Just Verdicts

“Lawyers with nearly flawless technique can lose case after case while lawyers who appear clumsy and bumbling can win repeatedly," writes Rick Friedman in Becoming a Trial Lawyer — Brendan Lupetin's favorite book of all time. In this solo episode, Brendan digs into Friedman's chapter "Beyond Technique," exploring why mastering courtroom mechanics is only part of the equation. Drawing on his own experience trying cases — including a close federal trial where a juror later told him she could tell he truly cared — Brendan makes the case that personal investment and vulnerability in the courtroom can be the deciding factor in cases that hang in the balance. Produced and Powered by LawPods

Host Brendan Lupetin wanted to focus this episode on building your own firm. He turned not to one inspiring lawyer. Not to two. But to three. No coincidence: They are sisters Lauren Kelly Gielarowski, Gianna Kelly, Erica Kelly Curren, who launched The Kelly Firm earlier this year. They also happen to be daughters of celebrated Western Pennsylvania personal injury attorney Larry Kelly. With just a bit of sisterly talking over each other, the three reflect on their past careers on the defense side, the challenge of keeping work coming through the door, and why being women-owned and female-led is central to their brand. And for anybody thinking of hanging a shingle, all three encourage you to go for it and not wait for the perfect time. It will never come.Learn More and Connect☑️ Lauren Kelly Gielarowski | LinkedIn☑️ Gianna Kelly | LinkedIn☑️ Erica Kelly Curren | LinkedIn☑️ The Kelly Firm on LinkedIn | Facebook☑️ Brendan Lupetin | LinkedIn☑️ Lupetin & Unatin, LLC☑️ Connect: Facebook | LinkedIn | YouTube☑️ Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | YouTubeEpisode PreviewLauren, Gianna, and Erica describe how their career paths were shaped growing up watching their father, Larry Kelly, a stalwart of Western Pennsylvania personal injury law.Starting their own firm was a decision that took years of planning, saving, and working up the courage to leave the "golden handcuffs" of steady defense firm paychecks.The sisters take advantage of virtual office assistants, Filevine case management, office sharing, and remote work to run a modern firm.The sisters and Brendan weigh the real risks of AI over-reliance in legal practice, with Lauren sharing how she insists on reading every page of the medical record herself — even when using AI tools to prep for depositions.Erica identifies keeping work coming in the door as the firm's biggest ongoing concern and explains why boutique firms like theirs can offer clients something the "big box" firms simply can't: direct access to the attorney actually working on their case.Each sister offers advice for lawyers thinking about going out on their own — from Gianna's reminder that there's never a perfect time, to Erica's "you can do it,” to Lauren's call to lean on the Pittsburgh legal community.Ready to refer or collaborate on med mal, medical negligence, and catastrophic injury cases? Visit our attorney referral page at PAMedMal.com/Refer. We handle cases in Pennsylvania and across the United States.Produced and Powered by LawPods

In this episode, host Brendan Lupetin explores what is often the most gut-wrenching part of a case: waiting for the verdict. To do so, he invites the trial team of Andy Delaney and Jack De La Piedra for a step-by-step breakdown of their recent wrongful death case against the operators of a Florida nursing home. They represented the family of a woman who died after a bedsore went untreated and wasn’t even revealed to the patient or her family. After trial – which included a six-minute closing and a three-minute cross-examination – they were at lunch when they got the call. The jury was returning. Tune in to hear what happened next.Learn More and Connect☑️ Andy Delaney | LinkedIn☑️ Martin Delaney & Ricci Law Group☑️ Jack De La Piedra | LinkedIn☑️ De La Piedra Law Firm | Facebook☑️ Brendan Lupetin | LinkedIn☑️ Lupetin & Unatin, LLC☑️ Connect: Facebook | LinkedIn | YouTube☑️ Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | YouTubeEpisode PreviewJack De La Piedra and Andy Delaney met at Trial Lawyers College in 2015 and have tried multiple cases together through their decade-long friendship.Jack and Andy represented the family of an 87-year-old woman who was in a Florida nursing home when she got a Stage 2 bedsore that neither she nor the family was told existed. Over 10 days at the nursing home, her health deteriorated; she died after finally being taken to the hospital.In voir dire, Jack asked the entire panel if they had heard the phrase, "If it wasn't documented, then it didn't happen." Every hand went up, establishing the theme that would carry through the entire trial.Jack's opening featured no PowerPoint, just a flip chart, two rules, and a physical reenactment on a rolling utility cart that showed jurors exactly how the patient was suffering in her bed..In Andy's three-minute cross-examination of the corporate representative, he asked one question: Did he believe the operators of the nursing home were negligent? The response was a flat "no.” With no further questions, Andy let the answer speak for itself.Jack's closing argument ran just six minutes, skipping the evidence recap and focusing on the heart of the case. The defense counsel's attempt to mock its brevity backfired and made their own position look weaker.Ready to refer or collaborate on med mal, medical negligence, and catastrophic injury cases? Visit our attorney referral page at PAMedMal.com/Refer. We handle cases in Pennsylvania and across the United States.Produced and Powered by LawPods

Settlement discussions are where "so many different factors" collide — a client's relationship with money, their grief, their fear of trial, and their lawyer's duty to give candid advice. Host Brendan Lupetin sits down with his law partner Greg Unatin of Lupetin & Unatin, LLC to tackle the ethical tightrope every trial lawyer walks: How do you advise clients when you can't predict verdicts, when clients resist good offers, and when trial is looming? Brendan and Greg explore how data studies inform — but don't replace — candid client conversations, how settlement disagreements can have a psychological toll, and how lawyers can use a practical tool for documenting when a client overrules your advice.Learn More and Connect☑️ Greg Unatin | LinkedIn☑️ Brendan Lupetin | LinkedIn☑️ Lupetin & Unatin, LLC☑️ Connect: Facebook | LinkedIn | YouTube☑️ Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | YouTubeEpisode PreviewBrendan and Greg introduce the episode's central challenge: Settlement discussions come up far more often than trials, yet they expose a "new side" of clients that lawyers may not have anticipated.Brendan explains how large-sample jury data studies — from focus groups to verdict-prediction platforms — help him form concrete settlement recommendations.Brendan tells clients plainly when he cannot confidently say a verdict will beat the offer on the table and that the final decision always belongs to the client.Greg suggests one strategy: designating a separate settlement counsel — someone other than the trial lawyer — to handle negotiations.Brendan describes a practical "informed consent" approach: having clients sign a letter acknowledging they've been advised that an offer is favorable and are choosing to reject it.Greg offers a strategy for knowing when to stop advising and start preparing: If you find yourself repeating the same settlement advice, you've done your job.Ready to refer or collaborate on med mal, medical negligence, and catastrophic injury cases? Visit our attorney referral page at PAMedMal.com/Refer. We handle cases in Pennsylvania and across the United States.Produced and Powered by LawPods

It was the first case tried to verdict under a Pennsylvania anti-hazing statute that allows civil remedies against Greek life organizations. The team that tried it – Helen Lawless and Mark Fuchs – visit host Brendan Lupetin to explain how they won $7.8 million. It wasn’t easy: They had to show how the college freshman ended at the bottom of a cliff with a BAC of over 0.2. And they had to deflect defense arguments that the student bore personal responsibility. For any plaintiff’s lawyer working on an anti-hazing case, this episode is a must-hear.Learn More and Connect☑️ Helen Lawless | LinkedIn☑️ Mark Fuchs | LinkedIn☑️ Kline & Specter on LinkedIn | Facebook | YouTube☑️ Brendan Lupetin | LinkedIn☑️ Lupetin & Unatin, LLC☑️ Connect: Facebook | LinkedIn | YouTube☑️ Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | YouTubeEpisode PreviewIn King vs. AST Sorority et. al, Helen Lawless and Mark Fuchs represented the family of Justin King, an 18-year-old freshman at Bloomsburg University who died just two weeks into his college career after attending an alcohol-fueled party co-hosted by a fraternity and a sorority.This was the first case tried to verdict in Pennsylvania under the state's anti-hazing statute, a law born by the parents of a Penn State hazing victim that allows civil remedies against individuals, organizations, and educational institutions.A key challenge was establishing causation without a witness to the fatal fall. The team used a digital forensics expert to track Justin's cell phone movements and a forensic pathologist to establish time of death, creating an unbroken chain of causation.Helen and Mark argued that the sorority’s anti-hazing policies were "paper policies" that were never enforced: The only time national representatives visited the local sorority chapter was after Justin's death, and they arrived with a lawyer.The defense's strategy of building up a high school friend as a star witness backfired when he testified he wasn't even in Bloomsburg the night Justin died.The $7.8 million verdict was apportioned 35% to the sorority, 35% to the fraternity, and 24% to Justin, with the largest damages going to lost earnings and Carol King's companionship damages.The defining moment at trial came when the sorority CEO sat in silence for nearly a minute after being asked whether handing policies to college students was enough to deter hazing—and answered "No."Ready to refer or collaborate on med mal, medical negligence, and catastrophic injury cases? Visit our attorney referral page at PAMedMal.com/Refer. We handle cases in Pennsylvania and across the United States.Produced and Powered by LawPods

Jurors in traditionally conservative St. Charles County, Missouri, awarded $1.5 million in a complex case about medical negligence. Why? Host Brendan Lupetin invites the winning trial team – Chris Wright and Anthony Laramore – to reveal their strategies. Chris and Anthony recount how they built the case, starting with crafting simple rules that resonated with jurors. One of them? “Surgeons must confirm before they cut.” Tune in for the other.Learn More and Connect☑️ Chris Wright☑️ Anthony Laramore | LinkedIn☑️ Page Law on LinkedIn | Facebook☑️ Brendan Lupetin | LinkedIn☑️ Lupetin & Unatin, LLC☑️ Connect: Facebook | LinkedIn | YouTube☑️ Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | YouTubeEpisode PreviewThe surgeon told the team’s client that she had cancer and the only option was a mastectomy. But the surgeon was either lying or too incompetent to realize that her diagnosis was inaccurate.The defense attorney made a critical error in opening statement by framing the case as a one-issue trial: "If you believe our side, you have to find in our favor, but if you think we're lying and you believe them, you should find in their favor.”One defense expert, a pathologist, had been sued by Vanderbilt University for stealing $250,000. In cross-examination, Anthony showed how she couldn’t be trusted to keep her word, a clean fit with the case theme.The defense attorney inadvertently opened the door to discuss the defendant doctor's prior malpractice lawsuits by holding up four fingers and asking her to walk the jury through those four. Problem was – there were actually five prior cases.During deliberations, when the jury asked if they were capped in what they could award, the defense attorney told the doctor she needed to give consent to settle. She refused and walked out of the courtroom.The jury awarded $1.5 million ($500,000 for past non-economic damages and $1 million for future non-economic damages). It was $600,000 more than the attorneys requested.A juror approached Chris after trial and told him she didn’t sign the verdict form – not because she didn’t vote for the plaintiff, but because they weren’t giving her enough money.Ready to refer or collaborate on med mal, medical negligence, and catastrophic injury cases? Visit our attorney referral page at PAMedMal.com/Refer. We handle cases in Pennsylvania and across the United States.Produced and Powered by LawPods

For over 30 years, he’s helped select juries that have returned billions of dollars in verdicts. “He is the guy who gets called on for the highest-stakes cases going,” says host Brendan Lupetin. How does Robert Hirschhorn do it? In this conversation, Robert reflects on his past and describes the “game-changing” future: his AI-powered consulting platform called VerdictHub. Tune in as Robert reveals his powerful questions for identifying ideal jurors, innovative strategies for maximizing damages in states where lawyers cannot give jurors recommendations, and technique for anchoring jurors to substantial awards. Spoiler: Repeating the word “billion” helps.Learn More and Connect☑️ Robert Hirschhorn | LinkedIn☑️ CEB Jury and Trial Consultants☑️ Brendan Lupetin | LinkedIn☑️ Lupetin & Unatin, LLC☑️ Connect: Facebook | LinkedIn | YouTube☑️ Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | YouTubeEpisode PreviewRobert's career transformed in 1984 when he secured a seemingly impossible not-guilty verdict against a public safety officer charged with robbery – and caught at the scene with an Uzi, sawed-off shotgun, and silencer.For that case, Robert was referred to jury consultant Cathy Bennett, who agreed to teach him her methods on one condition: He would spend an entire year attending all her meetings without speaking but instead observing and absorbing.Robert and Cathy Bennett eventually married. Later, on her deathbed, she made Robert promise to find a way to give his jury selection gift to as many lawyers as he could, a promise he would fulfill with VerdictHub, his AI-powered trial consulting platform.VerdictHub is now developing a “shadow jury" product. Once a lawyer has a seated jury, this product will replicate not one group of 12 using digital artificial intelligence jurors, but five groups of juries. Those five groups, demographically identical to the seated jury, will then be provided the transcript of that day’s court activity, and the lawyers will get their feedback each day.Robert recommends asking potential jurors whether they see the world in black and white or shades of gray, explaining that cases centered on non-economic damages absolutely require "shades of gray" jurors who can think in nuanced terms.Robert advises asking jurors if they prefer the big picture or details, noting that while detail-oriented people are important for certain cases, big picture thinkers are often better suited for cases requiring emotional connection and understanding of non-economic harm.In states where lawyers cannot suggest damage amounts to juries, Robert's strategy involves villainizing the defendant or defense witnesses and finding creative ways to use large numbers throughout trial to anchor jurors' thinking.If economic damages in a case are very low, Robert recommends waiving them entirely to avoid anchoring the jury to a small number when you cannot provide a recommended amount for non-economic damages.Ready to refer or collaborate on med mal, medical negligence, and catastrophic injury cases? Visit our attorney referral page at PAMedMal.com/Refer. We handle cases in Pennsylvania and across the United States.Produced and Powered by LawPods

Fun fact: Rapper Harvey "Frzy" Daniels and famed horror makeup artist Tom Savini are both depicted on murals, created by the same artist. Their lives converged in another, more dramatic way when Frzy was injured in a hit-and-run. Brandon Keller represented the rapper against the makeup artist, who was tracked down, in part, by his “IZOMBIE” license plate. In this case breakdown with host Brendan Lupetin, Brandon reveals the challenges he faced – including an eyewitness who ghosted him for two years – and the strategies that ultimately led to a $225,000 verdict.Learn More and Connect☑️ Brandon Keller | LinkedIn☑️ Ainsman Levine on LinkedIn | Facebook☑️ Brendan Lupetin | LinkedIn☑️ Lupetin & Unatin, LLC☑️ Connect: Facebook | LinkedIn | YouTube☑️ Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | YouTubeEpisode PreviewDaniels v. Savini involved Harvey "Frzy" Daniels, a Pittsburgh rapper, and famed makeup artist Tom Savini, who has worked for horror legend George Romero.Frzy was leaving a meeting with a music video director when his motorcycle was sideswiped by a black Dodge Charger.The driver’s “IZOMBIE” license plate was initially transcribed incorrectly as "IVOMBIE,” creating early delays in the investigation.The 911 call was compelling: You could hear Frzy on the ground as the eyewitness's cousin tells him, "We got the plate."The defendant initially denied driving the vehicle, signing an affidavit with his insurance company stating he did not do it and would have remembered if he had.The defense's last offer was $6,700, made right after the eyewitness deposition.Brandon chose to seek only non-economic damages, not wanting to give the jury any benchmark number that might limit their award for pain and suffering.The jury awarded $150,000 for past pain and suffering and $75,000 for future pain and suffering, totaling $225,000.Ready to refer or collaborate on med mal, medical negligence, and catastrophic injury cases? Visit our attorney referral page at PAMedMal.com/Refer. We handle cases in Pennsylvania and across the United States.Produced and Powered by LawPods

“I thought that was insulting,” Todd Hollis says of a defense offer of $500,000. His client agreed, and Todd went “guns banging” to trial. The case involved a woman who was killed when the driver of a rental car, who had a suspended license, hit her head-on. In this breakdown with host Brendan Lupetin, Todd describes how the rental car company acknowledged that 15% of their 525,000 annual rentals potentially go to drivers without valid licenses. When the defense argued that the legislature doesn’t require electronic background scans, Todd argued that the legislature does say that a rental car company can’t rent to anyone who they know is incompetent to drive. Tune in to hear how the jury responded with “millions” in punitive damages.Learn More and Connect☑️ Todd Hollis | LinkedIn☑️ Todd J. Hollis Law on Facebook | YouTube☑️ Brendan Lupetin | LinkedIn☑️ Lupetin & Unatin, LLC☑️ Connect: Facebook | LinkedIn | YouTube☑️ Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | YouTubeEpisode PreviewTodd Hollis describes “jumping” from criminal defense after a painful moment waiting for a client to pay him $200 that he would use to buy Christmas gifts for his son. After a humbling experience selling hotdogs for a year, and after his daughter was born, he switched to the plaintiff side.In the Everson case, Todd sued a rental car company after it rented a car to a driver with a suspended license. That driver killed a woman after he crossed into the opposite lane and struck her vehicle head-on.The rental car company charged drivers under 25 an additional $25 per day because they're "higher risk" but did nothing to ensure these drivers were actually licensed or safe to drive.Todd’s theme in the case was community safety: How many rental cars on the road have been rented to a driver who is not legally safe or competent?Todd and his client rejected a defense offer of $500,000 before trial. “I remember what you told me, and you said you form a reputation when you start to accept unreasonable numbers,” Todd says of host Brendan Lupetin. “I had made a conscious decision that I was not going to allow that to happen.”Ready to refer or collaborate on med mal, medical negligence, and catastrophic injury cases? Visit our attorney referral page at PAMedMal.com/Refer. We handle cases in Pennsylvania and across the United States.Produced and Powered by LawPods

An unwitnessed fall, a client with prior back problems, 10 years of unemployment, and over $5 million in disability benefits already paid – this case had every reason to fail. Yet trial partners Brendan Lupetin and Greg Unatin secured a record-setting $7.25 million verdict for the former chief of pain management at UPMC Hamot. In this case breakdown, Brendan and Greg reveal the strategies that shaped their victory: exposing UPMC's betrayal of their client through a series of emails, levering focus group insights to develop their winning liability theory, and highlighting their client’s loss of his passion in life: being a doctor.Learn More and Connect☑️ Greg Unatin | LinkedIn☑️ Brendan Lupetin | LinkedIn☑️ Lupetin & Unatin, LLC☑️ Connect: Facebook | LinkedIn | YouTube☑️ Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | YouTubeEpisode PreviewTheir client fell on snow-covered ice while exiting a UPMC surgery center through a required after-hours door, suffering severe back and shoulder injuries that ended his career as chief of pain management at UPMC Hamot.The team strategically navigated the issue of their client’s prior back problems by explaining to the jury that he’d recovered from a spine surgery; the issue at trial was his shoulder injury: “I think that that ultimately played just fine, and we really made it all about the shoulder,” Brendan says.The attorneys dropped their theory about a code violation relating to a defective step after focus groups showed that jurors cared more about the snow and ice issue.Their winning liability theory became simple: When UPMC directed staff to exit a specific door, they had a duty to ensure that door was safely maintained.A trail of emails revealed UPMC's corporate betrayal: praising their client as their "golden boy" when he was profitable, then ghosting him after his injuries when he desperately sought ways to return to work.The decision to bring in their client’s disability benefits ($22,000 monthly for a decade) actually helped the case by showing that he was legitimately disabled.Ready to refer or collaborate on med mal, medical negligence, and catastrophic injury cases? Visit our attorney referral page at PAMedMal.com/Refer. We handle cases in Pennsylvania and across the United States.Produced and Powered by LawPods

A pregnant woman’s blood pressure drops dangerously. An obstetrician never picks up the phone. A “Keystone Cop” situation that tragically leads to the death of an unborn baby. Tracey Dellacona and Caleb Walker combined forces to secure $25 million after a surgeon missed their client’s preeclampsia diagnosis. Tune in as host Brendan Lupetin explores the case with the team: Tracey, a nurse turned med-mal attorney who founded Dellacona Law Firm, and Caleb, litigator and appellate partner at McArthur Law Firm. Tune in for their insights about managing voluminous medical records, asking for non-economic damages, and developing collaborative law firm partnerships.Learn More and Connect☑️ Caleb Walker | LinkedIn☑️ McArthur Law Firm on LinkedIn | Facebook | YouTube☑️ Tracey Dellacona | LinkedIn☑️ Dellacona Law Firm ☑️ Brendan Lupetin | LinkedIn☑️ Lupetin & Unatin, LLC☑️ Connect: Facebook | LinkedIn | YouTube☑️ Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | YouTubeReady to refer or collaborate on med mal, medical negligence, and catastrophic injury cases? Visit our attorney referral page at PAMedMal.com/Refer. We handle cases in Pennsylvania and across the United States.Produced and Powered by LawPods

Tim Wojton was prepared to tell jurors that a skilled nursing facility violated six different standards of care, leading to a patient’s death from hypovolemic shock. Then he realized that there was really just one. “I thought, wait a minute, understaffing isn't just another breach. Understaffing is the original sin.” In this case breakdown, Tim and trial partner Matt Scanlon describe to host Brendan Lupetin how they tracked down former employees, turned brutal cross-examination moments into powerful jury connections, and used a simple tree analogy to help jurors understand corporate negligence. Jurors awarded $750,000.Learn More and Connect☑️ Matt Scanlon | LinkedIn☑️ Tim Wojton | LinkedIn☑️ Scanlon & Wojton Attorneys at Law on Facebook☑️ Brendan Lupetin | LinkedIn☑️ Lupetin & Unatin, LLC☑️ Connect: Facebook | LinkedIn | YouTube☑️ Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | YouTubeReady to refer or collaborate on med mal, medical negligence, and catastrophic injury cases? Visit our attorney referral page at PAMedMal.com/Refer. We handle cases in Pennsylvania and across the United States.Produced and Powered by LawPods

Did the primary care physician cause his patient’s death from an undiagnosed pulmonary embolism? A trial court said no, on summary judgment. In representing the patient’s widow on appeal, Patrick Sullivan realized that he had to “scrap everything and start from square one.” In this case breakdown with host Brendan Lupetin, Patrick describes how he reframed the case even as he faced hurdles: The patient never complained of chest pain (pulmonary embolism's key symptom) and the defense characterized him as an alcoholic. Patrick reveals how he exposed the PCP’s behavior – putting business interests above his patient’s care – and how he strategically ordered his witnesses for maximum impact. The jury responded, awarding $3.5 million.Learn More and Connect☑️ Patrick Sullivan ☑️ Dallas Hartman on LinkedIn | Facebook☑️ Brendan Lupetin | LinkedIn☑️ Lupetin & Unatin, LLC☑️ Connect: Facebook | LinkedIn | YouTube☑️ Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | YouTubeEpisode PreviewPatrick Sullivan represented a widow whose husband died from a pulmonary embolism after his primary care physician cleared him for surgery without discussing or noting his history of blood clots on the surgical clearance form.The trial court let the primary care physician out on causation at summary judgment; Patrick got that decision overturned on appeal and then sued the PCP again.The jury found the PCP negligent, awarding $3.5 million in wrongful death damages and assigning zero comparative negligence to the patient.Patrick emphasizes constant learning through reading trial strategy books, getting in the arena early and often, and maintaining genuine passion for clients.Ready to refer or collaborate on med mal, medical negligence, and catastrophic injury cases? Visit our attorney referral page at PAMedMal.com/Refer. We handle cases in Pennsylvania and across the United States.Produced and Powered by LawPods

Doug Olcott believes his 15 years as a defense attorney gives him a “leg up” representing plaintiffs. It did in his case against a snow tubing park, where his client suffered a catastrophic injury. “I think I have a better understanding as to what the defendants are going to do and then being able to anticipate how they're going to approach a game because, quite frankly, in my 35 years doing this, not a lot has changed on the defense bar side,” he tells host Brendan Lupetin. In this case breakdown, Doug explains how he overcame a signed waiver, exposed defense contradictions, and challenged an expert witness who said his client “lacked common sense.” The result: a $693,000 verdict, Somerset County's largest in at least 20 years: Learn More and Connect☑️ Doug Olcott | LinkedIn☑️ Edgar Snyder & Associates on LinkedIn | Facebook | YouTube☑️ Brendan Lupetin | LinkedIn☑️ Lupetin & Unatin, LLC☑️ Connect: Facebook | LinkedIn | YouTube☑️ Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | YouTubeEpisode PreviewDoug’s client was attending a children's birthday party at Hidden Valley's snow tubing park when her tube accelerated down the hill and launched off the back of a runout embankment.She suffered a T12 burst fracture requiring surgical placement of two rods across five levels of her thoracic spine, along with a pelvic fracture and other lesser fractures.After the court granted summary judgment on negligence claims based on a signed waiver, the case proceeded to trial on recklessness only—a significantly higher burden requiring proof of intentional or reckless disregard for known risks.Doug and co-counsel Jerry Hutton proved recklessness by establishing three critical failures: no workers stationed at the bottom to stop tubes, no deceleration mats deployed, and no barrier to prevent riders from going over the embankment.The defense's own policies and procedures contradicted their trial testimony—interrogatory answers identified specific safety protocols that witnesses couldn't verify had been followed on the day of the incident.Two independent parent-witnesses from the birthday party testified about the client's character and the community's response to her injury, establishing her credibility.The defense expert's own guidebook and Hidden Valley's written policies contradicted his trial testimony that the plaintiff "lacked common sense" for sitting on the tube—the approved method according to their own documents.YouTube videos found by the plaintiff's expert showed repeated instances of riders going over the embankment, refuting defense claims that it had never happened before.The jury returned a verdict of $693,000—Somerset County's largest verdict in at least 20 years—and the plaintiffs are pursuing punitive damages in a second trial.Ready to refer or collaborate on med mal, medical negligence, and catastrophic injury cases? Visit our attorney referral page at PAMedMal.com/Refer. We handle cases in Pennsylvania and across the United States.Produced and Powered by LawPods

John Gismondi has never said to an associate, “You’re just going to work as my caddy for a few years, and then we're going to start to give you your own cases.” That goes for his son JJ. Just four months after JJ passed the bar, he joined his father in representing a 60-year-old woman who suffered a ruptured aneurysm due to a missed diagnosis. In this case breakdown with host Brendan Lupetin, the father-son team reveal how they faced a critical ruling that prevented an ex-defendant’s testimony from being read in – “the tipping point,” as John describes it. “It kept JJ and me up until literally two o'clock.” Tune in to hear how they made it over the tipping point to secure a verdict split equally between the wife's pain and suffering and the husband's loss of consortium.Learn More and Connect☑️ John Gismondi | LinkedIn☑️ JJ Gismondi | LinkedIn☑️ The Law Offices of Gismondi & Associates on LinkedIn | Facebook | YouTube☑️ Brendan Lupetin | LinkedIn☑️ Lupetin & Unatin, LLC☑️ Connect: Facebook | LinkedIn | YouTube☑️ Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | YouTubeEpisode PreviewThe case involved a 60-year-old woman whose abdominal aortic aneurysm was missed by a radiologist and eventually ruptured.The case was tried in Mifflin County, where court personnel informed them that "this was only the second civil trial of any type that had gone to a jury in 12 years."The crisis day defendants who delayed transferring the patient and getting her to surgery settled before trial, leaving only the case against the radiologist and his practice.The defense radiologist dropped his cross-claim against the vascular surgeon on the morning of trial—a strategic move to prevent the Gismondis from reading in favorable deposition testimony from the vascular surgeon.After the judge ruled that the vascular surgeon's deposition testimony couldn't be read in, the Gismondis had to show increased risk of harm based on the radiologist’s testimony.The team successfully argued that proof of increased risk provides the factual basis for the jury to determine causation and that the failure to detect an aneurysm was so obvious that expert testimony on causation wasn't required.John used innovative technology by having the radiology expert use Zoom's annotation tools with a laptop to walk through CT scan images in real-time, giving the expert complete control and demonstrating exactly how a radiologist would review the images.During closing, John focused his liability argument on one word—"coronal"—to emphasize how the defense never addressed the coronal views of the CT scan that would have shown that the aneurysm wasn't a loop of bowel.Ready to refer or collaborate on med mal, medical negligence, and catastrophic injury cases? Visit our attorney referral page at PAMedMal.com/Refer. We handle cases in Pennsylvania and across the United States.Produced and Powered by LawPods

When an insurance company told an injured driver to “take it or leave it,” the team at Janssen Law took the company to trial. In this case breakdown with host Brendan Lupetin, Bob Janssen, Ryan Froelich, and Bob’s son Zach Janssen explain that the insurer offered $45,000 – while their client had $93,000 in medical bills alone. They faced challenges, including a conservative Green Bay market and a client who didn’t have surgery and continued to work full-time. But they focused on her chronic pain and leveraged innovative trial strategies, like Ryan's memorable analogy to a grocery store visit gone wrong. The jury awarded $694,500.Learn More and Connect☑️ Bob Janssen☑️ Ryan Froelich | LinkedIn ☑️ Zach Janssen☑️ Janssen Law on LinkedIn | Facebook | YouTube☑️ Brendan Lupetin | LinkedIn☑️ Lupetin & Unatin, LLC☑️ Connect: Facebook | LinkedIn | YouTube☑️ Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | YouTubeEpisode PreviewThe Janssen Law team’s client suffered a meniscal tear when she was rear-ended while driving her son on a snowy Wisconsin day.Progressive Insurance paid their $100,000 limits, but Wadena Insurance offered only $45,000 against the client's $500,000 underinsured motorist coverage.The defense contested liability even in a clear rear-end collision, creating opportunities for the plaintiff's team to highlight their failure to accept responsibility.Two treating doctors testified live at trial: a chiropractor with 35 years of experience and a pain management doctor who performed injections and radiofrequency ablations.The treating doctors distinguished between the client’s prior medical history and what she dealt with in the five years after it. “The jury saw it clear as day,” Ryan says.In his closing, Ryan compared the client's experience securing coverage from Wadena to paying for groceries but having items removed from the bags before leaving the store.The team created a special verdict demonstrative that treating doctors filled out during testimony, establishing credibility for their damage calculations.Ready to refer or collaborate on med mal, medical negligence, and catastrophic injury cases? Visit our attorney referral page at PAMedMal.com/Refer. We handle cases in Pennsylvania and across the United States.Produced and Powered by LawPods

“Have you seen this record?” Sam Martin asked trial partner Nathan Werksman. “This is unbelievable.” That record? "So far, there is no plan.” It became the theory of liability that the team leveraged against a surgeon whose 23-year-old patient died from abdominal compartment syndrome. Host Brendan Lupetin explores how the former Stanford Law School classmates navigated their case in a state where wrongful death damages are severely limited. Sam, an associate at Patrick Malone & Associates, and Nathan, a partner at Merson Law, combined their complementary skills—Sam's meticulous case analysis and Nathan's commanding trial presence—to secure a $2.3 million verdict.Learn More and Connect☑️ Nathan Werksman | LinkedIn☑️ Merson Law on LinkedIn | Instagram | Facebook | YouTube☑️ Sam Martin | LinkedIn☑️ Patrick Malone & Associates on LinkedIn | YouTube | Facebook☑️ Brendan Lupetin | LinkedIn☑️ Lupetin & Unatin, LLC☑️ Connect: Facebook | LinkedIn | YouTube☑️ Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | YouTubeReady to refer or collaborate on med mal, medical negligence, and catastrophic injury cases? Visit our attorney referral page at PAMedMal.com/Refer. We handle cases in Pennsylvania and across the United States.Produced and Powered by LawPods

When a 900-pound flail mower crushed a Delaware Department of Transportation mechanic, the defense claimed it was his fault and insisted his return to work proved minimal injury. When Dave Kwass sued the mower manufacturer, he exposed defense lies and revealed missing evidence. He also took jurors on a journey through the company’s history – including the “bizarre moment” when it rejected a design modification that would have made the mower safer because it would have increased repair costs. As Dave explains to host Brendan Lupetin, he set up the “narrative inevitability" that the flawed machine would injure someone. “The ‘Jaws’ music has been playing,” Brendan observes, “and they know that the attack is inevitable.” The jury awarded Dave’s client $11 million.Learn More and Connect☑️ Dave Kwass | LinkedIn☑️ Saltz Mongeluzzi Bendesky on LinkedIn | Instagram | Facebook | YouTube☑️ Brendan Lupetin | LinkedIn☑️ Lupetin & Unatin, LLC☑️ Connect: Facebook | LinkedIn | YouTube☑️ Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | YouTubeReady to refer or collaborate on med mal, medical negligence, and catastrophic injury cases? Visit our attorney referral page at PAMedMal.com/Refer. We handle cases in Pennsylvania and across the United States.Produced and Powered by LawPods

In the second Trial Nugget devoted to punitive damages, host Brendan Lupetin breaks down Goretzka v. West Penn Power, in which a woman was fatally electrocuted when a power line fell on her. Brendan reads key moments from the punitive section of Shanin Specter’s closing argument, including when he reframed West Penn Power’s $244 million net worth. Shanin showed the jury a $10 bill and suggested that the appropriate way of considering damages would be to say, “‘What would it be if it were a guy with $10? How much would that be to make him feel it? To make him not do it again?’ And then just do the math on that $244 million.” The jury awarded $109 million. Unpacking Shanin’s strategies, Brendan observes: “One clever point that Shanin pointed out: Whether they're worth $1 or $20 billion, it doesn't matter.”Produced and Powered by LawPods

At Blankingship & Keith, they often say: "There's a smoking gun in every case; just, sometimes, you don't find it." With tenacity and strategy, a firm team found smoking guns in their recent case against a commercial trucking company. The team – Rob Stoney, Chidi James, Barkley Horn, and Matt Tsun – uncovered inspection failures that allowed a truck with inadequate brakes and safety features to be on the road. It collided with their client’s vehicle, causing her life-altering injuries. Listen to this case breakdown with host Brendan Lupetin to learn how they turned a $300,000 insurance policy into a $4.4 million jury verdict.Learn More and Connect☑️ Chidi James | LinkedIn☑️ Barkley Horn | LinkedIn☑️ Matt Tsun | LinkedIn☑️ Rob Stoney | LinkedIn☑️ Blankingship & Keith on LinkedIn | Instagram | X ☑️ Brendan Lupetin | LinkedIn☑️ Lupetin & Unatin, LLC☑️ Connect: Facebook | LinkedIn | YouTube☑️ Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | YouTubeReady to refer or collaborate on med mal, medical negligence, and catastrophic injury cases? Visit our attorney referral page at PAMedMal.com/Refer. We handle cases in Pennsylvania and across the United States.Produced and Powered by LawPods

The hospital had a good policy that would have prevented a 67-year-old woman from being prematurely discharged. Instead, she was discharged and found dead 12 hours later. Host Brendan Lupetin unpacks this wrongful death case with the trial team of Dorothy Dohanics, Carmen Nocera and Ben Cohen. Tune in to hear how Dorothy's meticulous discovery work and Carmen and Ben's strategic courtroom work drove their $5.25 million verdict. Learn More and Connect☑️ Ben Cohen ☑️ Dorothy Dohanics | LinkedIn☑️ Carmen Nocera | LinkedIn☑️ Harry S. Cohen & Associates on LinkedIn | Instagram | Facebook | YouTube☑️ Brendan Lupetin | LinkedIn☑️ Lupetin & Unatin, LLC☑️ Connect: Facebook | LinkedIn | YouTube☑️ Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | YouTubeReady to refer or collaborate on med mal, medical negligence, and catastrophic injury cases? Visit our attorney referral page at PAMedMal.com/Refer. We handle cases in Pennsylvania and across the United States.Produced and Powered by LawPods

In the first of a two-part series about approaches to arguing punitives, host Brendan Lupetin focuses on Mark Lanier's $9 billion verdict against Takeda Pharmaceuticals. Brendan breaks down the three-part strategy that ensured Mark’s success: emphasizing the purpose of punitive damages beyond compensation, empowering jurors to understand their verdict will travel globally within 30 seconds, and making astronomical corporate wealth comprehensible by converting $60 billion into relatable $60,000 scenarios. Come back for the second installment, when Brendan will analyze how Shanin Specter won $109 million from West Penn Power Company in the Goretzka case.Produced and Powered by LawPods.

Host Brendan Lupetin tackles the strategic paradox every trial lawyer faces: how to emphasize your strongest evidence through repetition without annoying jurors who hate lawyers who "say the same thing over and over." Drawing extensively from David Ball's "Theater Tips and Strategies for Jury Trials," Brendan explains the critical distinction between strategic repetition that wins cases and mindless repetition that loses them. He reveals Ball's gold standard for what to repeat—only what you want favorable jurors to say in deliberations—and shares the cautionary tale of a lawyer who said "in the blue Honda Civic southbound on US Interstate Highway number 95" sixty-seven times in a six-day trial, undermining his case's impact.Produced and Powered by LawPods.

When Jordan Strokovsky received a call about a 27-year-old medical assistant who lost his leg at Temple University Hospital, he knew within minutes something wasn't right. In this breakdown of his career-defining $25.9 million verdict in Parks v. Temple University Hospital, Jordan reveals to host Brendan Lupetin how he transformed a damages-only case into one of Philadelphia's largest amputation verdicts. Learn More and Connect☑️ Jordan Strokovsky | LinkedIn | Facebook☑️ Strokovsky LLC on LinkedIn | Facebook☑️ Brendan Lupetin | LinkedIn☑️ Lupetin & Unatin, LLC☑️ Connect: Facebook | LinkedIn | YouTube☑️ Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | YouTubeReady to refer or collaborate on med mal, medical negligence, and catastrophic injury cases? Visit our attorney referral page at PAMedMal.com/Refer. We handle cases in Pennsylvania and across the United States.Produced and Powered by LawPods

While representing a client who lost his foot after relying on his employer’s medical helpline, Helen Lawless and the trial team realized that the helpline did “exactly what it was supposed to do.” And their strategy was born. In this case breakdown with host Brendan Lupetin, Helen explains that the helpline was actually a lucrative business model designed to keep workers from getting proper medical care. Their “constant refrain” to the jury, Helen says, was that the company benefited from the deceptive helpline just as it intended. Ultimately, a Philadelphia jury awarded her client $4.2 million.Learn More and Connect☑️ Helen Lawless | LinkedIn☑️ Kline & Specter on LinkedIn | Instagram | Facebook | YouTube ☑️ Brendan Lupetin | LinkedIn☑️ Lupetin & Unatin, LLC☑️ Connect: Facebook | LinkedIn | YouTube☑️ Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | YouTubeEpisode PreviewHelen reveals how the Workcompvidence company deliberately kept injured workers from seeking proper medical care, monitoring patients but only providing "first aid" advice to avoid recordable workplace injuries.The company used a strategy called "tight management" to reduce "panic factors" that might lead workers to seek proper medical treatment, with nurses representing themselves as part of a doctor's practice.When the construction site job ended, the company "closed" their client's case without informing him, leaving him without care until his foot deteriorated to the point of requiring amputation.The defense claimed they owed no duty to the injured worker, but the jury disagreed, awarding $4.42 million in compensatory damages despite having no offer from the defense before trial.The trial featured detailed testimony about the company's business model that included marketing materials showing how they promised to reduce worker compensation costs for employers.Ready to refer or collaborate on med mal, medical negligence, and catastrophic injury cases? Visit our attorney referral page at PAMedMal.com/Refer. We handle cases in Pennsylvania and across the United States.Produced and Powered by LawPods

Host Brendan Lupetin breaks down two powerful psychological principles that can transform your trial strategy: the focusing illusion and the framing effect. Drawing from cognitive research and courtroom experience, Brendan explains that jurors focus on what's presented as most important – and lawyers who don’t control the jurors’ focus leave their case to chance. Using examples from a recent medical malpractice victory involving critical limb ischemia, he demonstrates how deliberate focusing—rather than presenting every available fact—leads to stronger verdicts and more persuasive arguments. Produced and Powered by LawPods.

A $25 million medical malpractice verdict came from strategies most attorneys would reject: omitting economic damages entirely, using minimal medical literature, and framing informed consent to transcend political divides. Katie Bertram and Kieran Murphy of Bertram & Murphy dissect their victory with host Brendan Lupetin. The attorneys reveal how focus groups guided their decision to withhold a $7 million economic loss claim that could have anchored the jury to a lower amount. Tune in for an inside look into their methodical approach to cross-examination that avoided battles over medical literature while exposing expert credibility issues.Learn More and Connect☑️ Katie Bertram | LinkedIn☑️ Kieran Murphy | LinkedIn☑️ Bertram & Murphy on LinkedIn | Facebook | YouTube ☑️ Brendan Lupetin | LinkedIn☑️ Lupetin & Unatin, LLC☑️ Connect: Facebook | LinkedIn | YouTube☑️ Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | YouTubeEpisode PreviewKatie shares her core trial philosophy: Stop trying to convince jurors and instead frame facts in ways they can understand.The team’s $25 million verdict for a cancer patient came after the counterintuitive decision to omit economic damages worth millions, which prevented defense attorneys from nitpicking their client's future earnings.Kieran explains how they proved the lack of informed consent by demonstrating the primary care doctor didn't understand her own electronic medical record system, undermining her claim that she properly communicated with the patient.Rather than presenting complex medical literature in cross-examination, they focus on letting the expert's character reveal itself.Their trial preparation emphasizes authenticity while crafting a narrative focused on the defendant's actions rather than emotional appeals.Ready to refer or collaborate on med mal, medical negligence, and catastrophic injury cases? Visit our attorney referral page at PAMedMal.com/Refer. We handle cases in Pennsylvania and across the United States.Produced and Powered by LawPods

"We're big believers in looking at cases and trying to drive the value we believe they're worth," says Eric Chaffin about the $130,000 verdict he and Justin Joseph secured when the insurance company offered just $10,000. Host Brendan Lupetin explores how the trial partners transformed a "typical" meniscal tear case into a compelling human story. Using psychodrama techniques and focusing on the emotional impact of the injury, they convinced jurors to look beyond minimal vehicle damage and limited medical treatment to see the true impact on their "quintessential Pittsburgh" beer delivery driver client.Learn More and Connect☑️ Eric Chaffin | LinkedIn | Instagram ☑️ Justin Joseph | LinkedIn | Instagram☑️ Chaffin Luhana on LinkedIn | Instagram | Facebook | YouTube☑️ Brendan Lupetin | LinkedIn☑️ Lupetin & Unatin, LLC☑️ Connect: Facebook | LinkedIn | YouTube☑️ Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | YouTubeEpisode PreviewThe client, a 58-year-old beer delivery driver, was injured when a garbage truck backed into his stopped vehicle, striking his knee against the dash and tearing his meniscus.Despite being an admitted liability case, the defense challenged causation, arguing the meniscal tear was age-related rather than traumatic.The attorneys used psychodrama to help their "stoic Pittsburgher" client better visualize and articulate his experience, strengthening factual and emotional aspects of his testimony.When the defense admitted liability just days before trial, the attorneys pivoted their strategy to focus exclusively on damages, emphasizing the human impact of the injury.A key defense mistake was continuing to challenge the client's credibility even after admitting liability, allowing the plaintiff's team to highlight the contradiction of "accepting responsibility" while simultaneously attacking their client.Despite the client having only six months of documented treatment, the jury awarded $30,000 for past pain and suffering and $100,000 for future damages, recognizing the ongoing impact of the injury.Ready to refer or collaborate on med mal, medical negligence, and catastrophic injury cases? Visit our attorney referral page at PAMedMal.com/Refer. We handle cases in Pennsylvania and across the United States.Produced and Powered by LawPods

"We don't know and we don't care how Mike came into contact with that raft," trial lawyer Mike Calder told jurors in a case many attorneys had rejected. In this conversation with host Brendan Lupetin, Mike and trial partner Jon Perry of Perry Calder dissect their $19 million verdict for a 21-year-old who became quadriplegic after a swimming pool accident. Originally signing the case with limited expectations, the team persevered after homeowners who initially expressed responsibility later denied fault. Tune in as they reveal how they overcame premises liability challenges, identified a critical warning label, and built a case that resonated deeply with jurors.Learn More and Connect☑️ Jon Perry | LinkedIn☑️ Mike Calder | LinkedIn☑️ Perry Calder Law on LinkedIn | X | Facebook | YouTube☑️ Brendan Lupetin | LinkedIn☑️ Lupetin & Unatin, LLC☑️ Connect: Facebook | LinkedIn | YouTube☑️ Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | YouTubeEpisode PreviewIn July 2013, college student Michael Fraser became quadriplegic after hitting his head in a swimming pool accident involving a large inflatable raft that propelled him unexpectedly into the shallow end.When other attorneys declined the case, Mike Calder met with the family after learning that the homeowners had allegedly expressed responsibility for the accident to the victim's mother.Mike and Jon found a hook for the case when they discovered that the raft had a warning label stating "never allow diving on this raft" - a warning the homeowners had covered up with handles used to tow the raft behind their boat.The team called the homeowners as hostile witnesses, establishing they knew the warning, had covered it up, and were unwilling to admit wrongdoing – even testifying they would do nothing differently in the future.Despite receiving no settlement offers and facing complex appellate challenges after the verdict, the team ultimately collected on the full judgment, which had grown with interest to more than the initial $19 million.Ready to refer or collaborate on med mal, medical negligence, and catastrophic injury cases? Visit our attorney referral page at PAMedMal.com/Refer. We handle cases in Pennsylvania and across the United States.Produced and Powered by LawPods

When a 64-year-old man with classic stroke symptoms was misdiagnosed with Bell's Palsy, his care was delayed by 19 critical hours. Host Brendan Lupetin interviews classmates-turned-colleagues Ben Cohen and Carmen Nocera about their $856,000 medical malpractice verdict in Washington County, PA. The young attorneys reveal how they exposed contradictions in the defense's position, leveraged a damning phone call recording, and maintained credibility with the jury through a grueling two-week trial against experienced defense lawyers.Learn More and Connect☑️ Ben Cohen | LinkedIn☑️ Carmen Nocera | LinkedIn☑️ Harry S. Cohen & Associates on LinkedIn | Facebook | YouTube☑️ Brendan Lupetin | LinkedIn☑️ Lupetin & Unatin, LLC☑️ Connect: Facebook | LinkedIn | YouTube☑️ Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | YouTubeEpisode PreviewThe case involved Steve Burrows, a 64-year-old active outdoorsman who experienced sudden onset of numerous stroke symptoms but was misdiagnosed with Bell's Palsy.Despite the medical maxim "time is brain," treatment for stroke was delayed 19 hours, resulting in permanent neurological deficits including a vocal cord paralysis that made eating and drinking extremely difficult.A critical phone consultation between the ER doctor and a neurologist, initiated only because the patient's friend insisted, revealed that the doctor presented incomplete information and was committed to the Bell's Palsy diagnosis.The defense tried to argue that stroke symptoms began the day before, putting the patient outside the treatment window, but records showed those minor symptoms had completely resolved.The attorneys explain how Washington County's generous voir dire process, including comprehensive questionnaires provided weeks in advance, helped them identify jurors comfortable making decisions between competing expert opinions.After a seven-hour deliberation, the jury awarded $856,000, finding negligence by both the hospital and emergency room physician.Ready to refer or collaborate on med mal, medical negligence, and catastrophic injury cases? Visit our attorney referral page at PAMedMal.com/Refer. We handle cases in Pennsylvania and across the United States.Produced and Powered by LawPods

In this trial nugget, Brendan Lupetin challenges the notion that trial lawyers must deliver openings and closings completely from memory. Drawing inspiration from James Humes' book "Speak Like Churchill, Stand Like Lincoln," Brendan introduces the "power reading" technique used by communicators from Ronald Reagan to Rick Friedman. This approach combines written precision with conversational delivery through two key principles: "memorize, then conversationalize" and the "see, stop, say" method. Brendan shares how he successfully implemented these techniques in his recent trial victory, offering a practical alternative for attorneys who want to sound natural while maintaining complete control over their message.Produced and Powered by LawPods

"It's a stroke of the leg, ladies and gentlemen." When critical limb ischemia struck their client Kirt, every minute counted—yet the county's only vascular surgeon remained at a wound care center despite multiple emergency calls. In this breakdown of their recent $2.2 million verdict, host Brendan Lupetin, partner Greg Unatin, and associate Garrett Trettel reveal how they overcame challenges including COVID-related defenses, contradictory timeline claims, and the fear of alienating the only specialist serving their rural community. Learn More and Connect☑️ Greg Unatin | LinkedIn☑️ Garrett Trettel | LinkedIn☑️ Brendan Lupetin | LinkedIn☑️ Lupetin & Unatin, LLC☑️ Connect: Facebook | LinkedIn | YouTube☑️ Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | YouTubeEpisode PreviewThe case involved Kirt, who experienced acute pain in his leg and was diagnosed with critical limb ischemia, but experienced significant delays in treatment leading to an amputation.The defendant, Dr. Lynch, was the only vascular surgeon in the county, creating unique challenges for the legal team in persuading local jurors.Despite multiple calls from the emergency department about Kirt’s critical condition, Dr. Lynch remained at a wound care center and significantly delayed seeing the patient.A key defense strategy involved using an audit trail to suggest Dr. Lynch arrived at the hospital earlier than medical records indicated, forcing the team to adapt their approach.The lawyers explain how they effectively used the "increased risk of harm" causation standard to overcome challenging timeline issues in the case.The team discusses their decision not to call certain witnesses, such as the PA and emergency physician, relying instead on medical records as the strongest evidence.The verdict of $2.2 million came after a five-hour jury deliberation with a 10-2 decision, reflecting the challenging but ultimately successful case.Ready to refer or collaborate on med mal, medical negligence, and catastrophic injury cases? Visit our attorney referral page at PAMedMal.com/Refer. We handle cases in Pennsylvania and across the United States.Produced and Powered by LawPods

Brendan Lupetin offers a practical strategy for explaining "increased risk of harm" causation to jurors in medical negligence cases. Using relatable examples like a Steelers game and a house fire, he demonstrates how to transform this challenging legal concept from a technical hurdle into a powerful asset. Brendan emphasizes the importance of introducing this concept in opening statements and reinforcing it during closing arguments to ensure juror comprehension.Produced and Powered by LawPods

Trial lawyers John and Alicia Campbell join Brendan Lupetin to discuss how data analytics is transforming case evaluation and jury selection. The founders of Campbell Law and co-authors of “Jury Ball: The Big Data Revolution Is Here” explain their pioneering approach of using large sample studies to predict jury behavior, identify case values, and develop winning strategies. With over 900 civil cases analyzed, they share how their methods have helped attorneys secure multimillion-dollar verdicts, avoid costly mistakes, and make informed settlement decisions based on statistical evidence rather than gut instinct.Learn More and Connect☑️ John & Alicia Campbell | LinkedIn - John | LinkedIn - Alicia☑️ Campbell Law | Facebook ☑️ Focus with Fred☑️ “Jury Ball: The Big Data Revolution Is Here” ☑️ Brendan Lupetin | LinkedIn☑️ Lupetin & Unatin, LLC☑️ Connect: Facebook | LinkedIn | YouTube☑️ Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | YouTubeEpisode PreviewJohn explains how their prediction model accurately forecasted the outcome of Brendan's medical malpractice case, including the counterintuitive finding that Trump supporters were favorable jurors for med-mal cases during the pandemic.The Campbells have analyzed over 900 civil cases and discovered that traditional assumptions about "good" and "bad" jurors often miss the mark, as cultural and societal factors can significantly impact jury behavior.They discuss the problem of "garbage in, garbage out" in jury research and explain their careful process to ensure that case presentations for both sides are balanced, credible, and authentic.Their "Fred" platform (described as "big data's little brother") offers affordable jury analytics for cases valued under $1 million, while their full big data studies are designed for high-value cases.The most universal insights from 900+ studies: jurors care deeply about the plaintiff and where the money will go; independent witnesses with no stake in the outcome are incredibly valuable; and credibility is the currency that runs through the entire case.Ready to refer or collaborate on med mal, medical negligence, and catastrophic injury cases? Visit our attorney referral page at PAMedMal.com/Refer. We handle cases in Pennsylvania and across the United States.Produced and Powered by LawPods

In this Trial Nugget, host Brendan Lupetin discusses how trial lawyers can leverage AI tools like ChatGPT to simplify complex legal concepts for juries. As one example, he focuses on the "increased risk of harm" causation framework in medical malpractice. What’s a compelling, relatable way to explain that legal standard to a jury? Brendan shares a prompt that he gave to ChatGPT. Tune in to hear the result.Produced and Powered by LawPods

Host Brendan Lupetin interviews the creators of Predict, a jury research and analytics tool available through Precise Trial. Pete Mansmann is the CEO of Precise Trial and Rich Epstein and Oscar McKnight founded a consulting firm called Scientific Legal Services that uses statistical data to predict the outcome of litigation. As Rich explains, Predict has many applications for lawyers throughout the trial process. The guests break down the science behind Predict, describe how it uses AI and "human-assisted AI,” and outline its different products. Ultimately, they suggest that the real value for lawyers is the case concepts that Predict reveals, rather than win probabilities or award amounts. Learn More and Connect☑️ Pete Mansmann | LinkedIn☑️ Predict on LinkedIn | Facebook | YouTube | Instagram ☑️ Rich Epstein | LinkedIn☑️ Roetzel & Andress on LinkedIn | X ☑️ Oscar McKnight | LinkedIn | Selected Works☑️ Scientific Legal Services ☑️ Brendan Lupetin | LinkedIn☑️ Lupetin & Unatin, LLC☑️ Connect: Facebook | LinkedIn | YouTube☑️ Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | YouTubeEpisode PreviewFor the first time, Brendan welcomes three guests on the show: Pete Mansmann, CEO of Precise; Rich Epstein, of counsel at Roetzel & Andress and a collaborator with the third guest, Oscar McKnight, a statistician who designed the model that supports Precise’s Predict case-strategy evaluation tool.Oscar explains how he uses “Delphi” groups for Predict and how they differ from traditional focus groups.Trial lawyers can benefit from many applications of Oscar’s model, Rich says, because it can predict a jury’s response to a case.The Predict reports are presented in segmented, bite-sized chunks so that the fact pattern is revealed “almost like a movie,” Oscar says. Rich notes that, when clients read the reports, they identify strengths and weaknesses of the case “much more powerfully than you can tell them.”The Predict reports are also condensed to 1,500 words, a strategy that is designed to let the volunteer readers screen for important information and focus on the facts.Predict has two products – Vista and Infusion – that use AI and human-assisted AI. The products differ in the number of participants. Each has advantages depending on the lawyer’s needs.The most important thing that the Predict tool offers a lawyer is critical concepts about the case – not win percentages. The best use of the service, Rich explains, is for trial lawyers to take the themes and apply them. Ready to refer or collaborate on med-mal, medical negligence, and catastrophic injury cases? Visit our attorney referral page at PAMedMal.com/Refer. We handle cases in Pennsylvania and across the United States.Produced and Powered by LawPods

Perfectionism isn’t just unrealistic; it can also be your undoing. In this Trial Nugget, Brendan Lupetin describes the dangers of clinging to illusions of a “perfect” trial. One risk? Missing opportunities at the real one. Tune in as Brendan recaps Chapter 9 of Rick Friedman’s "Becoming a Trial Lawyer" and offers a cure for perfectionism. Spoiler: It’s about preparation.Produced and Powered by LawPods

In two decades of practicing law, host Brendan Lupetin hasn’t undertaken binding arbitration in a med-mal case. Sud Patel, past president of the Pennsylvania Association for Justice and leading trial lawyer at Fanelli, Evans & Patel, recently had two successful outcomes. So Brendan invites him to share his insights for plaintiffs’ lawyers with little or no experience in the process. In both of Sud’s cases, the arbitrator ruled in his clients’ favor, and the defense paid on time.Learn More and Connect☑️ Sud Patel | LinkedIn☑️ Fanelli, Evans & Patel on LinkedIn | X | Facebook☑️ Brendan Lupetin | LinkedIn☑️ Lupetin & Unatin, LLC☑️ Connect: Facebook | LinkedIn | YouTube☑️ Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | YouTubeEpisode PreviewSud was in junior high school, working at a golf club, when his immigrant father had a dispute with his business partner. Sud suggested that his dad call lawyers he knew from the club. Those lawyers would become Sud’s mentors and first employers.Sud discusses two cases that were resolved through binding arbitration: in one, the plaintiff died after their small bowel obstruction went untreated; in the other, the plaintiff’s Equina syndrome was misdiagnosed. In both cases, there was no discussion of arbitration and no settlement offers. Defense counsel was a “hard no” on mediation, but judges suggested binding arbitration.Sud outlines the logistics of how arbitration worked for both cases, including the use of Zoom and in-person testimony.At arbitration, Sud is as formal as he is in court. His pre-arbitration statements, in particular, are comprehensive. Sud’s closing at arbitration may be truncated, but he still covers jury instructions, preponderance of the evidence, more right than wrong, and other key elements of the case. He explains: “At the end of the day, the arbitrator is supposed to make a decision and apply the law, so I don't want to take [anything] for granted.” Before both arbitrations, Sud had in-depth conversations with his clients so they understood what to expect, even showing them the technology, where they’d be sitting, and where microphones would be placed.Plaintiffs’ lawyers considering their first arbitration should research the venue so they understand the community’s feelings toward their type of case, Sud suggests.Ready to refer or collaborate on med mal, medical negligence, and catastrophic injury cases? Visit our attorney referral page at PAMedMal.com/Refer. We handle cases in Pennsylvania and across the United States.Produced and Powered by LawPods

Brendan discusses the concept of simplicity in trial advocacy, drawing from the book "Becoming a Trial Lawyer" by Rick Friedman. He emphasizes the importance of presenting a simple, easy-to-understand case theme and streamlining evidence to connect with the jury.Produced and Powered by LawPods

When the software developer for Pennsylvania’s medical marijuana system decided to fire its minority-owned subcontractor after three years, it pointed to a provision in an old contract. Representing the subcontractor, Gary Green called the contract “trash.” Over and over, maybe 50 times.“They're going to come in here blowing smoke like crazy. And you have to remember two things,” Gary told the jury. “The trash contract and the smoke.”In his visit with host Brendan Lupetin, Gary describes how he laid out the complex contract dispute with such clarity that jurors “got it.” They returned a $4.2 million verdict for his client. Learn More and Connect☑️ Gary Green | LinkedIn☑️ The Law Office of Sidkoff, Pincus & Green | LinkedIn | Facebook | YouTube☑️ Brendan Lupetin | LinkedIn☑️ Lupetin & Unatin, LLC☑️ Connect: Facebook | LinkedIn | YouTube☑️ Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | YouTubeEpisode PreviewStarting his career as a law clerk, Gary soon became a specialist in restrictive covenants that were entered into by bars that had cigarette machines.One of Gary’s first big cases was a class action Title VII for women programmers at a bank who were paid less than men for doing the same job.Gary was heavily influenced by Louis Nizer, who said, “This is the only competitive profession where somebody can come out of law school and go against the best.”In TreCom Systems Group, Inc. v. MJ Freeway, LLC, Gary represented TreCom, a Black-owned computer system installation company. When Pennsylvania adopted its medical marijuana system, MJ Freeway bid to be the state’s software provider. It hired TreCom as a subcontractor to improve its chances of winning the contract because the state awarded points to bidders with diverse subcontractors.But in the course of securing the bid, MJ Freeway submitted two contracts. After a few years of operating on one contract, MJ Freeway discovered how much it was paying TreCom and decided to fire the company. It leaned on one of the contracts to do so. TreCom sued for $4.2 million, the amount that MJ Freeway owed..Two main issues emerged: which contract was in force and whether there was any reason to breach the contract.When MJ Freeway’s CEO testified, Gary caught him in lies and told the jury: “You’re sitting here, and you can't go to the bathroom when you want, and you can't see your kids, and you can't do your email and you, you're just restrained. And this guy didn't have the respect to come in and tell you the truth.”When the jury asked to see Gary’s exhibit about the amount owed, “I knew that was fine.”Ready to refer or collaborate on med mal, medical negligence, and catastrophic injury cases? Visit our attorney referral page at PAMedMal.com/Refer. We handle cases in Pennsylvania and across the United States.Produced and Powered by LawPods

Don’t ask prospective jurors if they hate lawsuits; you won’t learn anything about them. Don’t talk about damages early on; you’ll only rub them the wrong way. And don’t make rules like, “I never have ‘X’ on a jury”; you could waste a peremptory strike on a potentially great juror.Renowned jury consultant Harry Plotkin, of Your Next Jury, has seen plaintiffs’ lawyers make these mistakes and others through over two decades of mastering the art of jury selection. In this conversation with host Brendan Lupetin, Harry offers solutions and insights on everything from an effective opening to the pitfalls of choosing jurors based on factors like gender, age, ethnicity, or jobs.Harry and leading trial lawyer Dan Kramer are co-hosting a new podcast, “Picking Justice.” Tune in on Amazon Music, Apple, Audible, iHeartRadio, Pandora, PocketCasts, and Spotify.Learn More and Connect☑️ Harry Plotkin | LinkedIn | Instagram☑️ Your Next Jury ☑️ Brendan Lupetin | LinkedIn☑️ Lupetin & Unatin, LLC☑️ Connect: Facebook | LinkedIn | YouTube☑️ Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | YouTubeEpisode PreviewHarry’s path to being a jury consultant began more than two decades ago with his background in psychology.Why Harry focuses on personal injury, employment, and product cases: “I do love doing victim-related cases and getting justice for the small guy.”Harry has seen lawyers make many mistakes over the years, but this one is the most common. It starts with “I have this rule…”Why Harry doesn’t like any opening that starts with “This case is about …” and the style he prefers instead.When to talk about damages and harms? At the end. Harry explains why.The significance of asking the jury to hold a defendant “fully accountable.”Harry’s strategy with mini-openings: Suck out all the good facts, leave jurors with the bad ones. Give generalities, and your jurors will be hyperfocused on them.When a child is involved, the plaintiff’s lawyer should lean not on sympathy but instead ask jurors to use their judgment, Harry suggests.Ready to refer or collaborate on med mal, medical negligence, and catastrophic injury cases? Visit our attorney referral page at PAMedMal.com/Refer. We handle cases in Pennsylvania and across the United States.Produced and Powered by LawPods

The gods gave Clancy Boylan and his team at Morgan & Morgan a few gifts in their case against a truck driver and his employer. Clancy’s client was riding his mountain bike across a road when the truck hit him, leaving him with catastrophic injuries.One gift was the defense’s tone-deaf examination of Clancy’s client. Another was Clancy catching a trooper’s inaccurate testimony about his client. Tune in as Clancy breaks down the case with host Brendan Lupetin. It went to trial after the insurance company offered $500,000. It ended with the jury’s gift of $29 million.Learn More and Connect☑️ Clancy Boylan | LinkedIn | Facebook | Email | Cell☑️ Morgan & Morgan | LinkedIn | Facebook | X | YouTube | Instagram☑️ Brendan Lupetin | LinkedIn☑️ Lupetin & Unatin, LLC☑️ Connect: Facebook | LinkedIn | YouTube☑️ Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | YouTubeEpisode PreviewBackground of Heath Wilson v. Donald Beiler and JM Lapp Plumbing & Heating, LLC, in which Clancy won $29 million for his catastrophically injured client.Physics hasn’t changed since the apple fell on Isaac Newton’s head. Clancy’s accident reconstruction revealed the physics of the accident.Clancy has theories about why the insurance company offered $500,000, including the fact that the trial was held in a conservative Pennsylvania county.How Clancy came back from potentially damaging – and inaccurate – testimony that his client was cited for violating a Pennsylvania motor vehicle code.Clancy built the case around taking responsibility and emphasized evidence and facts in his opening.How the client’s girlfriend set the tone for trial as Clancy’s first witness.The framework for Clancy’s closing came to him at 4:30 a.m. that morning.How Clancy passed the burden of damages for his client to the jury.Ready to refer or collaborate on med mal, medical negligence, and catastrophic injury cases? Visit our attorney referral page at PAMedMal.com/Refer. We handle cases in Pennsylvania and across the United States.Produced and Powered by LawPods

Tom Bosworth and Ben Phelps, of Bosworth Law, took calculated risks in their case against a staffing company and the driver it hired, who was taking employees of a potato chip factory to work when his van rolled over in a downpour. Several workers were injured or killed.They did not, for example, call an expert on economic damages. Nor did they put their clients on the stand.In this case analysis with host Brendan Lupetin, Tom and Ben outline why those strategies and others worked. The jury awarded a total of $15 million in damages to the three plaintiffs. They also detail challenges, including the staffing company filing for bankruptcy and its owner suing the insurance company, claiming fraud. Tom’s team has separate claims against the insurance company in federal court. And while they did settle with the factory, they pursued trial against the staffing company when it repeatedly refused to accept responsibility. Learn More and Connect☑️ Tom Bosworth | LinkedIn | Instagram | TikTok ☑️ Ben Phelps | LinkedIn | Instagram ☑️ Bosworth Law | LinkedIn | Facebook☑️ Brendan Lupetin | LinkedIn☑️ Lupetin & Unatin, LLC☑️ Connect: Facebook | LinkedIn | YouTube☑️ Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | YouTubeEpisode PreviewBackground of Brown v. Global Solutions, in which Tom and Ben represented three victims of a rollover crash.Tom and Ben refused to give up when the insurance carrier for the staffing company that employed the van’s driver argued that its coverage included an “auto exclusion” – “which is insane because the only thing that this company did was drive people in automobiles.”The plot twist that sent Tom to bankruptcy court.How Tom and Ben navigated the “thorny” personal backgrounds of their clients when seeking damages.How Ben countered the defense argument that it wasn’t abnormal for the van driver to change lanes.Why the jury never heard that the driver pled guilty to a summary offense of reckless driving.How the team used the “tip of the iceberg” analogy when asking the jury to consider damages.How the jury’s $15 million award broke down for the plaintiffs.Ready to refer or collaborate on med mal, medical negligence, and catastrophic injury cases? Visit our attorney referral page at PAMedMal.com/Refer. We handle cases in Pennsylvania and across the United States.Produced and Powered by LawPods

Cheryl Pschirer was a lifetime smoker, at the end of her working life, adult children, no surviving spouse. “So some of the facts were stacked against us,” recalls Rudy Massa. “We had to, in essence, try to make this case about something more than that, and that’s where the early detection and the lost chance of life comes in.” Rudy and Devyn Lisi took St. Clair Hospital providers to trial for their failure to inform Cheryl that an x-ray had detected a mass on her lung. She wouldn’t learn of the radiology report for seven months. Eight months later, she died of lung cancer at age 66.With host Brendan Lupetin, Rudy and Devyn discuss how they overcame defense attempts to blame Cheryl for her smoking history and arguments that, regardless of the delay, nothing would have changed the outcome for her. They read from their powerful pre-trial statement and closing. The jury responded by awarding a $750,000 verdict.Learn More and Connect☑️ Rudy Massa | LinkedIn☑️ Devyn Lisi | LinkedIn☑️ Massa Butler Giglione & Dirlam | LinkedIn | Facebook  ☑️ Brendan Lupetin | LinkedIn☑️ Lupetin & Unatin, LLC☑️ Connect: Facebook | LinkedIn | YouTube☑️ Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | YouTubeEpisode PreviewRudy believes the pre-trial statement should provide the judge with the essence of the story in the most economical language possible.Background of Pschirer v. St. Clair Hospital, in which 66-year-old Cheryl Pschirer died after a delayed lung cancer detection.How the “battle of the experts” turned into victim blaming because Cheryl had smoked for years.Rudy and Devyn argued that the emergency doctor and the hospital had a duty to inform Cheryl directly of the x-ray showing a mass in her lung. While the results were faxed to her primary doctor, “that duty doesn’t just go away.”The big role that personal choice played in voir dire.Sometimes, the blind squirrel can find a nut: that happened when an expert witness called the defendants’ behavior indefensible. Rudy’s closing began like this: “As for the amount of damages, I’d like to talk to you a bit about that. So, what is the chance to live worth?”Two juror questions sent different signals to the team – one negative, the other positive.How Devyn pushed back on the primary care physician’s testimony that “I can’t say one way or another” if early diagnosis is good for treating cancer.Ready to refer or collaborate on med mal, medical negligence, and catastrophic injury cases? Visit our attorney referral page at PAMedMal.com/Refer. We handle cases in Pennsylvania and across the United States.Produced and Powered by LawPods

Dominic Guerrini of Kline & Specter discusses the $7.1 million verdict he recently secured for a young woman rendered legally blind after a radiologist misread a CT scan image. With host Brendan Lupetin, Dominic breaks down how he managed the case with multiple defendants, why he decided not call the defendant radiologist to testify, and how consultants prepped his client for testifying. Among other strategies, they had the 23-year-old woman write a letter to younger self to prepare herself for what eventually unfolded. Dominic read the letter at trial. “It was one of the most moving pieces of evidence that I have ever had,” he says.Learn More and Connect☑️ Dominic Guerrini | LinkedIn☑️ Kline & Specter | LinkedIn | Instagram | Facebook  ☑️ Brendan Lupetin | LinkedIn☑️ Lupetin & Unatin, LLC☑️ Connect: Facebook | LinkedIn | YouTube☑️ Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | YouTubeEpisode PreviewDominic’s journey started at Kline & Specter three months into his legal career. “It’s been a wonderful ride.”The firm’s founders, Tom Kline and Shanin Specter, influenced Dominic with their own styles: Shanin taught the value of preparation; Tom taught the art of presentation.Great advice: A paralegal once suggested that Dominick smile more in the courtroom to show jurors his true self. “Years later, that has stuck with me.”Background of Mitchell v. AHN Saint Vincent Hospital, in which Dominic won a jury verdict of $7.1 million for his client who was rendered legally blind after a radiologist misread a CT scan image.How Dominic used sound bites of themes and theories for the jury to repeat so they stuck.When it came to trial, the radiologist and hospitalists threw off the gloves and the finger-pointing started. “And, obviously, when you have defendants who are pointing the finger at one another, it’s our best day.”How Dominic countered the defense “comparative fault” argument that his client bore some responsibility because she didn’t return to the hospital for three days as her vision worsened.Why Dominic leaned on consultants to help his client – in a cross between therapy and trial preparation – before she took the stand.How jurors broke down the verdict: 90% for the defendant and 10% for Dominic’s client.Ready to refer or collaborate on med mal, medical negligence, and catastrophic injury cases? Visit our attorney referral page at PAMedMal.com/Refer. We handle cases in Pennsylvania and across the United States.Produced and Powered by LawPods

When David Kwass represented the estate of a golf pro who was killed during a fierce storm that swept through the Philmont Country Club, he faced at least three significant hurdles. Was Justin Riegel’s infant, born out of wedlock to Justin’s girlfriend, really his heir? Who was Justin’s employer? And was an “act of God” responsible for the storm?But the biggest question David faced was how could an 83-foot-tall, 36,000-pound tree – the tree that killed Justin when it toppled onto a cart storage building where he was sheltering during the storm – be both healthy and hazardous?Tune in as David joins host Brendan Lupetin for a behind-the-scenes look at how he navigated all these challenges to secure a $9.1 million verdict.  Learn More and Connect☑️ David Kwass | LinkedIn☑️ Saltz Mongeluzzi Bendesky☑️ Brendan Lupetin | LinkedIn☑️ Lupetin & Unatin, LLC☑️ Connect: Facebook | LinkedIn | YouTube☑️ Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | YouTubeEpisode PreviewDavid’s focus on catastrophic injury, wrongful death, and construction accidents, especially those involving a crane or large equipment tipping over.When he worked on the defense side, David was a “square peg in a round hole.”Background of Hannon v. Concert Golf Management, in which David represented the estate of golf pro Justin Riegel, who was killed when a tree fell at the club where he worked. David’s legal theory in the case: The tree that fell during the storm should have been removed before the storm hit and the club’s weather preparedness program should have been more robust.The issue that a focus group outlined and that David hadn’t expected: Was Justin Riegel the father of his girlfriend’s infant, born just weeks after the accident? The other complicating issue: Who actually controlled the club where the accident occurred?How David’s team prevailed on the issue of who employed Justin Riegel.Was the storm that felled the tree an “act of God”? David’s team prevailed in getting “act of God” off the verdict form.The biggest problem: The tree was healthy. How to convey that a tree can be both healthy and a hazard?Ready to refer or collaborate on med mal, medical negligence, and catastrophic injury cases? Visit our attorney referral page at PAMedMal.com/Refer. We handle cases in Pennsylvania and across the United States.Produced and Powered by LawPods

Despite challenges including an absent plaintiff, an expert witness’ last-minute withdrawal, and a death certificate identifying Covid as the cause of death, Reza Davani secured a $1.5 million verdict for pain and suffering. In this conversation with host Brendan Lupetin, Reza shares how he exposed the nursing home’s negligence that led to the death of a patient – not from Covid, but rather from staff’s failure to properly turn the patient in his bed, which caused pressure wounds. Reza discusses how he centered his strategic opening and closing on principles of right and wrong and how he trusted the jury to use their common sense when presented with the facts. Learn More and Connect☑️ Reza Davani | LinkedIn | Phone☑️ KBA Attorneys | LinkedIn | Instagram | X☑️ Brendan Lupetin | LinkedIn☑️ Lupetin & Unatin, LLC☑️ Connect: Facebook | LinkedIn | YouTube☑️ Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | YouTubeEpisode PreviewReza’s path from mass torts to lead exposure to his current focus: nursing home cases.Why Reza enjoys mining documents to secure victory in nursing home cases How documents often reveal the true story that Reza wants to tellHow Reza ensures that the defense steps on its own landminesBackground of Nelson Anderson v. Alice Manor, in which a jury awarded Reza’s client $1.5 million for pain and suffering based on the death of a patientReza’s litany of woes: the death certificate that identified Covid as the cause, the out-of-state plaintiff who couldn’t attend trial, the lack of pictures of the injury, the wound expert who failed to showHow Reza leveraged staff’s assessments that proved the patient was in painReza’s strategy of giving the jury the facts, and letting them use their common senseThe question Reza asks himself when crafting his opening: DoI have an explanation for what happened and why? If he doesn’t, “the story sucks.”Why Reza focuses his closing on what is right and wrong rather than evidenceReady to refer or collaborate on med mal, medical negligence, and catastrophic injury cases? Visit our attorney referral page at PAMedMal.com/Refer. We handle cases in Pennsylvania and across the United States.Produced and Powered by LawPods

Almost 6,000 pounds of copper wire falls on a railroad electrician, causing debilitating personal injuries. Defendant Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority admits liability. The catch? The injuries aren’t clearly visible, and the defense leans into this. How does the plaintiff’s lawyer convey the catastrophic extent of the injuries to the jury and go on to win a $15 million verdict?In this episode of Just Verdicts, Daniel Purtell, founding partner of McEldrew Purtell, tells host Brendan Lupetin how he did just that, using the defense’s strategy against it to prevail.Tune in as Brendan and Daniel discuss how to frame the jury’s damages paradigm and reframe the defense’s surveillance video theory. They also share strategies for harnessing the power of focus groups and offer a bonus mini masterclass on building a firm business for maximum growth.Learn More and Connect☑️ Daniel Purtell | LinkedIn☑️ McEldrew Purtell | LinkedIn | Facebook |X| Instagram☑️ Brendan Lupetin | LinkedIn☑️ Lupetin & Unatin, LLC☑️ Connect: Facebook | LinkedIn | YouTube☑️ Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | YouTubeEpisode PreviewDaniel’s mini masterclass on turbocharging a personal injury firm’s growthHow Daniel uses referrals, and just referrals, to grow his firmThe power of delegating to add value to the practiceBreaking down the firm’s $15 million win for William Meszaros against the Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority (SEPTA) How Daniel conveyed the severity of a non-diagnostic injury to carry the dayTurning around the defense’s attempt to use surveillance videos to show the plaintiff was uninjured by juxtaposing it against all the dead footage conveying that plaintiff was incapacitated Using the “Man in the Black Suit” argument model effectively at closingThe art of persuading a jury as it considers damagesUsing data studies in settlement positionsAchieving “phenomenal success” with focus groupsReady to refer or collaborate on med mal, medical negligence, and catastrophic injury cases? Visit our attorney referral page at PAMedMal.com/Refer. We handle cases in Pennsylvania and across the United States.Produced and Powered by LawPods

“Come and get me! Come and get me!” That’s what the 34-year-old man suffering from a mental health breakdown told state troopers responding to his family’s call for help.At least that’s what one of the troopers testified during cross-examination in federal court. Attorney Noah Geary brought civil rights claims against the trooper, arguing that he used excessive force when he fatally shot Anthony Gallo during that tragic encounter in 2017. In this unique episode of Just Verdicts, Noah and host Brendan Lupetin dramatically re-enact the exchange between Noah and the trooper, Chad Weaver. “When did you come up for the first time with this new claim that Gallo said, ‘Come get me! Come get me!’” Noah says, reading from the transcript.“Uh, just the other day,” says Brendan, reading for Weaver.  Tune in to hear details of this case, including the roadblocks that Noah overcame to a $21 million verdict. Learn More and Connect☑️ Noah Geary | LinkedIn | Email    ☑️ Brendan Lupetin | LinkedIn☑️ Lupetin & Unatin, LLC☑️ Connect: Facebook | LinkedIn | YouTube☑️ Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | YouTubeEpisode PreviewWhy Rule 12, qualified immunity, poses a challenge for plaintiffs’ lawyers in civil rights cases Factors motivating the increasing rate of excessive force by police The constitutional basis for civil rights claimsNoah’s case against a state trooper who fatally shot Anthony Gallo as he was going through a mental health breakdownThe “total sham” of a coroner’s inquest and the “nauseating” state police investigationWhat the defendant’s state police personnel file revealed about his behavior“This guy's going to kill somebody”: Four women reported their fears about the defendant after a disturbing interaction with him nine days before the Gallo killing.Noah’s opening: “I let it all hang out.”Noah’s message to the jury on punitive damages: “Folks, this is a death case.”Ready to refer or collaborate on med mal, medical negligence, and catastrophic injury cases? Visit our attorney referral page at PAMedMal.com/Refer. We handle cases in Pennsylvania and across the United States.Produced and Powered by LawPods

Gasoline is refined from crude oil that contains benzene, a known carcinogen, but oil companies have long considered removing benzene from the gasoline manufacturing process a “dollars-and-cents” decision. Jurors considering whether ExxonMobil’s gasoline caused a Pennsylvania man’s leukemia made this decision: $725.5 million for the plaintiff.Andrew DuPont, partner at Locks Law Firm, won that verdict by framing his argument as ExxonMobil’s failure to warn consumers about benzene’s health hazards, even though its dangers were known by the time his client was using gasoline as a solvent to clean automotive parts in the 1970s. Breaking down complex scientific evidence in a way that would stick with the jury, Andrew fended off ExxonMobil’s defense that “gasoline’s not benzene, gasoline doesn’t cause cancer.” Tune in to hear Andrew share his successful strategy with host Brendan Lupetin.Learn More and Connect☑️ Andrew J. DuPont | LinkedIn | Email ☑️ Locks Law Firm on Facebook | LinkedIn | X | YouTube ☑️ Brendan Lupetin | LinkedIn☑️ Lupetin & Unatin, LLC☑️ Connect: Facebook | LinkedIn | YouTube☑️ Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | YouTubeEpisode PreviewThe history behind benzene and its link to cancerHow defendants try to distract jurors in cases involving benzene exposureHow the oil and gasoline industry protects profits over peopleThe background of Andrew’s case against ExxonMobil and his $725 million verdictHow Andrew leveraged ExxonMobil’s “significant mistake” in its opening statementReady to refer or collaborate on med mal, medical negligence, and catastrophic injury cases? Visit our attorney referral page at PAMedMal.com/Refer. We handle cases in Pennsylvania and across the United States.Produced and Powered by LawPods