar were to blame for the collision.

Rex Parris & Khail Parris go over their mini opening for this case and the process behind it.

Rex Parris

Khail Parris

REPLAY - TLU Live Las Vegas 2021 - Bejar v. Lopez,  TBI/Spine, Mini Opening - Rex Parris & Khail Parris

Rex Parris & Khail Parris speak about the heat during the jury selection process and how to be ok with it.

REPLAY – TLU Live Las Vegas 2021 - Bejar v. Lopez,  TBI/Spine, Jury Selection – Rex Parris & Khail Parris

Rex Parris & Khail Parris discuss the negative space concept when dealing with experts. Bruce Schechter shows their method for developing defense expert deposition testimony for use at trial.

REPLAY – TLU Live Las Vegas 2021 – Bejar v. Lopez, TBI/Spine, Depositions – Rex Parris & Khail Parris

Learn about theories, ideas and concepts to make sure you recognize and communicate your objectives to your audience. Learn to improve your courtroom presence and persuasion skills.

While in law school, Geordan was a Teaching Assistant in the Legal Writing department, an Editor for the Nevada Law Journal, a Judicial Extern in the Eighth Judicial District Court, and a Law Clerk Extern at the Clark County Public Defender’s Office. Geordan also served as the President of the Criminal Law Society and as the founding President of Legally Speaking—a group focused on public speaking skills for legal professionals.

Geordan Logan

REPLAY - TLU LIVE Las Vegas 2021 / Teach Your Case - Geordan Logan

Laurence Little sustained a traumatic brain injury and hypoxic event when he was struck by an 18-wheeler that ran a red light in a busy intersection in Bakersfield, California. He was found unconscious and not productively breathing at the scene and bleeding profusely from his forehead, but had a Glasgow Coma Scale score of 15 by the time paramedics responded to the scene. He was diagnosed with a mild traumatic brain injury, and additionally sustained a left AC separation, fractured rib and collapsed lung. His wife, Susan Little, brought a loss of consortium claim for the personality changes Mr. Little suffered as a result of his injuries.

In this presentation, Courtney and Nick Rowley cover the facts of the case, the MILs, and the evidence.

Courtney Rowley

Nick Rowley

REPLAY - TLU Live Las Vegas 2021 - $10M Mild TBI/Loss of Consortium Verdict - Nick Rowley & Courtney Rowley

Case Analysis by Jim Corrigan, James O’Leary, Alan Mortensen, Lance Milne Webinar Hosted by John Campbell

After 6 days of trial Salt Lake City, the jury returned a verdict for $25,000,000 and found that Century Blinds, a California blind manufacturer with a large presence in Salt Lake City, manufactured corded blinds across the country for several years without putting a “no additional cost” tilt wand on their blinds, as opposed to tilt cord, which Century Blinds knew was a strangulation hazard to small children. Century Blinds also manufactured corded blinds without providing cord cleats which should have been installed with the blinds. Cord cleats allow a parent to wrap around blind cords at a level above where children can reach. The blinds also came with a warning label that was not visible and did not meet ANSI Standards required of blind manufacturers to tell parents not to put furniture by window blinds. The jury heard testimony that these blinds should have never been allowed in the Mahe home back in 2008 when they were installed because of these defects. The jury also found that the conduct of Century was punitive.

The punitive damages phase started and shortly after the commencement of testimony, the matter was resolved.

1. Dealing with parental fault in the death of a child 2. Using Defendants’ testimony to establish credibility with the jury early 3. Use of engineering hierarchy to prove product defect case 4. How to use. Empirical Jury’s focus group results to fine tune case:

a) Used poor focus group results to refine issues and attack credibility issue proposed jurors identified

b) Shift theories and focus of case away from the warning language and focused on placement 5. How to ask for a large sum of money in a conservative venue

Jim Corrigan

Alan Mortensen

Lance Milne

John Campbell

Window Blind Strangulation/Wrongful Death - $25M Verdict and Finding of Punitive Damages

In this presentation, Courtney and Nick Rowley discuss:

-The elements in a loss of consortium case and how to present it to the jury 

How to identify the leaders and followers on the jury so that you can try different parts of your case to those people

-What’s a reasonable verdict for your case

REPLAY - TLU Live Las Vegas 2021 - $10M Mild TBI/Loss of Consortium Verdict - Jury Selection - Nick Rowley & Courtney Rowley

Former sport columnist TJ Simers filed a lawsuit against against LA Times for age and disability discrimination in 2013.

That year, he had a transient ischemic attack (TIA), often referred to as a “mini stroke”. After the medical incident, Times cut down his columns and informed him that several were written poorly on the newspaper. Times then took away Simers’ column, demoted him to reporter while keeping his benefits and pay the same.

Nick and Courtney Rowley talk about the case more in depth. They discuss the facts of the case, how to story tell, and the strategies they used during trial.

REPLAY - TLU Live Las Vegas 2021 - Simers v. LA Times - Nick & Courtney Rowley

The dynamic of “Us versus Them” in trucking cases.

How can they be 100% right and we still win?

Joe Fried

Michael Goldberg

REPLAY - TLU Live Las Vegas 2021 - "Trucking, The Big Picture" - Joe Fried & Michael Goldberg

Actual voir dire conducted with attendees as jurors.

Preparing the jury to understand the types of damages.

REPLAY - TLU Live Las Vegas 2021 - "Voir Dire in a Trucking Case" - Joe Fried & Michael Goldberg

“Preparing for and taking key depositions in trucking cases” (2 hours)

● Truck Driver – locking in the driver on rules and key facts

● Corporate Representatives – making them your expert

● Police Officers – thinking like a cop

REPLAY - TLU Live Las Vegas 2021 - "Depositions in Trucking Cases" (Part 1) - Joe Fried & Michael Goldberg

On January 9, 2019, there was a horrific crash which killed a mother in front of her 12-year old twins and her 17-year old son arrived at the scene before first responders, finding his mother dead. The driver of the truck who hit her car was arrested and charged with felony manslaughter based upon the presence of methamphetamine in his system as well as evidence of speeding and texting. However, early investigation revealed that the road where the crash occurred had recently been repaved and potentially was a factor in causing the crash. After extensive discovery, it was proven that the paving company cut corners to save money leaving the road in a more dangerous condition than before they began their work. On July 12, 2021, after five days of trial, a jury in Boone County, Kentucky found the paving company 100% at fault, determined the driver of the truck was not negligent, and returned a $74,000,000 verdict with $24,000,000 in compensatory damages and $50,000,000 in punitive damages.

Jay Vaughn

REPLAY - TLU Live Vegas 2021 - Godwin v. Eaton Asphalt Pavement Co - Wrongful Death - Jay Vaughn

REPLAY - TLU Live Las Vegas 2021 - "Depositions in Trucking Cases" (Part 2) - Joe Fried & Michael Goldberg

$10,000,000.00 Non-economic Damages Award for the Death of an Adult Child—in a rural Texas County with 78% Trump Voters We used techniques specifically taken/borrowed/co-opted from Trial Lawyers University webinar presentations by Nick Rowley, Joey Low, Keith Mitnik, David Ball, Joe Fried, Rex Parish, Eric Oliver, and Brian Panish ( i.e., brutal honesty, forming a group and mentoring the jurors, Mitnik analogies, safety rules, “bag of diamonds” Panish analogy, Panish persuasion/brain science, and Oliver’s focus group techniques, and we even had two “Brian Panish moments” where the jurors spoke out to “help” us during the trial). This stuff works!

And for the first time ever in 35 years of practicing law, I had about 35 of the Voir Dire panel members say they WANTED to serve on my jury.

Marley Chapla, a 21-year-old college student, was driving on an East Texas highway when an 18-wheeler pulled out in front of her. Curtis Adair, the owner-operator driving the 18 wheeler, was talking on his cell phone and never stopped before pulling out. Marley was killed instantly when she underrode the side of the 18-wheeler’s empty flatbed. Almost immediately, the truck driver’s insurance company took action—they sent expert witnesses to the crash site with surveying equipment and drones, they called all the witnesses, and they took recorded statements from Marley’s friends and from her boyfriend, who had no idea he was talking to a representative for the truck driver. Then an adjuster started harassing the family, calling Marley’s parents incessantly and messaging her sister on Facebook, hounding the family to take $15,000. Marley’s parents hired us just to make the phone calls stop.

The witnesses’ written statements blamed Marley for speeding, and the ECM download from Marley’s car confirmed that she had been going 93 mph just 5 seconds before impact. Then Marley’s autopsy report showed that her blood alcohol level was .05, and she had THC in her system. The defense toxicologist claimed that Marley had smoked cannabis within about an hour of her death. The Court struck the defense toxicologist on a Daubert motion, and excluded the toxicology results on Rule 403 grounds. The defense appealed that ruling to the Texas Supreme Court, where it also sought an emergency stay of the trial setting.

Once the appellate courts denied relief, the defense’s contributory negligence theories were limited to speeding and Marley’s allegedly “improper” reaction to Adair’s truck entering her lane. The case went to trial in San Jacinto County, whose residents largely work in the logging industry or at the local prison, and overwhelmingly voted for Trump in the last election. Marley’s parents and the estate sought only noneconomic damages. In closing argument, defense counsel suggested that if the jury reached damages questions, it should give Marley’s parents $5,000 each. The jury found that the truck driver was 75% at fault and awarded $10 million in total noneconomic damages, including $1 million to Marley’s estate for pre-impact mental anguish.

1. The Step-by-Step Mechanics of Voir Dire—how to actually: form the group; become their trusted teacher, mentor and leader; teach them their role; and make them want to serve 

2. Winning from the Beginning—the simplest, most complete story wins 

5. Presenting non-economic damages to conservative jurors 

6. Exposing the dishonest tactics of “team defense”

Mark Wham

Ryan Wham

$10M Non-economic Damages Award for the Death of an Adult Child - Mark Wham & Ryan Wham, Webinar Hosted by Jay Vaughn

On March 21, 2022, a Johnson County Iowa jury unanimously found in favor of minor-Plaintiff, Scotty, awarding over $97.4 million dollars in damages in a birth trauma medical malpractice case. It is the largest malpractice verdict in Iowa state history. The case was tried by Geoffrey Fieger of Southfield, Michigan and Jack Beam and Matthew Patterson of the Chicago law firm Beam Legal Team, LLC before the Honorable Kevin McKeever in Iowa City, Iowa. The Defendants were Mercy Hospital Iowa City and Obstetric and Gynecologic Associates of Iowa City and Coralville, P.C.

Scotty was the third child of Kathleen and Andy. Kathleen, after an uneventful and routine prenatal course, went to Mercy Hospital Iowa City in active labor with a perfectly healthy baby in August of 2018. She was admitted by her OB/GYN Jill Goodman, M.D., an employee of Obstetric and Gynecologic Associates of Iowa City and Coralville, P.C.

Shortly after admission, baby Scotty in utero signaled a non-reassuring fetal heart rate pattern on the fetal heart rate monitor. Despite preparing an operating room for C-section, Dr. Goodman did not perform urgent surgery. Instead, she ordered terbutaline and an epidural to slow down Kathleen’s natural labor so she could tend to two other laboring patients. Consequently, Dr. Goodman left the bedside to deliver two other patients for an hour, when Kathleen and Baby Scotty needed Caesarian delivery. During that time, Scotty’s fetal heart tracing deteriorated from non-reassuring to bradycardic and fetal distress. However, the nurse – who was unaware that Dr. Goodman was performing other deliveries (until she was told in her deposition) – did not call for Dr. Goodman to come back and did not call for a back-up obstetrician.

When Dr. Goodman finally returned to her patients’ bedside, Scotty was in terminal bradycardia. His mother was pushing with the nursing staff in a rather medieval technique described in the labor record as “tug-o-war”. Dr. Goodman then proceeded to attempt an operative vaginal delivery, first with forceps while Scotty in utero was in a malposition, and, when that failed despite two attempts with forceps, the OB then used a vacuum extractor to traumatically deliver the baby, although such use was an absolute contraindication. Scotty was delivered with every traumatic brain injury that the medical literature explicitly warns can result from vacuum and forceps.

Shortly after birth, Scotty was transferred to the world-renowned Iowa Children’s Hospital who promptly diagnosed his conditions during a six-week NICU stay. Shortly after his NICU admission, the Children’s Hospital discovered Scotty had a massive depressed/“ping-pong” skull fracture caused by the attempted forceps delivery, extensive bleeding in his brain from the vacuum delivery, and hypoxic-ischemic encephalopathy (“HIE”), brain damage from a lack of oxygen before birth.

Only after the delivery, the doctor and Hospital then claimed that Scotty’s severe skull fracture existed before the attempted forceps delivery despite no contemporaneous medical record documentation. So, the Defendants claimed at trial that Scotty’s severe (forceps shaped) skull fracture, bleeding and brain damage were caused by the natural forces of labor before the traumatic attempts at operative vaginal delivery. For the defense, counsel relied on an obstetrician who—contrary to all the findings of the University of Iowa doctors—suggested all of Scotty’s brain damage occurred during delivery through the birth canal. The doctor’s practice, Obstetric and Gynecologic Associates of Iowa City and Coralville, P.C., never made any offer to settle this case before trial.

The jury rejected this frivolous defense and found in favor of Scotty against both the Hospital and the doctor’s practice, awarding every penny of future medical care costs requested for Scotty’s extensive future attendant care needs. Today, Scotty is 3 1/2 years old and has been diagnosed with cerebral palsy, developmental delay, mixed expressive-receptive language disorder, ischemic brain injury, and HIE.

Exposing inherent biases and getting strikes for cause during voir dire.

Questioning witnesses about being fair, starting on a level playing field, etc. for Plaintiff or Defense and how that helps build credibility with the venire while striking potentially adverse jurors. (he was able to get 20+ strikes just for cause [bias, etc.]).

Taking advantage of physical evidence and/or demonstratives: the forceps and the skull fracture.

Using the physical use of the forceps and vacuum at trial, which is simple evidence, but has huge impact.

If you’re defending, you’re losing: don’t engage with the Defendants in irrelevant facts.

My philosophy not to bother with or even discuss with experts’ irrelevant facts that the Defendants try to highlight; in our case, this was the Apgar scores, blood gas results and insurance.

Prosecuting the defense in your case in chief.

You can discredit the Defendants’ theory of cause or liability in your opening statement and with your experts. For example, Geoffrey gave our experts softball questions about how stupid the defense is.

Taking a complicated obstetrical/medical-legal case and telling a story to your jury.

Telling your story through cross examination.

It’s not really the answer that matters while cross-examining a defense expert and/or Defendant; what matters is the story you’re telling through your questions.

Geoffrey Fieger

Kromphardt v. Mercy Hospital - $97,400,000 Med Mal/Birth Trauma Verdict - Geoffrey Fieger, Webinar Hosted by Nick Rowley

On October 21, 2016, defendant Banda stopped to eat lunch with some coworkers when he gets a call that he needed to get back to the company yard because an employee passed out. The defendant leaves without eating his food and begins his 25-minute drive back. As he approaches an intersection, he misses the red light and hits one car before being redirected into the Plaintiff who was stopped at the red light on the opposite side of the roadway. Banda hit the Plaintiff head on at a reduced speed.

The collision took place on a Friday, the Plaintiff went into work on Monday to pick up work comp paperwork, and returned to work full time by the following Friday. From there, the Plaintiff doubled the size of his home and doubled his annual earnings. Somehow despite an order in limine on wealth of the parties being granted and a waiver of loss of earnings, his income and home size all came into evidence. The plaintiffs were also able to conceive a second child after the crash, which was admitted into evidence.

Plaintiffs doctors diagnosed him with a 2mm herniation at c5-c6, a brachial plexus stretch injury and post concussive syndrome. The brachial plexus mri came up clean and two brain mris came up clean. The Plaintiff underwent one epidural and one facet block but no surgery. And he had a one year gap in treatment.

It took five days to pick a jury in which we struck 52 jurors for cause and the defense got two cause challenges granted out of 96 jurors. Of the 96 jurors, seven were insurance adjustors. It took four days to present the evidence. Ultimately, the parties stipulated to past meds of about $80,000 and the jury awarded $4,345,155 in future meds, 1,000,000 in past non-econ and 4,250,000 in future non-econ. We beat our two year old 998 so the final judgment will be around $12,000,000.

Using bad facts in your case as opportunities to develop cause challenges.

Establishing metaphors for closing in jury selection Using simple crosses to develop your deposition clips Presenting a lifecare plan that jurors will negotiate in your favor Overcoming the fact that your client did not have a surgery for five years Reversing defense metaphors in rebuttal

Eric Wilson

Nathan Bruner

$9,700,000 for Non-Surgical 2MM Disc Herniation - Khail Parris, Eric Wilson, & Nathan Bruner

THIS WEBINAR IS A REPLAY OF THE LIVE WEBINAR THAT WAS SCHEDULED ON APRIL 4TH.

REPLAY - $9,700,000 for Non-Surgical 2MM Disc Herniation - Khail Parris, Eric Wilson, & Nathan Bruner

This case involved a mid-air paraglider collision. Defendant Peter Pavlik, flying above and behind plaintiff Alex Funar, crashed into the rear edge of Funar’s paraglider wing. Funar’s wing collapsed and he fell approximately 100 feet to the mountainside below. Funar suffered a severe spinal fracture requiring a 4-level spinal fusion.

All paragliders must sign a broad waiver agreeing not to sue other paragliders and assuming all risks of injury while participating in the sport. Therefore, Funar had to prove that Pavlik’s conduct was (1) grossly negligent to avoid the waiver, and (2) so reckless it was entirely outside the range of ordinary activity involved in paragliding. Pavlik contended that Funar was in Pavlik’s blind spot and Funar should have been more aware of Pavlik’s location. Therefore, according to Pavlik, the collision was an unfortunate accident that did not give rise to liability, and Funar was also at fault for failing to “see and avoid” Pavlik.

Before reaching trial, Funar prevailed on Pavlik’s motion for summary judgment based on federal pre-emption, waiver, and primary assumption of risk. Then Funar prevailed on Pavlik’s petition to the Court of Appeal seeking a peremptory writ of mandate.

At trial, the jury returned a verdict finding Pavlik grossly negligent and reckless without any comparative fault by Funar. The jury decided total damages of $7,443,369.74, which included $1 million for past non-economic damages and $5 million for future non-economic damages. The judgment will exceed $9 million after CCP §998 costs and interest.

1. Simplify, simplify, simplify wherever possible. We had to trust our instincts. We knew practically nothing about paragliding. It is a technical sport that attracts engineer types. We are not engineer types. This required an enormous amount of time learning in detail how paragliders fly, particularly to understand and refute one of the defense experts, a former rocket scientist from NASA. We learned more about “glide ratios,” “polar curves,” and “sun angles” than we ever wanted to know. Ultimately, even though we learned enough to do so, we resisted the urge to get in the weeds (what Rodney Jew would call the “purple box”). We were concerned this would place undue emphasis on the defense case and lose the jury in the process. Instead, we trusted our instincts by sticking to a straightforward explanation of what happened, consistent with eyewitness observations, everyday experience and common sense. We also tried to consistently compare the basic principles of paragliding at issue here (seeing and avoiding other aircraft, keeping safe distance from other aircraft, yielding right of way to pilots in front and below) to driving a car – something the jury was familiar with in their everyday life.

2. Use of Visuals and Demonstratives. We also used a multitude of demonstratives to show our case to the jury rather than just tell it, including videotaping test paragliders up in the air to help explain Defendant’s misconduct, and opening the actual paraglider wing (30 feet X 9 feet) in the courtroom to discredit the defendant’s claim that he “didn’t see” our client before hitting him.

3. Extracting defense expert deposition concessions. This set us up very well at trial and boxed them in. Had we been very contentious with the defense experts in deposition we may never have gotten the concessions. A couple of their experts provided reports before their depositions that we went through carefully with our experts and consultants. We then obtained numerous admissions from the defense experts that we could exploit at trial. The defense experts ultimately became our experts, particularly the defense main liability expert.

4. Maintaining credibility above all else. We tried to be extremely careful to be credible at every stage of trial. This meant we dealt head on with the defenses the jury would hear from the other side in voir dire and our opening so the jury did not hear them for the first time from the defense. Then, everything we said we would prove in opening, we proved. In voir dire, we didn’t sugar coat it and asked the key questions that illuminated our problem jurors – “Any of you thinking right now that because our client jumped off a mountain and signed a waiver not to sue anyone if he got hurt that they are already not inclined to find in his favor.”

5. Utilize the daily trial transcripts. We ordered daily transcripts so we could work on the framework for our closing during trial. This allowed us to show the jury actual key testimony during closing, along with other visuals in a Power Point. We also over-prepared – we had extra Power Point slides ready for rebuttal that we could revise and finalize on the spot. Then when the defense made several misstatements in closing, we showed in rebuttal the actual correct testimony from daily transcripts, next to faces of the witnesses, and thus gave powerful evidence to undermine the defense’s credibility.

6. Use witness preparation experts like Dan Ambrose and others. Experts in preparing witnesses were extremely helpful. Dan was booked up, but we used Donna Siers to help prepare our client’s wife in presenting her testimony. Our client’s wife was critical to show the impact of these injuries on our client’s life, and the troubling future. The wife is wonderful, but she tended to be unemotional and flat in describing the effect of her husband’s injuries on their life together. Donna helped bring the truth out in a meaningful, impactful way that moved the jury.

Dave Fox

Russ Gold

Funar v. Pavlik - $7.44M Verdict for a Mid-Air Paraglider Collision - Dave Fox & Russ Gold

Casey Hultin and Katelyn Dembowski of the Dolan Law Firm, along with Sam Fareed from United Citizen Law, represented Tamiko Carrillo, a 51 year old makeup artist who fractured her femur in a car crash. Tamiko and the defendant, Daniel Forzano, both claimed to have the greenlight entering the intersection. The crash happened at a very busy intersection and there were tons of eyewitnesses, however, the only eyewitness police spoke to at the scene claimed Tamiko ran the red light. The police found Tamiko at fault for the collision as a result.

Liability was the biggest discovery concern. Tamiko was able to locate two eyewitnesses who saw the collision, and whose versions supported Tamiko’s. Then, the police ultimately walked back their conclusions at deposition. The witness who claimed Tamiko had a red light also walked back his statements in a recorded call with an adjuster, but was not willing to appear for deposition and left the state. The defense then subpoenaed for deposition every caller in the 911 call logs and eventually located a man who claimed that he spoke with Tamiko at the scene and she admitted to texting while driving. He also testified that he found her lit cell phone in her car displaying a recent text message exchange. The defendant driver also had a passenger in his car who claimed that he had a green light, not Tamiko.

While no one disputed Tamiko fractured her femur in the collision and required emergency surgery, the defense disputed the need for any future care and claimed that to the extent she did need future care, it was a result of a second collision Tamiko was in six months after this one. She also had multiple gaps in treatment, including a nearly three-year gap prior to trial.

1. How to use typically undesirable jurors (engineers) to your advantage 2. Different ways of owning comparative fault – texting while driving edition 3. Explaining gaps in treatment 4. Finding eye witnesses 5. When to drop certain injury claims to narrow the focus of your case 6. How to handle your client continuing to work and having a substantial social media presence 7. How to utilize micro-polarizing the case (here we used polarizing the case language with the eye witnesses, betting they would be more credible than the defendant and his passenger, but did not include Tamiko in the framing)

Casey Hultin

Claire Plotkin

Sam Fareed

$715,234.96 Santa Clara County Car Crash Verdict - Casey Hultin, Claire Plotkin, & Sam Fareed - Webinar hosted by Dan Kramer

Amy Pardieck, Eric Oliver, Artemis Malekpour, David Ball return to their popular TLU programs to answer your questions about voir dire. 

Educating, “conditioning,” or unifying the jury Analyzing, using juror answers Use of strikes Juror’s tone, demeanor, etc.

Counsel conduct, tone, demeanor, appearance in voir dire Written questionnaires Internet/social media sources Get jurors talking Using the group Creating jury cohesion Jury bias questioning Judge’s concerns (time, small venire, etc.) Observing prospective jurors Self-training for better juror evaluator Who conducts voir dire?

Local conditions, culture, concerns, attitudes State or national social/political/economic/cultural conditions Covid Stranger Danger How to Ask voir dire questions How to follow up What to Ask about nature or topics of the case -attitudes about lawyer, experts, plaintiffs, , corporations, government -safety regulations involved in the case -standards, rules, expectations related to the case -attitudes towards damages elements Jury instructions, verdict issues, law questions Preponderance Attitudes about responsibility Personal characteristics that can affect decision-making in the case Leader characteristics Seeking cause dismissal Rehabilitation by judge, O.C. (“You can be fair, can’t you?) Spotting biases Getting jurors to admit socially negative attitudes Life experiences related to decision-making Attitude strength Favorable juror characteristics Dangerous juror characteristics “Poisoning” the venire Inoculation against upcoming poison questions from the defense Improvements to request: more time, topic leeway, number of jurors questioned at once, striking only after all jurors are questioned, etc.)

Artemis Malekpour

Amy Pardieck

David Ball

Eric Oliver

Better Voir Dire with Amy Pardieck, Eric Oliver, Artemis Malekpour & David Ball

Bill Eskew was diagnosed with metastatic Stage IV lung cancer in the summer of 2015. Bill traveled to MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston later that year to be evaluated for radiation treatment of his cancer, including a tumor that had developed adjacent to his esophagus and other critical organs. He saw a world-renowned thoracic radiation oncologist who studied the available methods of radiation therapy and determined proton beam radiation therapy was best for Bill. According to the treating physician, proton therapy would more accurately deliver a killing dose of radiation to the tumor while more effectively sparing radiation dose to the adjacent organs, including Bill’s esophagus. MD Anderson submitted a prior authorization request to Sierra Health & Life (a United Healthcare subsidiary in Nevada) which was denied. The denial was based on Sierra’s position that the use of proton beam therapy to treat lung cancer is unproven and not medically necessary, and therefore was not a covered service under Bill’s health insurance policy.

As a result, Bill underwent a photon-based radiation therapy called IMRT, which carried with it a significantly higher risk of radiation-induced side effects. Unfortunately, the IMRT caused a side effect in Bill called esophagitis, which resulted in burning and scarring of Bill’s esophagus. The evidence was that Bill suffered tremendously due to an inability to eat, drink and swallow without severe pain and frequent vomiting. This adversely impacted his health and caused him to become depressed, withdrawn and angry at Sierra for denying him the best treatment available.

TLU Webinar Schedule

Albuquerque Jurors issue $52 Million Verdict in Insurance Bad Faith Lawsuit

REPLAY - TLU Live Vegas 2022 - Jury Selection and Connection Part 1-3

REPLAY - TLU Live Vegas 2022 - Don't Just Win, Win Big Part 1-3

REPLAY - TLU Live Vegas 2022 - Examining the truck driver and corporate designee Part 1 & 2

$3.6 million jury trial win over Werner Enterprises, Inc., overcoming adverse law enforcement, experts, and distractions