Michael Stephenson
$12.1 Million mTBI Verdict: Hickey v. Harrington
April 17, 2026 ||
1. Overview of case. Who is the defendant, what did he/she do? What are the P’s injuries? What were the settlement negotiations?
Defendant was an individual driver going to a medical appointment. Our client was commuting by bicycle to her job at a hospital. The two were initially going towards each other and the driver turned left in front of our client. Our client was unable to stop in time, made impact with the side of the car, but remained upright and balanced on her bicycle. She testified that she did not hit her head.
2. Focus Groups: did you run any? If you did who ran them, what format? What did you learn from them that helped you?
No formal focus groups, just informal presentation of the issues to colleagues, friends, family, etc.
3. Motions in Limine: What did you file, why? What did Defense file, how did judge rule?
The defense moved to exclude our evidence of diffuse tensor imaging (DTI) which was a critical piece of evidence because there were no objective findings on any the traditional brain scans. Fortunately we convinced the court the defense's argument should go to weight, not admissibility.
4. Voir dire: What questions and why? What order do you sequence, why? Do you do a practice before, how do you get ready? Do you have a jury consultant?
The primary focus of jury selection in this case, and indeed where I believe the case was won, was on (1) the unusually susceptible plaintiff jury instruction, and (2) reservations people had about the possibility of rendering a verdict of potentially millions of dollars against an individual driver with three children, without knowing if she had insurance or how much. During these discussions we got dozens and dozens of potential jurors struck for cause, which was critical for our success. No formal practice with a mock jury, but plenty of mock jury practice in the past on other cases, and use of consultants on previous cases, and in this case we did plenty of informal practicing with colleagues, friends, family.
5. Opening statement: Walk through with your power point so we can understand your structure and case framing. When do you start preparing it? Do you practice it ahead of time?
Lucy Allen made an incredible PPT that framed the case so that the defense's "best" evidence (pre-existing conditions) became our best evidence because it explained why such a minor crash could cause such devastation to our client's life.
6. Order of proof: who did you call, in what order, why?
Variety of video depositions to build credibility, then our client, then a mix of more videos, in-person expert witnesses, neighbors/co-worker testifying in person or by Zoom, and then having our client's husband go last for powerful emotional wrap up and summary of everything.
7. Defense witnesses: Who did they call, why, how did you handle them.
They had a retained neurologist, neuropsychologist, neuroradiologist, ortho surgeon, LCP, Voc Rehab, and Economist. We took thorough video depositions of each and played our favorite parts in our case in chief to prime the jury for our narrative before any of them took the witness stand. We then did strategic cross-examinations aimed at making it appear that the defense attorneys had withheld important evidence from their own experts (primarily of our client's level of functioning pre-crash despite her pre-existing conditions) to try to shape the experts' opinions.
8. Closing argument: Walk us through it with power point. When do you start preparing it? Do you practice it?
The trial was moving so fast at the end there was not much time to practice other than running through Lucy Allen's wonderful PPT slideshow a couple of times to make sure I had the flow of it and an idea of what I needed to say about the slides.
9. Defense closing summary
Standard stuff. Plaintiff wasn't injured. Plaintiff caused the crash. Plaintiff, to the extent she is suffering, is suffering from pre-existing conditions. Plaintiff will heal in the future and be able to work again. There is no clear diagnosis. No objective evidence on conventional MRI/CT. The crash was so minor that no one could have sustained a TBI.
10. Rebuttal: What did you say? When do you start preparing it?
My rebuttal was very emotional. How wonderful it is to be a part of justice being done. That the unusually susceptible plaintiff rule protects the most vulnerable among us. And that our client was deserving of the accurate and fair and full application of the jury instructions and compensation.
If you can't attend Live, Watch On Demand