The Plaintiff's Medical Malpractice Lawyer's 10 Commandments
We have learned and experienced much in handling thousands of cases in our collective 50 years of representing victims of medical negligence in order to create our own 10 Commandments.
July 01, 2021 at 11:05 AM
6 minute read
Medical MalpracticeWhile we may not possess the years that Moses reportedly had when he received the Ten Commandments at Mount Sinai, we have learned and experienced much in handling thousands of cases in our collective 50 years of representing victims of medical negligence in order to create our own 10 Commandments, which follow.
|- Do Not Accept a Case That You're Not Committed to Take to Trial.
Too many times, we've seen and heard from lawyers who tell us that they accepted a case expecting it to settle and when it didn't, they weren't prepared to see it through to trial. By that time, they were either woefully ill-prepared to try the case or had invested vast sums of time and money with no realistic expectation for success. Sadly, by that late date the die was cast and there wasn't much they could do. Conversely, it's critical to undertake a thorough investigation of the issues concerning standard of care, causation and damages, pre-suit. A certificate of merit and affidavit of merit from a competent, qualified and respectable expert is your best friend. You should be able, essentially, to present your case-in-chief following the completion of your pre-suit investigative work. If you're not, you're likely in for a much more uncertain path forward and a highly questionable result.
|- Do Not Wait to File Suit.
Just because there is a two-year statute of limitations doesn't mean you should wait any longer than is absolutely necessary to file suit. The passage of time rarely benefits the plaintiff and her attorney. Justice delayed is justice denied. Your client will be most appreciative for your efficiency and so will you. Obtain the critical medical records as soon as possible after being retained, complete your pre-suit investigation and draft your complaint. It is much easier to discover and add additional defendants before rather than after the statute of limitations has run.
|- Draft and File a Powerhouse Complaint.
Your complaint should tell your client's story. It should be detailed from a factual standpoint. It should specifically identify the allegations of negligence against each particular defendant in separate counts, as necessary. Your client's damages should be itemized specifically, as well, including compensatory past, present and future damages and punitive damages, if appropriate. Excerpts from medical records, statements, photographs and video should be included. Your Complaint should serve as your roadmap for future filings throughout the pendency of the case.
|- Serve Initial Discovery and Notices of Depositions With Your Complaint.
This should include Interrogatories, request for production of documents, request for admissions (when appropriate) and notices of videotaped depositions for records custodians, corporate designees and defendants. This will send a strong message. You can resend them once counsel has entered her appearance. This will result in your ability to proceed with discovery in the order of your preference, including proceeding with the critical defendant's deposition before your client's deposition, if so warranted.
|- Offer and Provide Dates for Your Client's Deposition.
The case is about your client. First impressions are important and go a long way. Normally, it's the first time counsel and any claims representative will see and meet your client. You may prefer to present your client for deposition before proceeding with the defendants' depositions. Its always preferable to control the order of the discovery process.
|- File Discovery Motions.
Absent extraordinary circumstances, you should file prompt motions to compel, motions for more specific responses, motions to strike or motions for sanctions if the defendants' discovery responses are either untimely, inadequate or insufficient. The granting of extensions to provide discovery responses should be the exception rather than the rule.
|- Obtain Admissible Trial Testimony During Depositions.
Depositions should be strategic and tactical. Your questions should not be objectionable. They should be clear, concise, short, direct, pointed and geared to elicit a one word response, if possible—either "yes" or "no," depending upon the subject matter. The goal is to be able to play back the Q&A as admissions of a party defendant in your case-in-chief in order to lock-in the defendant's testimony at the beginning of the case.
|- Serve Requests for Admissions Following the Completion of Written Discovery and Depositions.
The audacious power of being able to stand up, face the jury and read to them the defendants' factual admissions at the beginning of your case-in-chief can neither be discounted nor minimized. In combination with the jury's hearing admissions of the party defendants obtained during their depositions, you may well have convinced the jury of the propriety of the case before questioning your first live witness.
|- Prepare and Provide Both the Mediator and Defense Counsel With Extensive Mediation Memoranda.
Your mediation memoranda should be viewed as your complaint on steroids. It should be extensive, exhaustive, thorough and complete. It should include powerful video of the plaintiff, family, friends and deposition testimony. You should be certain to rebut each of the anticipated defenses in the case as you will likely not have the opportunity to view the defendants' materials. Also, you should provide defense counsel with enough copies for herself and any other decision makers as early as possible so that informed discussions may proceed before the mediation.
|- Script the Trial.
Your most valuable asset is your time. Judges and juries are no different. Now more than ever, you must be respectful of everyone's time in the courtroom. Judges and juries expect your presentation to be organized, smooth and flowing. Have a schedule and stick to it and be sure to preview for the jury during your opening statement from whom and what they'll hear at trial. Remember, trial is live theatre. Know your case thoroughly and completely, practice and rehearse.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllIgnorance Is Not Bliss, It Is Dangerous: Hospitals Need to Take Action to Prevent Harm
4 minute readNorthwestern Pa. Jury Awards $7.1M to Woman Blinded by Delayed Detection of Blood Clot
3 minute readJury Hits York Neurosurgeon With Record $23.9M Verdict Over Botched Spine Operation
3 minute readTrending Stories
- 1The Law Firm Disrupted: Playing the Talent Game to Win
- 2GlaxoSmithKline Settles Most Zantac Lawsuits for $2.2B
- 3BD Settles Thousands of Bard Hernia Mesh Lawsuits
- 4Preparing Your Law Firm for 2025: Smart Ways to Embrace AI & Other Technologies
- 5Inside Track: Late-Career In-House Leaders Offer Words to Live by
Who Got The Work
Eleanor M. Lackman of Mitchell Silberberg & Knupp has entered an appearance for Canon, the Japanese camera maker, and the Brooklyn Nets in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The case, filed Sept. 16 in California Central District Court by T-Rex Law on behalf of technology company Phinge Corporation, pursues claims against the defendants for their ongoing use of the 'Netaverse' mark. The suit contends that the defendants' use of the mark in connection with a virtual reality platform will likely create consumer confusion. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Consuelo B. Marshall, is 2:24-cv-07917, Phinge Corporation v. Yankees Entertainment and Sports Network, LLC et al.
Who Got The Work
Fox Rothschild partner Glenn S. Grindlinger has entered an appearance for Garage Management Company in a pending lawsuit over alleged wage-and-hour violations. The case was filed Aug. 31 in New York Southern District Court by the Abdul Hassan Law Group on behalf of a manual worker who contends that he was not properly compensated for overtime hours worked. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Analisa Torres, is 1:24-cv-06610, Bailey v. Garage Management Company LLC.
Who Got The Work
Veronica M. Keithley of Stoel Rives has entered an appearance for Husky Terminal and Stevedoring LLC in a pending environmental lawsuit. The suit, filed Aug. 12 in Washington Western District Court by Kampmeier & Knutsen on behalf of Communities for a Healthy Bay, seeks to declare that the defendant has violated the Clean Water Act by releasing stormwater discharges on Puget Sound and Commencement Bay. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Benjamin H. Settle, is 3:24-cv-05662, Communities for a Healthy Bay v. Husky Terminal and Stevedoring LLC.
Who Got The Work
Caroline Pignatelli of Cooley has entered an appearance for law firm Cooley, partner Matt Hallinan, retired partner Michael Tu and a pair of Cooley associates in a pending fraud lawsuit related to the firm's representation of startup company Carbon IQ and founder Benjamin Cantey. The case, filed Sept. 26 in New Jersey District Court by the DalCortivo Law Offices on behalf of Gould Ventures and member Jason Gould, contends that the defendants deliberately or recklessly concealed critical information from the plaintiffs regarding fraud allegations against Cantey. Gould claims that he would not have accepted a position on Carbon IQ's board of directors or made a 2022 investment in the company if the fraud allegations had been disclosed. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Robert Kirsch, is 3:24-cv-09485, Gould Ventures, LLC et al v. Cooley, LLP et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom have stepped in to represent PDD Holdings, the operator of online marketplaces Pinduoduo and Temu, in a pending securities class action. The case, filed Sept. 30 in New York Eastern District Court by Labaton Keller Sucharow and VanOverbeke, Michaud & Timmony, contends that the defendants concealed information that rendered the growth of PDD unsustainable and posed substantial risks to PDD’s business, including merchant policies that made it unprofitable for vendors to do business on PDD platforms; malware issues on PDD applications; and PDD’s failure to implement effective compliance systems. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Pamela K. Chen, is 1:24-cv-06881, Macomb County Retiree Health Care Fund v. Pdd Holdings Inc. et al.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250