April 11th, 2014

The Personal Injury Associate-MIST Trial-Opening Statement

John Henry explained to me in a MIST Trial it is essential to be brief, efficient and to the point. Although this is true in all jury trials it is especially true in a MIST case where the jury comes into the case believing they are faced with a lot to do about nothing. And this is exactly what the defense wants the jury to believe.

David Ball Opening. I follow David Ball’s opening statement formula, with modifications to fit my style. Here is my outline with a brief summary of what I said:

Rule. When we do not pay attention to the car ahead and we rear end the driver ahead we are responsible for the harm.

Story. Now let me tell you the story of what happened in our case. [Now I begin the story with defendant. With nouns and verbs in a straight forward dispassionate way I cover defendant’s actions into the collision. The logical conclusion which I let the jury make is defendant’s actions violate a rule and this violation is responsible for the harm.

Who Are We Suing and Why. Here I tell the jury we are suing defendant because [she violated the rule and does not agree to accept responsibility for her actions]. I explain why defendant denies liability and/or payment of fair damages.

But Before We Came to Court. Here I cover how we determined  that each of defendant’s positions on liability and/or damage is wrong, and who says it is wrong. At this point the jury has heard the facts of the violations. The jury has heard we only came to court after we ensured defendant’s positions are wrong. And, we are left with no choice but to come to court.

Causation and Damages. “In this case defense will stress bumpers, and Judy Brown’s pre-existing condition. We will concentrate on Judy Brown’s body not her car bumper.We will demonstrate Judy Brown’s preexisting condition combined with defendant’s action caused Judy Brown’s injuries.”

My Job You Job. Here I discuss how my job is to prove the injuries to help the jury do their job. “At the end of the trial the judge will give you instructions on how to figure how much money it will take to make up for the harm caused by defendant. In closing argument we will show you how to calculate the fair value of losses and harm to Judy Brown. We will not show you losses and harm to get sympathy. This case is not about sympathy. This case is about justice, and in a personal injury case justice takes the form of money compensation.”

The Three Phases of Trauma. “To prove our case we will discuss what EMT’s refer to as the three phases of trauma: 1) The person’s condition going into the trauma; 2) The Trauma; and, 3) Treatment for injuries and continuing injuries resulting from trauma.” [I then cover the three phases in the context of our case. I spend most of this time discussing the injuries, treatment for injuries, and how despite treatment certain injuries continue. Then I discuss how Judy Brown is impacted in her life because of the injuries].

The Damage Amount. “Now in closing argument we will help you use your power to fix and help Judy Brown. We will show you how to place a reasonable value to fix and help address Judy Brown’s injuries. We will demonstrate that a reasonable value is $168,086.”

 

Post Footer automatically generated by Add Post Footer Plugin for wordpress.

Posted by: Trudell | Permalink | Email This Post

March 30th, 2014

The Personal Injury Associate-MIST Trial-Jury Selection

In this post I begin my report on my first jury trial. The case is a MIST case. MIST is an acronym coined by the insurance industry standing for “minor impact soft tissue.” Insurance companies know these cases are hard to sell to juries because many people do not believe a person can be injured if there is no visible damage to the cars involved in the collision.

John Henry suggests I read Trial by Human, by Nick Rowley. I read Nick’s book. Nick Rowley is one of the best trial lawyers in the United States and his book is a must read.  For jury selection I use a combination of Nick Rowley and Gerry Spence (“show yours to get them to show theirs”) tailored to my style.

Introduction. “I am nervous and scared, but this is an important part of the trial because this is the  time we get to talk together. This is my chance to find out which 13 of you are up for the job of being on this jury. It’s a job that will take at least four days, and its a job that is important to Judy Brown because this is her only chance to present her case. Now I bet many of you also feel nervous and scared because a lawyer is asking you questions, but I must do this to learn how you feel about important issues. I will be brutally honest with you. I ask you to be brutally honest with me-even if you feel I will not like what you have to say. I want to hear your feelings now rather than when the trial is over and you come up to me and say why did you pick me for this jury given my feelings about your case.”

Showing Warts. “Let me tell you a big concern I have about our case-in our case Judy Brown claims personal injuries from being rear ended by defendant. You will see the bumpers of the two cars, and you will see no damage to either bumper. What do you feel about a person seeking money after a rear end collision with no visible bumper damage.”

(This opens jury selection with me disclosing the biggest problem in my case. I listen to the jurors react. There is no wrong answer, I never disagree with a juror. This is because I need to hear negative feelings. Some express doubt on being injured without visible bumper damage. But a juror says a person can be injured without visible damage to the bumpers. I agree saying: “This case is about a person not a person’s bumper).”

Next I tell the jurors: “My client asked me for a recommendation for a doctor and I suggested the doctor she treated with. What do you feel about this?” (The discussion defuses another wart in our case).

Topic Areas. I introduce the question of  lawsuits to get money for an injury and ask what they feel about this. Following on this topic I move into money for medical bills (which all agree is not a problem). I then introduce money for pain and suffering: “What do you feel about money for pain and suffering?” (Here some jurors have a problem. No wrong answer but this leads to discussion on general damages in a personal injury lawsuit). I follow with: “What are important things in life?” (This leads jurors to discuss the importance of health, job satisfaction, activities, and interaction with family and friends. This evolves to jurors recognizing the loss of or diminution of the ability to work, do activities, and engage in relationships is significant. Next I introduce: “How important is it to be accountable for our actions?” “Does it matter if we do not mean to negligently harm a person?” “Does a money verdict have an impact beyond the particular case?”

Challenges. (When a juror is discussing her feeling on a topic I focus on the juror. My eye contact is with the juror. I continue with the juror by listening and with follow up. My goal is to get the jurors to talk 80 to 90% of my  jury selection time ). When a juror takes a position that is undesirable for our case, I ask the juror: “Should I fear having you on our jury.” (Some say yes and going deeper results in one of the jurors agreeing to a challenge for cause which the judge grants. After, I thank the juror for her honesty).

By disclosing my case weaknesses I beat defense to the punch, and show the jury I am honest. Through our discussion we learn feelings that allow us to best exercise preemptory challenges. On preemptory challenges, we only challenge jurors who will destroy us.

 

Post Footer automatically generated by Add Post Footer Plugin for wordpress.

Posted by: Trudell | Permalink | Email This Post

February 16th, 2014

What’s In It For Me?

Several years ago when reading  Joe Dimaggio’s biography I was taken aback by Dimaggio’s usual first reaction: “What’s in it for me?” The great Yankee being first and foremost concerned about himself. Sales philosophy teaches what matters is what the buyer believes is in it for him. Dale Carnegie writes: Why talk about what we want. Although we are eternally interested in what we want no one else is, because everyone else is interested in what they want. “So the only way on earth to influence other people is to talk about what they want and show them how to get it.” Id.

Applied to a jury trial we know what we want, and what the defense wants, but failing to connect with what the jurors want results in a roll of the dice. This is because what the jurors want  is the key to success. We must get to what the jurors want and show them how to get it.

This is what the reptilian philosophy recognizes. The reptilian must not be forgotten, but there is more to it than a simplistic low brain analysis. We should remember the middle emotional brain and the logical cerebral cortex. When we do this we factor in the emotional component of like-ability, and the cerebral component of logic meaning we make sense.

To put this together we must first discover our client’s story. In discovering the story we feel the betrayal of our client, so we can convey our client’s betrayal to the jury. The jury must feel defendant’s conduct is conduct that demands a corrective response because society is better when people are held responsible for their actions. There must be a connection between lawyer, client and  jury so the jury understands their corrective response benefits society which in turn benefits the jury.

 

Post Footer automatically generated by Add Post Footer Plugin for wordpress.

Posted by: Trudell | Permalink | Email This Post

August 5th, 2013

The Associate-First Jury Trial

 

My first jury trial is one month away. Today I talked to John Henry about jury selection. When I asked him about jury selection he told me about hearing the “Three Amigos” on NPR. The “Three Amigos” are three religious leaders-a Jewish Rabbi, a Muslim Iman, and a Christian Priest. John Henry told me to listen to the “Three Amigos” to learn the essentials of Jury selection. Well I listened to them and this is what I learned:

How to Begin. Rather than beginning a discussion with another person about religion (or with a juror about the case) we begin by learning who the other person is. For the “Three Amigos” this means they do not begin a religious discussion “by discussing common and disparate beliefs.” They begin by getting to know the other person. Here there is no right or wrong answer. There is never criticism of the other person. There is no debate. There is acceptance of who the other person is and how they perceive and feel about issues.

Listen. John Henry added that to get to know another person we must get into their  skin. To do this we must listen. It sounds easy to say OK we can listen, but listening is easier said than done. Usually we start to think what we am going to say as we wait for the other person to stop talking. Then we immediately start to talk. John Henry says this is not listening. Listening is being present in the now while the other person talks. Listening is internalizing what the other person says by feeling what the other says. While the other speaks we make eye contact, and we are open to the other. When they stop talking we reflect on their their words and body language. This means silence rather than an immediate response. We respond by acknowledging what the other said through words and body language that lets the other know we understand.

Reveal Vulnerabilities. The “There Amigos” teach to “reveal vulnerabilities,” when we discuss our feelings with the speaker. By doing this we engage the other in a discussion of beliefs. Here there is honesty about ourself and  acceptance  of the speaker. In this way we get to know the speaker. We do not try to convert the speaker. Rather we discuss how each of us can make room for the other’s belief without conversion.

Overcome Ego. The ‘Three Amigos” teach we must bury our ego-“our little self.” By doing this we open up to the lives of others. This is not what I learned in law school. John Henry says law school stresses debate and argument. In jury selection we stress honesty and acceptance. We are looking for inclusion rather than exclusion. John Henry says the jury is like a tribe and we are the voice for the tribe. We are all in this together.

Post Footer automatically generated by Add Post Footer Plugin for wordpress.

Posted by: Trudell | Permalink | Email This Post

May 20th, 2013

Learning from Clarence Darrow (Part Two)

Continuing to discuss highlights of John A. Farrell, Clarence Darrow Attorney for the Damned (First Vintage Books Edition, May 2012):

Philosophy. The only thing worthwhile is to develop your own individuality and leave something that will liberalize the few who know and care you lived. Id. at 194. “No man is judged rightly by his fellow men. We go here and there, and we think we control our destinies and our lives, but above us and beyond us are unseen hands and unseen forces that move us at their will.” Id. at 263.

The War of Trial.  Darrow uses the analogy of war when referring to trial: I try cases in the front trenches, fearing nothing. “The front trenches are disagreeable; they are hard; they are dangerous; it is only a question of days or hours when you are killed or wounded… . But it is exciting. You are living; and if now and then you go back to rest, you think of your comrades in the fight; you hear the drum; you hear the cannon’s voice; you hear the bugle call; and you rush back to trial and to the thick of the fight. There, for a short time, you really live. It is hard, but it is life.” Id. at 326.

Likability- The Most Important Element in a Case. Darrow believes the outcome of trial rests on the elemental factor of likability. When the opposition lawyer is trying to bully the witness Darrow lets him continue, trusting he will antagonize the jury. It is only when he knows the jury is upset that he responds and puts the lawyer in his place. See id. at 346.

Voir Dire.  Wearing his familiar gray suit, Darrow slouched with his hands in his pockets or slowly roamed the courtroom speaking in a low voice to the jurors. The court and the jurors are all with him and the jurors are eager. “He ever so often makes some droll remark that sets the entire courtroom to laughing and instantly all tension is relived.”  But like all lawyers he makes mistakes: “He pushed too far  with one prospective juror [and asked a needles question that lead to the prosecutor excusing a good juror]. You have to know when to stop,” Darrow told friends that night. “One question too many and you lose a desirable juror, I should have know enough to refrain.” Id. at 409.

Style. Darrow uses simple words when talking to the jury and from time to time he makes meaningful eye contact with a juror. Throughout the trial he includes all of the jurors through meaningful eye contact. He has a natural demeanor as if the jury is a tribe and he is a tribal member. See id. at 254.”Everything is natural, unaffected and perfectly timed.” Id. at 435.

Tactics. Darrow once explained his tactics in a criminal case: “You try to throw around the case a feeling of pity, of love, if possible, for the fellow who is on trial. If the jurors can be made to identify with the defendant and his pain and position they will act to satisfy themselves. At this ponit the case is won. Juries will furnish their own rationalization. If a juror wants to do something , and is intelligent, he will give a reason for it. You’ve got to get him to want to do it. That is how the mind acts.” Id. at 287.

Post Footer automatically generated by Add Post Footer Plugin for wordpress.

Posted by: Trudell | Permalink | Email This Post

April 29th, 2013

Learning from Clarence Darrow (Part One)

John Farrell’s biography of Clarence Darrow is an engrossing read for trial lawyers as we can learn from Clarence Darrow-the greatest trial lawyer of the early twentieth century:

What Darrow learned from his father. My father “taught me to question rather than accept. I had little respect for the opinion of the crowd. My instinct was to doubt the majority. John A. Farrell, Clarence Darrow Attorney for The Damned, (First Vintage Books Edition, May 2012) at 25. 

Voir Dire. “Darrow, dressed in homely clothes, with baggy trousers and unshined shoes,” strolled around the courtroom or draped himself over the back of a chair, or leaned into the box to question a juror. He had a soft drawl and a relaxed approach and engaged in a confidential exchange with jurors. “There was method in Darrow’s manner; he believed that a juror’s decision was inevitably based on emotion, not intellect. The more he could in quiet conversation weigh a man’s heart the better.” Id. 164.

Demeanor. The press reported Darrow to be a man of intellect and subtlety with an old shoe manner, and a capacity for getting inside the skin of a witness that is possessed by few lawyers. There is nothing theatric about him. He never strikes an attitude. He never explodes. He stands before a witness and just bores into his mind, gently, shrewdly with every appearance of wanting merely to know the truth and nothing more. Id. at 165-66.

Opening. Darrow “approached the jury and, with no flourishes or preliminaries, began to speak in his slow mellow drawl. At times he would lean forward, until their noses touched. Sometimes he’d pause to consider, and wipe his glasses. He spoke in the straight simple language of the hills and mines. One reporter said. He gave them a talk much in the same manner that the good old deacon in the little Methodist church you used to attend led the class meeting.” Id. at 172

Cross Examination. “Darrow believed that important witnesses in major cases were so well rehearsed that as a rule it is futile to go over in cross-examination the testimony already given.” Id. at 169. In the Loeb and Leopold case Darrow for the most part “decried the spectacle [of the state’s presentation of an army of minor witnesses and] declined to cross examine,” but he chose to grill a police detective who stated “Leopold’s boast about a friendly trial judge.”

“Darrow rose, swung his chair around and leaned upon it. He pressed the detective for witnesses, notes, or other supporting evidence. … When the copper hedged he pounced.

“Who was with you?”

“Nobody but he and I,” the detective acknowledged.

“Did you make any memoranda on it?”

“Not at the time…”

“Mr. officer, don’t you know that this story of yours in reference to a ‘friendly judge’ is pure fabrication made for the purpose of intimidating the court?” Id. at 343.

(The Loeb and Leopold case was a thrill killing case where Darrow plead Loeb and Leopold guilty in a bench trial where the only issue was whether Loeb and Leopold would be hung or receive life in prison. Judge Caverly sentenced the young men to life in prison).

 

Post Footer automatically generated by Add Post Footer Plugin for wordpress.

Posted by: Trudell | Permalink | Email This Post

April 1st, 2013

Listen with Your Heart

Gerry Spence teaches decisions are made from the heart. He says people decide what to do at an emotional level. They then move to the cerebral cortex to verbally justify their emotional conviction. In this way the decision appears to be a well thought out rational decision-at least it is explained that way.

If Spence is right we are biologically programmed to make decisions from the heart. We are programmed from thousands of years of evolution to trust our heart. Since the birth of rationalism we are taught to make decisions from the cerebral cortex. We are taught to take emotion out of the equation. A decision is supposed to emanate from the mind and therefore it is deemed “rational.”

But are thousands of years of evolution to be cast aside in the name of “rational” thought? Why not yield to what we have successfully done from the beginning of time? That is listen to our heart; admit we make decisions from the heart; and, admit decisions made from the heart are the best decisions we make. Listen with your heart, trust your heart, and go where your heart directs.

Post Footer automatically generated by Add Post Footer Plugin for wordpress.

Posted by: Trudell | Permalink | Email This Post

March 27th, 2013

Opening Statement-Discover the Story

 

A quality opening statement requires becoming one with our client’s story. Becoming one with our client’s story means feeling the emotion of our client’s story. To accomplish this we:

Listen. We begin by listening to our client. We encourage her to show us her story in the first person present tense. We guard against  projecting our story into our client’s story, by listening and identifying with our client’s emotions. We  emotionally relate to our client and this aura will be present at trial. 

Role Reverse. We role reverse and become our client. As Atticus Finch tells daughter Scout: “You never really understand a person until you consider things from his point of view — until you climb into his skin and walk around in it.” Through role reversal we feel the emotion of our client. This takes us to a deeper level. 

Doubling. Once we feel our client’s story we go deeper into the story through doubling. We  sit or stand behind our client as she tells the story in first person present tense. When we feel something deeper in the story we speak to our client from behind by becoming our client’s voice. We coordinate this so our client adds our input into the story if it fits how she feels if not our input is ignored. When doubling works our client is assisted in getting to a deeper emotional level.

Recreate Scenes. Seeing is believing and seeing can cause a subjective (spoken) fact to rise to the level of an objective (visualized) fact. Thus we recreate key scenes in our client’s story using props. Props are as simple as office chairs to represent a room where the scene occurred. We can also use people in our office to play the role of others in the scene. We assist our client in reliving the scene by directing the scene. Once the scene is created another person can play our client as she observes the scene, verifies accuracy and gets in touch with her emotional response.

Identify Emotional Power. Now that we have recreated what we feel are key scenes we and our client can identify scenes that contain emotional power in the story. This emotional power is felt at a deep level by both attorney and client. We have now discovered where the emotional power will come in our opening statement. Cases are won when the  emotions of our client flow into the courtroom.

Post Footer automatically generated by Add Post Footer Plugin for wordpress.

Posted by: Trudell | Permalink | Email This Post

February 7th, 2013

Medicare Set Aside Argument

Recently we settled a significant personal injury case where we addressed the issue of a Medicare Set Aside (MSA). The issue was raised by defense during settlement negotiations. Defendants argued they could be held liable by Medicare as could we if we ignored the MSA issue. They initially attempted to control what portion of the settlement funds would be used for a MSA. This post discuses how we handled the MSA issue.

Medicare and Medicad Liens. The Medicare program was established by Congress in 1965 in the Social Security Act. 42 U.S.C. sec. 1395 et seq. Medicare provides medical payments for Medicare eligible people (people receiving Social Security benefits). Under federal law Medicare has a super lien for reimbursement of Medicare benefits paid for the injured Medicare recipient’s medical specials. Nonetheless, federal regulations require Medicare to reduce the amount of its recovery to take into account the cost of procuring the settlement when the claim is disputed and the recovering party has borne cost in obtaining the recovery. In re: Zyprexa Products Liability Litigation, 451 F. Supp.2d 458(E.D.N.Y. 2006)(analysis of Medicare and Medicade liens). Federal law also recognizes Medicad (state version of Medicare) liens, and provides federal authority for collection of Medicad liens.  See Arkansas Dept. of Health and Human Services v. Ahlborn, 547 U.S. 268 (2006)(Arkansas Medicare statute for plenary lien held invalid, must recognize injured plaintiff).

Medicare Set Aside. A MSA is a fund separately identified from the settlement proceeds to be paid to Medicare for the injured plaintiff’s future medical needs. Recently defendants (insurance companies for defendants) have been arguing the settlement must include a MSA. This argument is made even when the injured plaintiff is not yet and may never be a Medicare recipient. Defendants also try to dictate  the amount of a MSA. In personal injury cases, these arguments must be resisted  to the point of litigating the MSA issue.

Federal Authority. “No federal law requires set-aside arrangements in personal injury settlements for future medical expenses.” Sipler v. Trans Am Trucking, Inc., (D.N.J. 2012). As recognized by the Sipler court, tort cases involve non-economic damages which are not determined by an established formula. See Zinman v. Shalala, 67 F.3d 841,846 (9th Cir. 1995). “[T]o require personal injury settlements to specifically apportion future medical expenses would prove burdensome to the settlement process, and, in turn, discourage personal injury settlements.” Sipler; cf. Ahlborn,  587 U. S. at 268  (in context of Medicad).

Solution. Our solution is plaintiff will consider the need for a MSA after consulting with a  MSA law firm, but plaintiff has the responsibility and discretion to determine the final set aside (if any). The terms of the settlement order  give plaintiff control over the MSA issue. Below is the relevant language:

Finding of Fact-Establishment of Qualified Settlement Fund. The parties have agreed to use a Qualified Settlement Fund  (QSF) established pursuant to section 468B of the Internal Revenue Code for purposes of holding the settlement funds and the disbursement of such funds pursuant to orders of this court.

Conclusion of Law-Orders of Disbursement. Orders of disbursement from the QSF will be made to ensure Medicare conditional payments are reimbursed, that a Medicare Set-Aside (if needed) will be properly funded by plaintiff out of the settlement proceeds, and that plaintiff receives the full benefit of this settlement.

Order. Plaintiff’s counsel shall promptly engage the services of Garretson Resolution Group, a professional firm that specializes in Medicare Secondary Payer compliance, to evaluate the case, determine whether a Medicare Set-Aside (MSA) is recomended, and if so, to present a proposed MSA Allocation. Plaintiff’s counsel and the QSF Payment Administrator shall take into account the MSA recommendation of Garretson to determine if a MSA is appropriate and if so the amount needed to fund the MSA.

                                          

 

Post Footer automatically generated by Add Post Footer Plugin for wordpress.

Posted by: Trudell | Permalink | Email This Post

January 31st, 2013

Cross Examination-Using Prior Statement

After watching outstanding webinars during the Pandemic of 2020 I see the most effective way to try a significant personal injury case is through the use of video sound bites. Now I am taking video depositions, ordering the digital copy and producing sound bites for trial. With this said there are cases I will try without video depositions for cross examination. So either way below are the “Old Way” and the New Way to impeach the witness with a prior inconsistent statement.

THE OLD WAY. Howard Nations, on using prior statement to impeach:

1. Illicit.  Get the witness to state the contradictory testimony. In the old way without a video sound bite stand so witness must face jury to answer.

2. Set Predicate.  Have witness agree to prior sworn statement. (Date, place, to whom). This is important in any deposition. Have a chapter in the deposition on Date, Place, Under, Oath so you can lock witness in at trial.

3. Produce. Hand clerk the deposition and have it marked as exhibit. (Give copies to judge and opposition counsel).

4. Witness Reads. Hand marked prior statement to witness and have witness read.

5. Dangle Witness.  Howard Nations points out this can be embarrassing for the witness. He recommends  going to counsel table and futz  around while witness has to either continue looking at jury or look away.

6. Return. After letting witness dangle return to cross but to a new area of questioning. This is because we do not want the witness to return to impeached topic and rehabilitate through answer to similar line of
questioning.

Post Footer automatically generated by Add Post Footer Plugin for wordpress.

Posted by: Trudell | Permalink | Email This Post

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »