Gabriel Stoops – When 24 Hours Can’t Wait a Week: A $1.2M Med Mal Verdict
Gabriel Stoops secured a $1.2 million verdict in his first lead civil jury trial, a medical malpractice case that other firms had turned down due to weak economic damages and high risk. His client underwent routine PRK eye surgery to improve her vision, but when she developed pain and progressive vision loss three days later, her surgeon's office ignored her pleas for help. With the defense declining settlement offers, Gabriel – who started his firm in his mom's basement – invested everything into the case. “This could be a movie,” says host Keith Fuicelli as he unpacks the high stakes, incredible odds, and ultimate victory.
Learn More and Connect with Colorado Trial Lawyers
☑️ Gabriel Stoops | LinkedIn
☑️ Keith Fuicelli | LinkedIn
☑️ Fuicelli & Lee Injury Lawyers Website
☑️ Fuicelli & Lee Injury Lawyers on X, Facebook, Instagram, YouTube, and LinkedIn
☑️ Subscribe Apple Podcasts | Spotify | YouTube
Episode Snapshot
- Gabriel was inspired to pursue law by hearing his father's medical malpractice stories at the dinner table as a youth.
- When a summer associate role at a big Houston firm didn’t turn into a permanent job, Gabriel did contract work and eventually started his own firm in his mom's basement.
- Gabriel's client underwent routine PRK eye surgery, but three days later developed excruciating pain and vision loss in both eyes. The surgeon's office ignored her desperate calls for help and didn't see her until a full week after surgery.
- The surgeon didn’t start antibiotics to treat the client’s eye infection soon enough, which led Gabriel to his case theme that “when you only have 24 hours, it can’t wait a week.”
- The defense offered only not to pursue the client's costs if Gabriel dismissed the case before trial.
- Gabriel had two experts: an economist who developed a vocational economic assessment and a life care planner who accounted for what his client would need going forward.
- Most of the $1.2 million verdict were economic damages for the client’s life care plan and reduced earning capacity.
The information contained in this podcast is not intended to be taken as legal advice. The information provided by Fuicelli & Lee is intended to provide general information regarding comprehensive injury and accident attorney services for clients in the state of Colorado.
Transcript
Welcome to the Colorado
Trial Lawyer Connection,
Speaker:where Colorado trial lawyers share
insights from their latest cases. Join me,
Speaker:Keith Fuicelli as we uncover
the stories, strategies,
Speaker:and lessons from recent Colorado trials
to help you and your clients achieve
Speaker:justice in the courtroom. The
pursuit of justice starts now.
Speaker:Hi everyone.
Speaker:Keith Fuicelli here back for another
edition of the Colorado Trial Lawyer
Speaker:Connection Podcast. As you know,
Speaker:we try to speak with lawyers when
they've had success and maybe sometimes
Speaker:failure, but usually success in trial
to kind of find out what worked,
Speaker:what didn't work.
Speaker:And this episode I'm thrilled
to have on Gabriel Stoops
Speaker:who not only crushed his first jury trial,
Speaker:his first lead civil jury trial,
but this was a meow trial.
Speaker:And for those of you out
there who tried meow cases,
Speaker:you all know how difficult they can be.
Speaker:And to have that be your first trial
and to be met with such amazing success,
Speaker:I'm thrilled to welcome to the
show. Gabriel Stoops. Welcome.
Speaker:Thanks Keith.
Speaker:I'm grateful to be here and grateful
that I've got a positive report to talk
Speaker:about.
Speaker:That is the most important
thing. So Gabriel,
Speaker:tell us a little bit about yourself.
Speaker:How is it that you came
to be a trial lawyer?
Speaker:I'm from Tulsa, Oklahoma, and my
dad was a trial attorney. In fact,
Speaker:his specialty was medical malpractice
and I grew up hearing the stories of the
Speaker:clients that he helped
at the dinner table.
Speaker:And so I knew from an early age
that that's what I wanted to do.
Speaker:I wanted to join his
practice once I got older.
Speaker:He's an Oklahoma, I take it then.
Speaker:Yeah, he was, unfortunately, my plan
didn't work out the way I intended.
Speaker:I went through undergrad
as quickly as possible.
Speaker:I did that in three years so I could
get out of law school as quickly as
Speaker:possible. And once I got to law
school during finals of my one L year,
Speaker:my dad suddenly tragically died.
Speaker:I of course was not expecting that and
was kind of lost for a while after that.
Speaker:I'm so sorry.
Speaker:Yeah, he had cancer but
he was not dying of that.
Speaker:It was sudden that he did, so
we weren't expecting it at all.
Speaker:Wow. One of those things that just
has a profound impact on your life.
Speaker:Tell me a little bit about what you
learned from him growing up about I guess
Speaker:the right way and maybe the
wrong way to practice law.
Speaker:Yeah,
Speaker:he was very disciplined and detail
oriented on his cases and he would talk
Speaker:to his kids about the importance of
talking to experts and doing medical
Speaker:research. And so he imparted each
of those skills to me separately.
Speaker:And I didn't have the legal
framework yet to understand it,
Speaker:but I knew when the time came,
Speaker:the separate components of the case that
were very important to focus on and why
Speaker:they deserve so much attention.
Speaker:So then I kind of take it from
your background and your story,
Speaker:that you always knew you were
going to be a lawyer. Is that fair?
Speaker:I originally wanted to be the crocodile
hunter and after that dream, seriously,
Speaker:yes. That was my first goal. And after
I saw the hazards of that occupation,
Speaker:I decided law would be
safer and better for me.
Speaker:I mean, I got to be honest, didn't even,
Speaker:there is such a profession
as a crocodile hunter,
Speaker:but it does sound very dangerous.
Speaker:I'm taking while you're in high
school you realize I'm going
Speaker:to become a lawyer.
Speaker:Yeah. High school started a mock
trial program during my senior year,
Speaker:and so it was a attempt at mock
trial. They didn't have a plan,
Speaker:they didn't have a program,
anything like that.
Speaker:They just kind of threw it together.
Speaker:And I joined that team and we went on
to win state and ended up coming 14th in
Speaker:the nation.
Speaker:And so that was kind of an early sign
that maybe this would be a good path for
Speaker:the skills that I have.
Speaker:Holy cow.
Speaker:So you sound like a natural even I
can just tell in the way we're sort of
Speaker:chit-chatting, that you're very
comfortable speaking in front of people,
Speaker:comfortable in front of the
jury, assuming that's true.
Speaker:Has it always been that way
just with your upbringing?
Speaker:Just always feel comfortable
in front of people like that?
Speaker:I wouldn't say I feel comfortable.
I'm glad it sounds that way.
Speaker:I think that I've learned to speak from
my dad and listening to him and I picked
Speaker:up along the way, and so that
part comes naturally to me,
Speaker:but there's a lot of nerves
for me. It's not comfort.
Speaker:Whatever it is, it's working. Amazing.
Speaker:Where did you do your undergrad that
you said you did in three years?
Speaker:That's impressive.
Speaker:University of Oklahoma College of Law,
the in-state tuition was too good.
Speaker:Okay, so undergrad and
law school at Oklahoma.
Speaker:Exactly.
Speaker:Yeah. My wife is from Edmond, so
I spend a lot of time in Oklahoma.
Speaker:It's amazing.
Speaker:The community actually of Oklahomans
that are present here in Colorado.
Speaker:Lots of people.
Speaker:That's something we have in common.
Speaker:My wife is actually from Edmond as
well and she's now my partner in law.
Speaker:Oh really? Okay.
Speaker:And have you always had your own firm
or when you graduated law school,
Speaker:how did it come to be that
you established your firm?
Speaker:Yeah, I mentioned I was kind
of lost after my dad's passing.
Speaker:I didn't know what to do. And in law
school they present a vision of success,
Speaker:which is kind of unilateral.
If you're successful,
Speaker:you get in the top 10
to 20% of your class,
Speaker:you can maybe get a position with big
law and that's really the best you can
Speaker:have it. That was what
was presented to me.
Speaker:And so I tried to follow that path
for a while and I ended up getting a
Speaker:position at a big law firm in Houston
to a summer associate position.
Speaker:And the assumption is
that if you get that job,
Speaker:they give you a job offer afterwards.
So once you get there, you've made it.
Speaker:And so I was one of the highest
performing summer associates and then they
Speaker:didn't give me a job offer and
that was absolutely crushing.
Speaker:Do you know why?
Speaker:No.
Speaker:I talked to a bunch of partners afterwards
and one of them said maybe you'd be a
Speaker:better fit at a boutique plaintiff's firm.
Speaker:And that meant nothing to me at the time.
Speaker:And for me it felt like a
personal rejection rather
than just not the right fit
Speaker:in terms of what I want to do and how I
approach the law and what I really care
Speaker:about. In a case, being from
Oklahoma, the song Garth Brooks,
Speaker:he has a line that says sometimes
I think God for unanswered prayers.
Speaker:And that's how I really feel about this
because I'm really grateful that that
Speaker:door was closed for me so that I
ended up on a path to where I am now,
Speaker:which there's a little bit more to that.
Speaker:And I want to explore it a little bit
because I had a similar experience.
Speaker:Although my experience,
Speaker:I went to CU law school and I was middle
of the class and I had friends that
Speaker:were top of the class
getting all these interviews,
Speaker:getting all these high paying big
law jobs, and I was personally hurt.
Speaker:I couldn't get an interview,
Speaker:I couldn't get anyone to give me a chance
for anything in the world and to your
Speaker:point, that hurt.
Speaker:And so I ended up being a prosecutor
out of law school for five years,
Speaker:which was amazing because I got the trial
experience that kind of led me on the
Speaker:road that I am at today.
Speaker:But more so than so many
things in life in law with
Speaker:that rejection often is something later
on in life you come back and you're
Speaker:like, wow, I'm so glad that things
worked out the way that they did.
Speaker:Although I'm sure in that time when here
you are the highest performing or doing
Speaker:a great job and then you're
faced with this rejection,
Speaker:I'm sure at that time thinking,
oh, everything's going to be okay,
Speaker:doesn't make it any easier. Is that
kind of what your take on that is?
Speaker:Yeah, I was completely lost.
Speaker:I didn't know how to take that in a
positive way and to me there was nothing
Speaker:good that could come from that. I just
didn't have the ability to see that.
Speaker:And that's something that I can see in
retrospect now and I'm really grateful
Speaker:for that perspective now.
Speaker:So how is it then that you mentioned
that you're in practice with your wife.
Speaker:Did you both form and
start the firm together?
Speaker:So I graduated during the hiring freeze.
Speaker:I couldn't find full-time
employment with any firm.
Speaker:And so I started doing contract
work for multiple firms.
Speaker:But even then I wasn't able to get
enough work to feel like I was fully
Speaker:employed. And so I had the crazy idea,
Speaker:what if I were to see if I could bring
in some of my own clients and start my
Speaker:own practice. But I had
just moved to Denver.
Speaker:I was in a new city where I didn't know
anybody during a pandemic where nobody
Speaker:wanted to meet anybody. So it was
a bit of a crazy idea at the time,
Speaker:but I felt safe doing that while still
having contract work to pay the bills in
Speaker:the meantime.
Speaker:So this would've been what roughly 2021?
Speaker:2020. November, 2020 is
when I started the firm.
Speaker:And when you started the firm,
Speaker:were you doing sort of anything
that walked in the door?
Speaker:What kind of cases were you working on?
Speaker:When I started the firm, my
hope was just to get a client.
Speaker:I was willing to do anything
that I could to build my way up.
Speaker:I didn't think that I had the privilege
of being selective at that time.
Speaker:And so if I could make this dream work,
Speaker:then I would able build into
the direction that I wanted.
Speaker:But it worked out surprisingly well that
I started getting personal injury cases
Speaker:very quickly.
Speaker:And I think that's by virtue of the
community here and really the need here
Speaker:where there's a lot of people
that need representation.
Speaker:So other than personal injury cases,
Speaker:were you doing criminal defense type
stuff or family law or kind of anything or
Speaker:did it pretty quickly become
focused on personal injury?
Speaker:Very quickly became focused on
personal injury. Other than that,
Speaker:it was just smaller disputes,
property damage type things.
Speaker:A lot of property damage cases,
they don't find attorneys.
Speaker:Sure, sure. We already know,
Speaker:I gave it away that your first
was a medical malpractice
Speaker:trial. Tell us the story
about how you decided,
Speaker:because in my mind's eye I'm
thinking you're running this firm,
Speaker:it's relatively new,
Speaker:money's tight and income's a medical
malpractice case that you decide to take.
Speaker:Walk us through your thought process on
taking this case is you just knew that
Speaker:it was righteous.
Speaker:The client was struggling
to find representation.
Speaker:She didn't have very
strong economic damages.
Speaker:And so I think other firms were looking
at this as a case that was risky and it
Speaker:was going to be costly.
But when I heard her story,
Speaker:I felt very strongly for her. I couldn't
stop thinking about it afterwards.
Speaker:And what really hit me about her story
was that if this can happen to her,
Speaker:this can happen to anyone
because she did everything.
Speaker:And so I wrote her an email saying
that my faith in our society depends on
Speaker:seeing justice in your case.
Speaker:And so I wanted her to look to see if
there was another firm that would take up
Speaker:her case. And if not, I asked
her to trust me with it.
Speaker:And I was very scared about that,
Speaker:but I didn't want to bite
off more than I can chew.
Speaker:And so I told myself this would be the
only medical malpractice case that I take
Speaker:until it's over.
Speaker:I wanted to focus my time on this case
and I also wanted to make sure that I
Speaker:proved myself a bit before
committing to other cases.
Speaker:Wow. So tell us the story, the story
that resonated with you so much.
Speaker:What happened here?
Speaker:So she had PRK surgery,
which is a lot like lasik.
Speaker:It's a surgery to improve your vision.
It's supposed to be very routine.
Speaker:They tell you that basically nothing bad
happens after the surgery and that the
Speaker:risk of complications is so small
you don't have to worry about it.
Speaker:But she is one of those people
that did have such a complication.
Speaker:And so she reached out to the facility,
Speaker:the surgeon was supposed to be taking
care of her and they just ignored her and
Speaker:ignored her and ignored her.
Speaker:And she was trapped because she was
supposed to be under their care,
Speaker:but they weren't caring for her.
And so when she went elsewhere,
Speaker:they tried to send her back to them.
Speaker:And that was what really got me that
you have a duty to this patient and you
Speaker:have to take care of them because other
providers are looking to you as the
Speaker:operating surgeon to care
for somebody after surgery.
Speaker:And that's what made her so trapped and
I don't know what anyone could have done
Speaker:in her situation to get help.
Speaker:So what was the complication?
And help us understand,
Speaker:I think this episode,
Speaker:it might be useful to sort of dig into
the weeds a little bit as you're telling
Speaker:the story. I'm really curious
to hear what the defense was,
Speaker:what your strategies were at trial.
Speaker:So give us a little more detail in
terms of what complication arose and
Speaker:what she tried to do about it.
Speaker:And I'd like to give a little
bit of the medicine to start,
Speaker:and that was part of my strategy at trial.
Speaker:I wanted to make a medicine as simple and
easy to understand as possible so that
Speaker:the jurors wouldn't be
confused by the defense.
Speaker:And so this surgery removes
the outermost layer of the eye,
Speaker:it's called the epithelium,
Speaker:and it takes about a week
afterwards for that to heal.
Speaker:And during that time your
eye is like an open wound.
Speaker:It's vulnerable to bacteria entering
the eye and causing an infection.
Speaker:Let me ask a question.
When you say you were,
Speaker:because I am not at all
familiar with this surgery,
Speaker:when you say they remove
the outer part of the eye
Speaker:and it takes a week to heal,
does it regrow or does it close?
Speaker:What is the healing process?
Speaker:It's really just a thin layer of cells.
Speaker:It's not as dramatic as it
sounds as I describe it,
Speaker:but it's important to understand
that it's an open wound,
Speaker:that it's vulnerable because
once you understand that part,
Speaker:you understand why it's important for
the surgeon to be checking on the patient
Speaker:to check for an infection because an eye
infection is a very serious emergency,
Speaker:they progress very rapidly and they can
cause permanent damage within 24 hours.
Speaker:So in that context,
Speaker:you should be carefully monitoring
your patients and that's just not what
Speaker:happens after LASIK and PRK surgery.
Speaker:So do they give you some kind of
antibiotic eyedrops or something that's
Speaker:supposed to keep out infection?
Speaker:Because in my mind's eye
as you're explaining this,
Speaker:I'm thinking it's almost like having an
open cut on your eye infection can come
Speaker:in. So what do they do to try
to prevent that from happening?
Speaker:They give you a bandage contact
lens as well as antibiotic eyedrops.
Speaker:And then they assume from that point
on that you're going to be okay because
Speaker:these are volume-based businesses where
the surgeons are performing so many
Speaker:surgeries that they cannot possibly
care for all of the patients afterwards.
Speaker:And so relying on statistics that
say that the risk of infection is so
Speaker:low that they pretty much assume that
there's no infection even when you start
Speaker:complaining of symptoms of One.
Speaker:Real quick question before we go back to
what happened here in the symptoms and
Speaker:whatnot. You mentioned that
this is a volume-based practice,
Speaker:which is kind of what I was thinking.
When you think about these lasic centers,
Speaker:and I'm jumping way ahead now, but
was that a central theme in your case?
Speaker:Were you able to get the evidence that
you needed to show how many of these
Speaker:surgeries they're doing a day in order
to make it a theme in your case at trial.
Speaker:It was a really precarious area for us
because we didn't sue the corporation and
Speaker:so we were trying to stay away from
the jurors blaming the corporation.
Speaker:And that was also what the defense
was trying to do and say that this,
Speaker:if anything, is the
fault of the corporation.
Speaker:And so I was trying to stay away from
anything that blamed the corporation too
Speaker:much. So that wasn't the angle
that I was taking it so much,
Speaker:but I also wanted the jurors to appreciate
the context of how this happens and
Speaker:why this is something that I think we
as a broader society should be more
Speaker:concerned about because this
didn't just happen in her case,
Speaker:the way they're operating, it's going
to continue to happen and it does.
Speaker:So what happened,
Speaker:walk us through a little bit in terms
of what started happening with her eyes
Speaker:and what she tried to do about it.
Speaker:So she had the surgery on a Monday
and three days later on a Thursday,
Speaker:she was having excruciating pain.
Speaker:She was extremely light sensitive and
she was progressively losing her vision.
Speaker:And so when she had her surgery,
Speaker:they gave her a little sheet that had
a number to call if you have anything
Speaker:unusual, and she called that number.
She didn't get through to her surgeon,
Speaker:but she got through to
the on-call optometrist.
Speaker:And so she was quickly fit in for five
minutes to see him and he told her
Speaker:everything looks fine. He wrote
down that she was in extreme pain,
Speaker:but said that she was fine, didn't
follow up, didn't notify the surgeon.
Speaker:Both eyes by the way,
extreme pain and both eyes.
Speaker:Yes. So that was day three.
Speaker:The following day she had to go to
the ER because she was in suicidal,
Speaker:worst imaginable pain.
Speaker:The ER doctors gave her fentanyl for
the pain and then they called trying to
Speaker:reach her surgeon,
Speaker:but the on-call doctor answered the call
and said an infection is very unlikely
Speaker:and that her symptoms
are normal after surgery.
Speaker:And so they discharged
her from the hospital,
Speaker:she went home and just
hoped to get better.
Speaker:Now to me,
Speaker:was that sort of the crux
that seems so negligent,
Speaker:that particular action,
that particular call,
Speaker:am I reading the room right,
Speaker:that was sort of like that is
just so bad that was the thing,
Speaker:or was it the culmination
of all kinds of actions?
Speaker:We had to rely on the culmination because
there were a few problems causation
Speaker:wise. One,
Speaker:we couldn't pinpoint when the affection
actually started because they didn't
Speaker:actually examine her except for that five
minute examination during a week long
Speaker:period.
Speaker:And so we didn't have the data to say
with certainty when the infection began.
Speaker:And as a result,
Speaker:we had trouble saying exactly when the
damage was caused because that was all
Speaker:just unclear because they didn't do more.
Speaker:The other problem was that they never
identified who the caller was that
Speaker:took that call for the surgeon.
Speaker:There weren't that many people
that it could have been,
Speaker:and I pressed very hard
on this during discovery,
Speaker:but they never gave an
answer with any certainty.
Speaker:And so they were trying to
shirk responsibility for that.
Speaker:ER calls the treating
doctor who says everything's
Speaker:fine. And that's what you said,
that was four or five days?
Speaker:That was four days after surgery.
Speaker:Just three days after she was
examined, everything's fine.
Speaker:Fourth day she goes into the er,
they call and the doctor says,
Speaker:the treating surgeon says,
no, everything's fine.
Speaker:Everything's normal day four. So
what happens after that point?
Speaker:After that,
Speaker:she goes home for the weekend and she's
been told that she's fine by the on-call
Speaker:optometrist. The ER didn't
do anything for her.
Speaker:And so this was the most
hopeless she's ever felt.
Speaker:She couldn't go anywhere for help because
she's still under the surgeon's care
Speaker:and they're just going to call her
surgeon and try and send her to him.
Speaker:But nevertheless,
Speaker:both she and her sister called the eye
doctor's office over the weekend and they
Speaker:spoke to that same on-call optometrist.
Speaker:And here's where there's
a factual dispute.
Speaker:He claims that he offered her
appointments over the weekend to see her
Speaker:immediately, but that she
declined because of the weather.
Speaker:She claims he did not offer
to see him over the weekend.
Speaker:And instead the best that he said
was, if you call back on Monday,
Speaker:maybe you can get your first postoperative
appointment moved up from the
Speaker:following Wednesday to
the following Tuesday.
Speaker:Wow. What then happened after?
So we go through the weekend,
Speaker:she's miserable.
Speaker:What is occurring with
her eyes at that point?
Speaker:Assuming at that point
the infection had set in?
Speaker:Yeah, at that point it's pretty much
undisputed that there was an infection.
Speaker:It was very severe and so the eye has
the highest density of nerves anywhere in
Speaker:the body,
Speaker:and eye infection is the most excruciating
thing that you can experience.
Speaker:And there's actually a
strong link between lasik,
Speaker:PRK and suicide because of that reason.
Speaker:And so it's the worst imaginable pain
in the place that you want at least.
Speaker:And she couldn't get any help, so she
just had to hold on and get through.
Speaker:And so that's what she did. On Monday
she called, she got her appointment,
Speaker:moved up from Wednesday to Tuesday,
Speaker:and that Tuesday was the first time
she saw the surgeon after surgery.
Speaker:The first time the surgeon knew anything
about what was going on with her
Speaker:postoperative care after surgery.
And when he finally saw her,
Speaker:he prescribed half of the antibiotic
dose necessary to treat her infection and
Speaker:he only treated one of her eyes.
Speaker:I guess lemme back up to that point.
Speaker:All the medical records would've
shown that the pain was in both eyes.
Speaker:Yeah.
Speaker:Is that right?
Speaker:Yeah.
Speaker:Okay.
Speaker:And so what was his
justification I guess in his
Speaker:deposition as to why he
only gave half of a dose of
Speaker:antibiotics and only treated one eye?
Speaker:The client had a few rheumatology
diseases that he suspected
Speaker:might be involved here.
Speaker:He was treating this as a systemic
immunological problem rather than an eye
Speaker:infection.
Speaker:And so he was treating her entire body
with prednisone rather than giving her
Speaker:fortified antibiotics in her eye because
he thought that maybe those diseases
Speaker:might be causing what
she's experiencing now.
Speaker:And he just wasn't certain
that it was an infection.
Speaker:Wow.
Speaker:So I'm flabbergasted and if I'm
understanding the facts correct correctly,
Speaker:there's a reason why my son recently
had pink eye and called it in,
Speaker:actually did a telehealth visit script
was called in and there were the
Speaker:antibiotics she just dropped in the eye.
Speaker:So you're saying that when she went
in and saw the doctor, he said, yes,
Speaker:you have an eye infection, but
I'm going to give you a pill,
Speaker:prednisone to treat like
whole body infection.
Speaker:He said that he suspects an infection and
so he began to treat just one eye that
Speaker:he suspected more strongly and there were
lots of errors in the medical records
Speaker:where they didn't document things very
well and they were trying to hide behind
Speaker:that during trial and twist things so
that anything that wasn't certain in the
Speaker:record,
Speaker:they would state a little bit differently
or the way most favorably for them.
Speaker:But what we were able to really lock them
down on was that the standard of care
Speaker:is antibiotics every hour. That's
what the medical literature says.
Speaker:That's what we got every expert to say.
Speaker:And he said in the medical records that
he prescribed them every two hours.
Speaker:So he prescribed antibiotic eye
drops into one eye every two hours.
Speaker:Is that right? And the
standard of care is every hour.
Speaker:And even if you suspect the
infection is only in one eye,
Speaker:do you only do the eyedrops into that one
eye or would you do it in both eyes to
Speaker:be safe?
Speaker:Bit of a different issue.
Speaker:The evidence was really clear that
there was infection in both eyes at that
Speaker:point.
Speaker:One thing that you look for
is a collection of white
blood cells in the eye,
Speaker:and he did document that on
his eye exam at one point,
Speaker:but just failed to bring
that record forward.
Speaker:And so the evidence in the record was
there to support that there was infection
Speaker:in both eyes. He just didn't
start treating it soon enough.
Speaker:And this goes to our theme,
Speaker:one of the themes throughout the trial
was that when you only have 24 hours,
Speaker:it can't wait a week.
Speaker:And he just kept pushing it back 24 hour
increments before he finally gave her
Speaker:the treatment that she
needed a week earlier.
Speaker:So did I hear you say that the record
that proved that there was an eye
Speaker:infection in both eyes, the
white blood cell count that,
Speaker:was that a difficult record? Did they
try to hide that record or something?
Speaker:It was at a different office,
Speaker:so they had different records and then
when we initially got the records,
Speaker:we just got an incomplete record
that only had a part of that record.
Speaker:It was not in the traditional format.
Speaker:And so it took a while to put that into
the sequence where it belonged because
Speaker:even some of the dates were wrong.
Whenever they updated a medication,
Speaker:they would change all of the dates and
so many of the dates throughout the
Speaker:medical record were just wrong.
Speaker:And although that generally shows that
they weren't being particularly careful,
Speaker:it also makes it hard to
nail them down on anything.
Speaker:I don't know if I should ask
this next question or not,
Speaker:but do you think that that's
intentional or just woefully ignorant?
Speaker:I think this is a volume-based business
and they don't have the time that each
Speaker:patient needs and they're not expecting
to provide much postoperative care or
Speaker:really treat anything serious that arises
and they're just banking on this not
Speaker:happening.
Speaker:So before you filed suit,
Speaker:were there any meaningful
pre-suit settlement discussions?
Speaker:The short of the story is that we didn't
get an offer at all ever before trial.
Speaker:No offers were ever made. All we got was
a verdict in this case, but we did try.
Speaker:We tried to engage in discussions
r candor, which was passed in: Speaker:It allows an opportunity to resolve
cases without having the implications for
Speaker:the doctor's license.
Speaker:And so I see this as a really exciting
opportunity to resolve med mal cases
Speaker:early when otherwise they're going to
go the distance to protect the doctor's
Speaker:license.
Speaker:But they declined to participate in
candor and they declined our offers of
Speaker:settlement all throughout trial. In fact,
Speaker:the only offer that we ever got from
them was that they would not pursue my
Speaker:client's costs if we dismissed
the case before trial.
Speaker:So my question is medical malpractice
cases are obviously very expensive,
Speaker:and like you said,
Speaker:they often it seems no offers
or if they do, they come very,
Speaker:very late.
Speaker:So how hard was it for you and your
firm to push forward with this case
Speaker:given your firm is
relatively new at this point?
Speaker:This case was everything for
us. Everything invested in this.
Speaker:I'm not going to say I
was betting the firm,
Speaker:but I also don't know how I would've
moved forward had this gone against us.
Speaker:And so I'd been funding
everything personally.
Speaker:I started this out of my mom's basement,
Speaker:and so this really was a
massive investment for us.
Speaker:And based on the odds, I couldn't
justify it, but I believed in the client,
Speaker:I wanted to see her case through and I
wanted to deliver this outcome for her.
Speaker:And I'm so grateful that she trusted us.
Speaker:Too. Wow.
Speaker:Talk about something that you are never
going to forget for the rest of your
Speaker:life. It is going to be
this case and what you did.
Speaker:Holy cow. So let's talk a little
bit about, and generally speaking,
Speaker:what was the defense?
Speaker:Was the defense if they're saying the
standard of care is kind of murky,
Speaker:maybe it's one hour, maybe it's two,
Speaker:although I think you were saying everyone
agreed that antibiotics every hour.
Speaker:So how were they defending this?
Speaker:It was just reasonable actions
in the part of the doctor.
Speaker:Yeah,
Speaker:so the optometrist said that he actually
ruled out an infection when he saw her
Speaker:that Thursday after surgery
because he examined her,
Speaker:he didn't see any sign of an infiltrate.
Speaker:And so he says that he ruled
out an infection on that day.
Speaker:And so when the ER
called the following day,
Speaker:he didn't need to reexamine her because
an infection had been ruled out the
Speaker:previous day. And so they were
kind of banking on that part of it.
Speaker:And then from the surgeon side of things,
Speaker:they were saying that he didn't
know anything, nobody contacted him.
Speaker:And so he couldn't have done anything
because he didn't have any knowledge or
Speaker:information about what was going on.
Speaker:So I guess then was there a
strategic reason to not go
Speaker:after the corporation and really
try to hone it in on the doctor?
Speaker:Because I guess what I'm hearing
you say that I think, okay,
Speaker:well if it was a systemic issue,
Speaker:then that defense wouldn't fly.
Speaker:So was a strategic reason
to name only the doctor.
Speaker:In Colorado. There's no
corporate practice of medicine.
Speaker:And so as much as they like
to blame the corporation,
Speaker:once you're litigating
against the doctors,
Speaker:if you had filed against the corporation,
they would've cried about that too.
Speaker:And so that's really the biggest reason.
Speaker:Makes sense. So sort of knew that
this was the defense coming in.
Speaker:Tell us a little bit about your themes
and how you plan to present this case.
Speaker:Yeah, my greatest fear was that the jury
was going to get confused or not have
Speaker:certainty because there's
a lot of uncertainty about
every aspect of this case.
Speaker:And really this case is about the week
after surgery because after that week,
Speaker:there is nearly a year in which the
surgeon proceeds to try and treat her.
Speaker:And she already has permanent
scarring at that point.
Speaker:He can't really do anything but the
treatment goes on and on and on and on.
Speaker:And so I was trying to focus the case on
just that week after surgery and I was
Speaker:trying to make the medicine
as simple as possible.
Speaker:And the congruency between when you
remove the outermost layer of the eye,
Speaker:it takes a week to heal.
Speaker:And everything important in this case
happened in that week after surgery.
Speaker:That gave me a really narrow, focused,
Speaker:digestible bit of medicine and knowledge
for the jurors to understand and to.
Speaker:So tell me a little bit about
what the actual damage was and
Speaker:because you mentioned that your client
had treated for a year afterwards,
Speaker:what were they trying to do to help her?
Speaker:I'm just not familiar with this type
of injury at all, so I'm just curious.
Speaker:So the damage put simply is corneal
scarring because of the eye infection.
Speaker:Her corneas are scarred and that
affects her vision in two ways. One,
Speaker:when she looks through her
corneas and her normal vision,
Speaker:she's looking through scar tissue.
It's not clear perfect tissue,
Speaker:it's cloudy scarred tissue,
Speaker:which obscures her vision and then also
messes with your vision a second way
Speaker:because it misshapes the cornea. And so
when the cornea isn't shaped properly,
Speaker:then it's affecting your
vision in another way as well.
Speaker:And so that was what I really wanted the
jurors to understand because it's very
Speaker:easy for the defense to say that
she has 20/20 vision. That's true.
Speaker:That was the biggest hurdle
that we had to get over.
Speaker:She has cleal contact lenses and
with those, she has 20/20 vision.
Speaker:So I had to explain what's wrong
with scleral contact lenses.
Speaker:Yeah, I've never even heard of them.
What are they and what's wrong with them?
Speaker:They're not like the contact
lenses that most people think of.
Speaker:It's like a prosthetic cornea.
Speaker:It's a big piece of plastic
that has to sit over your eye.
Speaker:It has to be taken out
repeatedly throughout the day.
Speaker:You have to apply artificial tears.
It's itchy, it's uncomfortable,
Speaker:and you can't wear it
for long periods of time.
Speaker:And so it's not a good replacement for
your natural vision and it didn't enable
Speaker:her to do things that she did before,
Speaker:such as work with computers
for long periods of time.
Speaker:Are they expensive, more
expensive than regular contacts?
Speaker:Not really.
Speaker:And that was kind of another problem with
our case because one treatment option
Speaker:for her is a corneal transplant. They
can do bilateral corneal transplants.
Speaker:They're not that
expensive, and if it works,
Speaker:it technically solves the
problem and cures the damages.
Speaker:But she was understandably terrified of
having another surgery after a simple
Speaker:one went so horribly wrong.
Speaker:And the risks of corneal
transplants are horrifying.
Speaker:Your corneas can literally melt.
Speaker:I've dealt with a lot of cases in
litigation where we've had to address
Speaker:failure to mitigate defenses when the
defense is trying to say that you should
Speaker:have done X, Y, and Z.
Speaker:So I'm pretty familiar with the case
law that says that you don't have to do
Speaker:anything invasive.
Speaker:Were you successful in keeping the
defense from making that kind of
Speaker:argument or did it kind come in
any way through the back door?
Speaker:It came in a little bit
through the back door. I mean,
Speaker:we strongly argue there's
no duty to undergo surgery,
Speaker:but they still discussed that option
as if it were a perfect solution.
Speaker:And so it was very important to educate
the jurors as to the problems and risks
Speaker:with corneal transplants.
Speaker:And it really can set you on
a path where if you have one,
Speaker:you're probably going to have to have at
least two more over the course of your
Speaker:life and each one increases
the risk of rejection.
Speaker:So it's a very scary
path to start going down.
Speaker:Did you ask for the cost of
those potential surgeries
down the road as part of
Speaker:your damages?
Speaker:Yeah, that was a component of our
damages, but it was relatively small.
Speaker:Part of me wishes that this was more
expensive treatment because it's just not
Speaker:the to her problems in any way.
Speaker:So what kind of damages,
remind the listeners again
about what the verdict was.
Speaker:It's a huge seven figure verdict.
Speaker:Yeah, we got a $1.2 million verdict
and the majority of her damages
Speaker:were one our life care plan and
two reduced earning capacity.
Speaker:But those were difficulties on both
sides because she works really four jobs
Speaker:and she was only no longer
able to do one of those jobs,
Speaker:but she was making more
money than ever before.
Speaker:And so I had to work really hard to
educate the jury that reduced earning
Speaker:capacity is the loss of the ability.
Speaker:She could not go back to
that job that she had before.
Speaker:She can never go back to that job.
Speaker:This surgery and the corneal scarring
has taken away that option and it chooses
Speaker:what she has to do with
the rest of her life,
Speaker:and that's damage in and of itself.
Speaker:Did you use a damaged formula
as you're explaining that,
Speaker:I'm like that makes perfect sense.
Speaker:I've had similar cases too where we're
trying to figure out how to quantify
Speaker:that.
Speaker:How did you go about suggesting to
the jurors they quantify this loss?
Speaker:So we had two experts.
Speaker:We had an economist who came up with a
vocational economic assessment for the
Speaker:client, and that gave us the component
of the reduced arting capacity.
Speaker:And then we also had a life care planner
who accounted for everything that
Speaker:she'll need going forward.
Speaker:And the majority of that was really
home care and things that she could no
Speaker:longer do due to chemicals like
home cleaning, for example.
Speaker:Okay. So you've got life care
plan and loss of earning capacity.
Speaker:Did those damages make up
the majority of the 1.27?
Speaker:Yes.
Speaker:Majority of it was economic damages
and they really split it evenly,
Speaker:pretty much giving us half of what we
asked for on both the life care plan and
Speaker:the economic assessment.
Speaker:Okay, got it. So where
did you try this case?
Speaker:This was in Boulder.
Speaker:Okay. And how you able to,
Speaker:did you face any venue issues with
being able to file in Boulder on this?
Speaker:There were no issues,
Speaker:but we did have a decision to make on
this case because the majority of the
Speaker:treatment was not in Boulder. In fact,
Speaker:only a single appointment
happened in Boulder,
Speaker:but we decided to file in Boulder in
part because of a conversation I had with
Speaker:another CTLA attorney in which he
talked about how educated the jurors are
Speaker:there. And I really
wanted educated jurors.
Speaker:I thought they would be less likely to
be swayed by confusing defense tactics
Speaker:and more likely to understand the case.
Speaker:And I thought that I could
win them over on the merits.
Speaker:What about I love Boulder
for those same reason.
Speaker:And the other thing that's nice about
Boulder is that the people tend to have
Speaker:more money. So not only
are they more educated,
Speaker:but sometimes it seems like they
can appreciate the value of money.
Speaker:What did you face as far as
defense experts trying to
Speaker:prove up the defense in this case
and how to address that during cross?
Speaker:Yeah, there were originally
six defense experts.
Speaker:Only two of them ended
up presenting at trial,
Speaker:but they had glowing praise
for the care that was provided.
Speaker:The two doctors here,
Speaker:they claimed that they went above
and beyond the standard of care,
Speaker:but really what they were trying to
defend was the signs and symptoms that she
Speaker:was exhibiting and saying
that everything's subjective
because at the end of the
Speaker:day, pain is subjective.
Speaker:And so they're saying that no amount
of pain by itself is sufficient,
Speaker:indicate an infection, rather,
Speaker:you have to look to the eye exam and for
other symptoms to correlate with that
Speaker:pain.
Speaker:And so that's really what they were
hiding behind as the first part at least.
Speaker:So I guess what other signs and symptoms,
Speaker:because I heard you explain before that
this was 10 out of 10 worst pain she's
Speaker:ever experienced in her life.
Speaker:And I guess I can understand the
argument that pain is subjective,
Speaker:but if someone is experiencing pain of
that level and they're reporting that
Speaker:this is the worst pain that
they've ever experienced,
Speaker:obviously that seems like a
very reliable metric to use
Speaker:to diagnose an infection.
Speaker:So I guess I'm just curious
for my own education purposes,
Speaker:if not that subjective measure,
Speaker:did they have to actually go in and
do white blood cell counts in each
Speaker:individual eye at the emergency room
or what were they suggesting was the
Speaker:standard of care here?
Speaker:Some experts would say that you can't
diagnose a corneal infection without doing
Speaker:a culture, which takes one to two days,
Speaker:but they'll pretty much all agree that
you at least have to do a slit lamp exam
Speaker:and look into the eye for
evidence of an infection there.
Speaker:The symptoms alone aren't enough.
Speaker:And that's not something
that your client had done.
Speaker:Well,
Speaker:that's what they should have done for her
that they did that slit lamp exam that
Speaker:first day and then afterwards they didn't
do a culture the next time that they
Speaker:saw her.
Speaker:And so the way that we tried to turn
that argument was they should have done
Speaker:more. I'm not saying that this
is definitive at this moment,
Speaker:but this is at least a warning sign.
Speaker:This is at least a sign that the surgeon
should be contacted or that the surgeon
Speaker:should look into this further
that she do a culture.
Speaker:And so we really used the
jury instructions language
there to say that this was
Speaker:not reasonably careful what they did.
Speaker:So I just had a thought about the fact
that they should have contacted the
Speaker:surgeon.
Speaker:And then so was your point that the
surgeon did not provide clear instructions
Speaker:to the other facilities to
notify him in the event of a
Speaker:potential infection like this?
Speaker:And this loops back to why I didn't
involve the corporation in the first place
Speaker:because the medical literature is very
strong and very clear that the surgeon is
Speaker:responsible for postoperative
care. He may delegate that,
Speaker:but he has supervisory duties and that's
clearly stated and agreed throughout
Speaker:the medical literature.
Speaker:And so we were very strong on
the surgeon's responsibility
there and there was
Speaker:what we believe to be improper delegation,
Speaker:which is kind of a whole nother side
issue in this case where he was relying on
Speaker:optometrists to handle
postoperative care when in Colorado,
Speaker:optometrists bylaw cannot
handle postoperative care.
Speaker:Now I think it's making
a little more sense.
Speaker:So when she went to the emergency room and
Speaker:they called and were reporting his office
Speaker:never notified him, is that right? Right.
Speaker:The surgeon's office because he
improperly delegated it to other
Speaker:individuals.
Speaker:And so that surgeon and it's his
own office didn't put in place
Speaker:procedures so that he's notified
in case like this. Is that.
Speaker:Right? Exactly.
Speaker:Okay. See, simple. It's making sense to
me. It must've made sense to the jury.
Speaker:I'm really curious about your thoughts
and feelings going into this first trial
Speaker:and really what you were feeling.
Speaker:I think I heard you say before that you
started out in your mom's basement and
Speaker:in my mind's eye,
Speaker:you're sort of put together all the
money you can invested in this most
Speaker:difficult case. Everyone
tells you you're crazy.
Speaker:Med mal cases are defense verdicts.
Nine times out of 10, you don't care.
Speaker:You believe in the client
you're going to trial.
Speaker:So I said that this could be a
movie. What were you feeling?
Speaker:What was in your heart
walking into that trial?
Speaker:Passion. I really believed
in what I was doing.
Speaker:And even though the client had pretty
much been gaslighted since the very
Speaker:beginning,
Speaker:I had gone through everything so carefully
and I felt so strongly about their
Speaker:responsibility and I knew how to back
it up. But the scariest thing for me,
Speaker:given that this was a big first for me
across all fronts was just not knowing
Speaker:what I don't know. And when you
don't know what you don't know,
Speaker:it's really hard to figure out what
you need to know in order to fix that.
Speaker:It's a hard pit to be in.
Speaker:And so I tried to compensate by
talking to everybody that I could with
Speaker:experience and asking permission
to ask dumb questions and reading
Speaker:everything that I could. And one
thing that was really helpful,
Speaker:I bought a lot of books
from trial guides.com,
Speaker:but I also had my dad's library and
he was a medical malpractice attorney.
Speaker:And so going through his
books, I had his annotations,
Speaker:his notes and the margins,
Speaker:and it was a really special experience
for me where it felt like I was doing
Speaker:exactly what I was supposed to and I
was being guided where I needed to go in
Speaker:order to present this case.
Speaker:Wow. Did you feel your dad's
presence with you at all?
Speaker:I know maybe that's a silly question,
Speaker:but I can't imagine that he
wasn't there on some level
Speaker:during this.
Speaker:Yeah,
Speaker:I really felt that I'm not somebody
who tends to get emotional or anything,
Speaker:but I had one moment driving to court in
Boulder where I just broke down because
Speaker:I felt that presence with me
and I felt so strongly about it,
Speaker:and that gave me the reassurance that
I need. So I could say I was confident,
Speaker:I was terrified, but I had faith.
Speaker:I can't imagine how special it must've
been for you to open up your dad's
Speaker:medical books and see his annotations
in there. That must've been really cool.
Speaker:Yeah, it felt like divine intervention,
Speaker:and so I wasn't going
to rely on just that.
Speaker:I wanted to do everything else I could
to over prepare as much as possible,
Speaker:but it was really special.
Speaker:Now, talk to us a little bit
about your damage ask here.
Speaker:You said that they gave you about half
of what you were asking for your life
Speaker:care plan and others.
Speaker:What was your strategy in terms of
what you asked for from the jury?
Speaker:My strategy with the jury overall
was to maintain credibility.
Speaker:I cared more about credibility
than anything. And so I
didn't want to over ask.
Speaker:I wanted to justify
everything that I asked for.
Speaker:And so we asked for the full amounts
of the life care plan and the full
Speaker:amount of the reduced earning capacity.
Speaker:And the way that I explained that
was she doesn't get to come back.
Speaker:We don't know exactly what her
costs are going to be going forward,
Speaker:but this is her one shot, and
if it ends up costing more,
Speaker:which it very well could,
we don't get to come back.
Speaker:And so this is what the
experts say is a fair,
Speaker:unbiased estimate of what her
future costs are likely to be,
Speaker:and it's been expensive to get
here and to put this trial on.
Speaker:What a fascinating story. I'm
wondering about your voir dire.
Speaker:What I'm curious about
is it's your first trial,
Speaker:and did you sort of embrace that?
Speaker:I'm thinking of the Jerry Spence,
I'm nervous this is my first case,
Speaker:or were you really trying to go in
and put those nerves aside as much
Speaker:as you can and just come off,
it wasn't your first trial.
Speaker:So my question is did you embrace
first trial or hide first trial?
Speaker:I definitely hid it from the jurors,
Speaker:but this is an area where I like to say
that Nick Rally is the best mentor I've
Speaker:ever had,
Speaker:that I've never met because he's produced
so many guides and materials that
Speaker:really gave me a framework to work
with and so many lines and just
Speaker:attitudes that I could work with.
Speaker:And one of those was how you
should approach the jurors.
Speaker:He talks about accepting them and loving
them rather than looking for reasons to
Speaker:reject them and focusing
on that connection and
listening to them and making
Speaker:them feel validated, showing
that you care about them.
Speaker:And so that was really my
approach going into it.
Speaker:Yeah, so a little brutal
honesty. Voir dire axon.
Speaker:Yeah, although funny story on that.
Speaker:Yeah, tell me.
Speaker:The judge gave us a few
rules before voir dire,
Speaker:and I thought that I was following those,
Speaker:but I went through the whole brutal
honesty thing and at the end of kind of
Speaker:explaining that,
Speaker:I asked the jurors if they would agree
to be brutally honest with me. Well,
Speaker:that infuriated the judge because he
had asked us not to solicit promise from
Speaker:the jurors. And the example that he gave
was promises as to how they'll behave,
Speaker:should they be jurors on the case
or things that they'll abide by.
Speaker:And I didn't think that I was overstepping
by asking them to be honest during
Speaker:voir dire, but he was
very furious about that.
Speaker:Wow. I'm very surprised to
hear that as well. I mean,
Speaker:I suppose the judges could be concerned,
do you promise if I prove my case,
Speaker:you're going to give me $10 million or
something? But it seems a little unusual.
Speaker:Certainly must've been caught off guard
if the judge is all of a sudden jumping
Speaker:down your neck because of that.
Was it a complete surprise?
Speaker:Was the judge visibly angry?
Speaker:He didn't visibly show anger but
didn't hold back in telling me
Speaker:that I had not followed
his very clear instruction.
Speaker:And when this is a big first,
Speaker:that's not exactly the encouraging
start that you want to have,
Speaker:but nevertheless, brutal honesty,
Speaker:a success jurors continued to bring up
brutal honesty throughout the case one
Speaker:time in a question and
speaking to them afterwards.
Speaker:So even though I didn't get to finish
doing it, it still had an impact.
Speaker:So you received during the trial a jury
question where they referenced brutal
Speaker:honesty?
Speaker:Yeah, they asked questions
throughout the trial.
Speaker:I honestly love this panel of jurors
that we had. They were so engaged,
Speaker:they asked great questions,
Speaker:and that's really what carried me through
this case because I continued to feel
Speaker:throughout the case that they were with
me based on the insightful questions
Speaker:they asked.
Speaker:Do you remember what the question was
where they referenced brutal honesty.
Speaker:I don't remember it exactly just that
they threw that in there and there's
Speaker:nowhere else that comes from.
Speaker:I'm a huge fan for that very reason,
Speaker:and it just seems to come up throughout
trial as soon as you introduce it in
Speaker:voir dire that way, then
the next thing you know,
Speaker:you're asking defense experts like,
look, come on brutal honesty here.
Speaker:And then it just repeats
itself and repeats itself.
It's really fantastic. You,
Speaker:I'm assuming the answer is yes.
Did you really go by the trial,
Speaker:by human spend all of your time that
you possibly can getting to know your
Speaker:client inside and out to prepare for this?
Speaker:Absolutely.
Speaker:And I'm so privileged and grateful that
I had such a wonderful client for this
Speaker:case. She's truly an incredible human
being. I mentioned she has four jobs,
Speaker:one of that as a foster parent,
Speaker:she's raised 30 young women over the
course of her life as a single parent.
Speaker:She's adopted two of her
foster children as her own.
Speaker:You can't ask for a better client. And
it was a privilege to get to know her,
Speaker:had dinner in her house before trial,
Speaker:and I really consider them to be family.
Speaker:Did you find that spending, and I think
I know the answer to this question too,
Speaker:but did you find that spending all
of that time with her really paid
Speaker:tangible dividends in how you presented
the case and what you did at trial?
Speaker:Absolutely, and I think
at a fundamental level,
Speaker:just the connection that you have with a
client shows to the jurors that my care
Speaker:was not fake. I truly, deeply felt
that care. We had that connection.
Speaker:It was not fake. And I
think that the details,
Speaker:the little things of seeing how
her bathroom is, for example,
Speaker:just little things that make everything
fit together and allow you to understand
Speaker:things in a different way,
Speaker:just all adds together and
helps you be a better advocate.
Speaker:When you mentioned seeing how
her bathroom was put together,
Speaker:were there certain ways that she set up
things as a result of her eye injury,
Speaker:where the contacts were
or things like that?
Speaker:Yes. When you have basically no vision,
Speaker:you have to do a lot to
continue to do the same things,
Speaker:even in a familiar
environment like your home.
Speaker:And so a big dispute in this case was
that they wrote in a medical record that
Speaker:she admitted later on that she stopped
taking her antibiotic eyedrops.
Speaker:And she showed me when I went to her
house, how she had those in her bathroom.
Speaker:Her bathroom was perfectly clean. She
is an immaculate organized person,
Speaker:and she had little rubber bands on the
bottles so that even in middle of the
Speaker:night with no vision,
Speaker:she could take the right bottle and
just had a brilliantly organized system.
Speaker:And something that you might not have
known had you not been inside our home.
Speaker:Is that right?
Speaker:Exactly.
Speaker:Wow, that's absolutely fantastic.
Speaker:The other thing that I'm sensing from
you and that you've mentioned a couple of
Speaker:times is that you loved this
client and we all have had
Speaker:clients that we love and
others that maybe we don't.
Speaker:But how important is it,
Speaker:I guess maybe a better question is do
you think that it was apparent to that
Speaker:jury how much you cared for your client?
Speaker:I think so, yes. At every moment
we're looking to each other.
Speaker:We were just a team going
into that courtroom and the
two other attorneys at my
Speaker:firm met my wife, Alexa and Josh Jacobson,
an attorney who joined us recently.
Speaker:They were a perfect part of that team
and also built this bond with her and her
Speaker:children, her sister, and you just
can't fake that. It's so apparent,
Speaker:it's so tangible,
Speaker:and I think that oftentimes the defense
fails to do that and shows a stark
Speaker:contrast from what a lack
of connection looks like.
Speaker:Yeah, and even I have found, I don't
know if this was your experience,
Speaker:but the whole brutal honesty and the
whole way that Nick Rowley does vo dire,
Speaker:who's probably the best in
the country at doing vo dire,
Speaker:and then the stark difference with
the way defense lawyers do it,
Speaker:it just puts it on such
display. Let me ask you this.
Speaker:How effective do you believe the defense
flaw DI was and what was sort of their
Speaker:main takeaway?
Speaker:We were just on completely different
wavelengths in terms of what I was looking
Speaker:for and what they were looking
for. They seem to have a rigid,
Speaker:we're trying to exclude people
that check certain boxes.
Speaker:So if you've had any
vision issues in the past,
Speaker:if you have any disgruntlement with
medical providers or opinions about
Speaker:medical procedures,
Speaker:they were looking for attitudes and
people that they could write off on more
Speaker:superficial things, and that was not
how we were approaching it at all.
Speaker:I'll give an example of Wonder Juror,
Speaker:and he was asked a
question and he said, well,
Speaker:it depends on what the evidence says.
Speaker:If she stopped taking her antibiotic
eyedrops, then I would blame her.
Speaker:So he said something against my client,
Speaker:but I wanted him on my panel immediately
because he was looking at the evidence
Speaker:and he was actually saying that that
evidence was important beforehand.
Speaker:And I thought that once we actually
got to that point and showed him the
Speaker:evidence that we could get him to our
side because he cares about the evidence,
Speaker:that's what he's looking at.
Speaker:And even though he was suggesting
going against us during voir dire,
Speaker:I thought that he would come around once
he actually saw it because he's looking
Speaker:at that evidence.
Speaker:Well, that's a brilliant
talk about spot on instincts
Speaker:because it's very easy to
intellectualize why that is
Speaker:so obvious and smart because
if the juror is saying, well,
Speaker:if they did x, I would
hold it against them. Well,
Speaker:if you know that your client didn't do X,
Speaker:then it's almost the converse must be
true, then he's going to be on your side.
Speaker:That's brilliant. Awesome.
So what was it like?
Speaker:Just give the listeners an idea of what
it was like for you and your client when
Speaker:this was all over when you walked out
of that courtroom and justice being
Speaker:achieved and such a marvelous,
and this isn't even,
Speaker:what's really cool about
your story honestly,
Speaker:is it's not like it's awesome because
it's 50 or a hundred million dollars.
Speaker:It's a fantastic result. Don't get
me wrong. This is a massive result,
Speaker:but the odds that you had against you,
Speaker:everything that you put into this
personally and then for justice to be
Speaker:obtained is like you're going to be
chasing that feeling for the rest of your
Speaker:career. What was it like when
you walked out of that courtroom?
Speaker:It was surreal and emotional.
Speaker:We walked outside the courtroom and just
sat down at a picnic table and didn't
Speaker:do anything for a long time because we
were taking it in and talking about it.
Speaker:And she had been told for almost
five years at this point that
Speaker:she was wrong, that they did everything.
It had been nothing but denial.
Speaker:And then once litigation started,
they'd been blaming her for everything,
Speaker:every step of the way.
Speaker:And so for her to be damaged
and then put that back on her,
Speaker:and for her to believe in
herself, for me to believe in her,
Speaker:and for finally the
jury to believe in her,
Speaker:there was so much dignity in that they
gave her back so much more than the
Speaker:amount of the verdict. They saw
her, they saw what she went through,
Speaker:and they validated that experience.
Speaker:And there's something that's really
healing and special about that.
Speaker:Aside from the money.
Speaker:Maybe this is a dumb question,
but I mean, are you just itching?
Speaker:You cannot wait to get back
in. Next case, next trial.
Speaker:I'm terrified about losing the next trial
because after this unlikely victory,
Speaker:I would hate to trip up on the next
one. And so I have a lot of confidence,
Speaker:but I'm not blindly confident. My
confidence comes from preparation.
Speaker:It comes from the right
client, the right case,
Speaker:and putting in the work over
a very long period of time.
Speaker:So I don't have any confidence
going forward other than that.
Speaker:If you do the work and put in the time,
you can achieve it against the odds.
Speaker:I just got to say that your response
to that answer sounds like you
Speaker:had an amazing upbringing from somebody
that knew this profession well,
Speaker:because that is, it
just feels very spot on,
Speaker:and I'm sure your father's
very proud, honestly.
Speaker:Thank you. That means the world.
Speaker:Well, Gabriel,
Speaker:thank you so much for taking time out
of your day to come on and tell us about
Speaker:this story.
Speaker:It is truly inspirational
and men mal cases can be so
Speaker:scary.
Speaker:But what I'm hearing from you
is simplicity and righteous
Speaker:client justice can be done.
Speaker:So congratulations to you and Thank
you so much for coming on the show,
Speaker:and until next time,
Speaker:we'll welcome you back to the Colorado
Trial Lawyer Connection Podcast.
Speaker:We'll have another lawyer come on and
talk about an amazing result. So Gabriel,
Speaker:thank you so much for coming on the
show. Thanks, Keith. It's been an honor.
Speaker:Thank you for joining us.
Speaker:We hope you've gained valuable insights
and inspiration from today's courtroom
Speaker:warriors. And thank you
for being in the arena.
Speaker:Make sure to subscribe and join us next
time as we continue to dissect real
Speaker:cases and learn from
Colorado's top trial lawyers.
Speaker:Our mission is to our legal community,
Speaker:helping us to become better trial lawyers
to effectively represent our clients.
Speaker:Keep your connection to
Colorado's best trial lawyers
Speaker:alive at www.thectlc.com.
