Why Do Medical Malpractice Jury Trial Verdicts Get Bigger On Re-Trial?

every few weeks, there is a legal notice in which a medical malpractice case went to trial resulted in a verdict in favor of the plaintiff was reversed on appeal, and then tried again - this time, for a much larger verdict in favor of the plaintiff. This article discusses why this is happening.

On tort (negligence, malpractice, breach of fiduciary duty, wrongful death, etc.) trial, the defendant usually holds most cards. They usually know what the stones are overturned on the detection of those who did not, and they know what evidence you give to the most annoying, and you do not have evidence mostly absolving.

More importantly, they were there. They really know what they did and did not, and what they meant when they did, they certainly know what they intend to say. In a medical malpractice case, this part is important, because the patient is often nothing more than the medical records prepared by the doctor himself. Consider a medical malpractice case in which a sponge left in patient's -. In the next lawsuit, the patient does not know anything more than what the surgeons and nurses wrote on the records of

It does not matter how much is your testimony - you could have people testify for days - and how much you have collected written discovery, trial will still be full of surprises. Even if no new facts discovered, you will see the facts presented in a new light, often in conflict with the light are presented in the pleadings and during discovery. (And you will need to respond quickly to this new version of the truth: do not try to argue to the jury that it was in fact "presented in a different light during the discovery .")

Trial makes the defendant to show their cards, clearing away his natural advantages in the tort suit. You will see the strongest defense arguments and the best defense evidence. More importantly, you can always run a mock jury and see as a neutral non-lawyers to respond to the evidence, you will never get the chance, before the trial, in practice the cross examination of the defendant to see what evidence makes them squirm, chatter, or obviously false. Precipitation will give you advice, but it will never show you what the defendant actually times or what to do when the chips are down.

is my opinion that these cases are not large or 50-50 Longshots, those slam dunks, if you have any evidence, they know where the defendant wants to go, and know where the defendant does not want to go. This is how "big" Judgement becomes a "blockbuster" verdict for the second time around.