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
While 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 AllPhila. Anesthesiologist Wins Defense Verdict in Multimillion-Dollar Case Over C-Section Complications
3 minute read$8M Med Mal Verdict Against Abington Hospital Fends Off Pa. Appeals Court Challenge
3 minute readThe Defense Bar Is Feeling the Strain: Busy Med Mal Trial Schedules Might Be Phila.'s 'New Normal'
7 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Call for Nominations: Elite Trial Lawyers 2025
- 2Senate Judiciary Dems Release Report on Supreme Court Ethics
- 3Senate Confirms Last 2 of Biden's California Judicial Nominees
- 4Morrison & Foerster Doles Out Year-End and Special Bonuses, Raises Base Compensation for Associates
- 5Tom Girardi to Surrender to Federal Authorities on Jan. 7
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
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