Cincinnati, Ohio Personal Injury Blog - Anthony Castelli
Saturday, November 14, 2009
Do you Want A Senior Trial Attorney To Handle Your Personal Injury Case
As a solo practioner I often notice tv commercials of attorneys huckstering for clients. I often wonder if the clients gets much contact from those offices with a senior trial attorney. I guess that's why this article written by Attorney Gerry Oginski caught my eye. He gives a great expanation of the difference between a "walmart like" law firm and a where a client may want to turn if they want personal attention from a senior trial attorney.
Here is the Article by Gerry Oginski
I received a call at 7 AM this morning asking whether I was Walmart. I politely told the caller, after rubbing the sleep out of my eyes that she was calling an attorney's office and not Walmart. When I finally awoke, I questioned why this woman would think that I was Walmart.
I don't have a big-box store-front office. I don't discount my fees. I don't offer sales on goods and services. I don't advertise on TV, and I don't have thousands of customers pouring in and out of my parking lot on a daily basis.
As a solo practitioner, I have the benefit of knowing every detail of every case I handle.
As a solo practitioner, I don't have to ask three associates what was the last thing that happened on your case, when you call asking for information.
As a solo practitioner, I have the privilege of meeting you at your very first office visit.
I have the privilege of being with you when you are questioned at your question and answer session, known as a deposition. I also have the privilege of representing you at trial.
There are many large law firms in New York that are set up differently. The attorney you first meet with may not be the attorney who handles your deposition. The attorney you call to get an update may not be the same lawyer that you met on your first visit. The attorney who handles your deposition may not be the trial attorney who tries your case. There are some law firms that have attorneys dedicated to the pretrial phase of your case, and those lawyers do not try cases. Likewise, those law firms may have teams of dedicated trial lawyers, where all they do is try cases.
I personally found, in almost 21 years in practice, that clients love continuity.
Clients like to know that if they have a question, they can go directly to their point person at the lawyer's office to ask them a question or address any concerns they have. No one likes to be shuffled around from one person to the next. However, the question I always ask is "Do you want to deal with the senior trial attorney from day one?" or "Do you want to go to a large firm with many attorneys to handle your case where you may not speak to the actual trial lawyer until shortly before trial?" The choice, as always is yours to make. Choose wisely.
Thanks Gerry for a great article. If you have a New York injury case I recommend you give Atorney Gerry Oginski a call.
And if you have a cincinnati personal injury I would be pleased to help you. You can learn about your rights and about me at www.castellilaw.com
Here is the Article by Gerry Oginski
I received a call at 7 AM this morning asking whether I was Walmart. I politely told the caller, after rubbing the sleep out of my eyes that she was calling an attorney's office and not Walmart. When I finally awoke, I questioned why this woman would think that I was Walmart.
I don't have a big-box store-front office. I don't discount my fees. I don't offer sales on goods and services. I don't advertise on TV, and I don't have thousands of customers pouring in and out of my parking lot on a daily basis.
As a solo practitioner, I have the benefit of knowing every detail of every case I handle.
As a solo practitioner, I don't have to ask three associates what was the last thing that happened on your case, when you call asking for information.
As a solo practitioner, I have the privilege of meeting you at your very first office visit.
I have the privilege of being with you when you are questioned at your question and answer session, known as a deposition. I also have the privilege of representing you at trial.
There are many large law firms in New York that are set up differently. The attorney you first meet with may not be the attorney who handles your deposition. The attorney you call to get an update may not be the same lawyer that you met on your first visit. The attorney who handles your deposition may not be the trial attorney who tries your case. There are some law firms that have attorneys dedicated to the pretrial phase of your case, and those lawyers do not try cases. Likewise, those law firms may have teams of dedicated trial lawyers, where all they do is try cases.
I personally found, in almost 21 years in practice, that clients love continuity.
Clients like to know that if they have a question, they can go directly to their point person at the lawyer's office to ask them a question or address any concerns they have. No one likes to be shuffled around from one person to the next. However, the question I always ask is "Do you want to deal with the senior trial attorney from day one?" or "Do you want to go to a large firm with many attorneys to handle your case where you may not speak to the actual trial lawyer until shortly before trial?" The choice, as always is yours to make. Choose wisely.
Thanks Gerry for a great article. If you have a New York injury case I recommend you give Atorney Gerry Oginski a call.
And if you have a cincinnati personal injury I would be pleased to help you. You can learn about your rights and about me at www.castellilaw.com
posted by
Anthony Castelli
at
7:28 PM
0
comments
Thursday, November 5, 2009
Tort Reform Debate about Healthcare Hurts Patients
Dr Arnold Wax a medical oncologist in Nevada authored an article about the negative effects tort Reform had on a patient. Coupled with the writings of Dr parikh that heath care costs are not down in states with damage caps goes a along way to destroy the myths of tort reform
Dr Wax was active in getting malpractice caps in Nevada. However he tells a story how it backfired on a personal injury victim of a doctors negligence.
In 2002, a nice woman we'll call Mary was referred to Dr. Wax.. Two years earlier, she had developed a skin lesion on her pubic area, which her family physician removed and a pathologist diagnosed as a dysplastic nevus. The margins were cleared, and Mary went on her way.
In 2004, the lesion recurred and her FP again removed it. This time it was malignant. Mary was then referred to a general surgeon for a wide excision and primary closure. Because of the lesion's proximity to lymphatics, Dr Wax requested a lymphoscintigram and a sentinel lymph node biopsy. The surgery was completed and, much to my surprise and chagrin, the lymph node biopsy was positive for melanoma.
Mary was an active person who needed to be fully ambulatory to keep her job and help care for her grandchildren. With this in mind, we discussed the possibility of an inguinal lymph node dissection. But because the surgical complications would interfere with her ability to make a living, she declined.
After a negative staging workup, Dr Wax discussed her other options: observation, clinical trial, or interferon therapy. Mary wanted to treat her disease, so she passed on watchful waiting. Likewise, participating in a clinical trial was out of the question, because she'd have to leave town to be treated. That left interferon therapy, which she agreed to.
In the interim, a second pathologist reviewed Mary's original report from 2002 and found the results were consistent with a diagnosis of malignant melanoma, not a dysplastic nevus. Shortly thereafter, the original pathologist admitted that he'd misread the slides.
Then came the interferon therapy, complete with the expected side effects—fever, chills, sweats, fatigue, and depression. Mary's health declined to the point where she had to take a leave from work. She also developed an unexpected side effect: marked liver function abnormalities, which led to profound weight loss. The interferon was stopped, but the abnormalities persisted. A liver biopsy was performed, and Mary was found to have an autoimmune hepatitis, unmasked but not caused by the interferon. Plans for further therapy were abandoned and, in time, her liver problems resolved.
As Dr Wax writes he expected, Mary sued the pathologist who had misread the original biopsy. Soon after, one of her attorneys asked dr Wax to serve as an expert witness in the case. As her treating physician, he felt a moral obligation to support Mary's claim. Her lawyer said she was asking only for damages to help provide for her grandchildren—which ultimately became more important when her husband died unexpectedly from a post-surgical pulmonary embolus.
It appeared that the case would be resolved quickly, considering that the defendant freely admitted his error. However, this turned out to be far from true.
Affidavits were submitted and depositions taken, including his. With the comments and bare facts now available, the case went to trial. While this easily could have been a $1 million-plus case, tort reform in Nevada meant Mary couldn't receive more than $350,000 in noneconomic damages (pain and suffering) or any collateral source payments. The value of Mary's medical costs, which exceeded $100,000 and were covered by insurance, wouldn't be included in any award.
The trial lasted six days. Dr Wax was on the witness stand for two hours for direct and cross examination. he stated that described the statistical decrease in Mary's five-year survival, as well as all treatment variations between the different stages of melanoma. He also stated that he thought the pathologist's admission of his mistake was "honorable."
As he expected, the jury found the original pathologist negligent. But, to his surprise, Mary wasn't awarded any damages. One of her attorneys later told him that the jury wanted to pin an award on the pathologist's professional corporation, but it hadn't been named in the suit. The jurors reasoned that the pathologist had not acted maliciously, and that if he were found liable for a monetary award, he might leave the state. They were likely influenced by political ads that ran during the state's tort reform ballot campaign, describing physicians who were leaving Nevada because of its malpractice crisis.
The trial judge was incensed by the verdict, because the jury didn't follow the legal standard that should have been applied in the case. Dr Wax was later informed that the defense attorneys planned to go after Mary for court costs, something that the judge vowed he'd never let happen.
Today, Mary is a widowed grandmother, caring for her grandchildren with few resources—injured, admittedly, by a physician's error. She's been off of all therapies since the interferon, which proved successful. But if her melanoma recurs, it will likely be fatal.
Dr Wax stated that when he helped spearhead the tort reform movement in Nevada, he didn't foresee the unintended consequences of innocent, truly injured individuals not receiving their rightful awards due to jurors' misguided emotions.
So jurys do not always get it right,. And in fact in more that 2/3 of cases the plaintiff looses. Not because of a frivolous lawsuit , but because juros still see doctors as white nights and tort reform propganda has seeped into their thinking.
by Anthony Castelli cincinnati personal injury attorney Please note that I do not handle medical malpractice cases. They are too expensive, too difficult to win and time consuming.
.
Dr Wax was active in getting malpractice caps in Nevada. However he tells a story how it backfired on a personal injury victim of a doctors negligence.
In 2002, a nice woman we'll call Mary was referred to Dr. Wax.. Two years earlier, she had developed a skin lesion on her pubic area, which her family physician removed and a pathologist diagnosed as a dysplastic nevus. The margins were cleared, and Mary went on her way.
In 2004, the lesion recurred and her FP again removed it. This time it was malignant. Mary was then referred to a general surgeon for a wide excision and primary closure. Because of the lesion's proximity to lymphatics, Dr Wax requested a lymphoscintigram and a sentinel lymph node biopsy. The surgery was completed and, much to my surprise and chagrin, the lymph node biopsy was positive for melanoma.
Mary was an active person who needed to be fully ambulatory to keep her job and help care for her grandchildren. With this in mind, we discussed the possibility of an inguinal lymph node dissection. But because the surgical complications would interfere with her ability to make a living, she declined.
After a negative staging workup, Dr Wax discussed her other options: observation, clinical trial, or interferon therapy. Mary wanted to treat her disease, so she passed on watchful waiting. Likewise, participating in a clinical trial was out of the question, because she'd have to leave town to be treated. That left interferon therapy, which she agreed to.
In the interim, a second pathologist reviewed Mary's original report from 2002 and found the results were consistent with a diagnosis of malignant melanoma, not a dysplastic nevus. Shortly thereafter, the original pathologist admitted that he'd misread the slides.
Then came the interferon therapy, complete with the expected side effects—fever, chills, sweats, fatigue, and depression. Mary's health declined to the point where she had to take a leave from work. She also developed an unexpected side effect: marked liver function abnormalities, which led to profound weight loss. The interferon was stopped, but the abnormalities persisted. A liver biopsy was performed, and Mary was found to have an autoimmune hepatitis, unmasked but not caused by the interferon. Plans for further therapy were abandoned and, in time, her liver problems resolved.
As Dr Wax writes he expected, Mary sued the pathologist who had misread the original biopsy. Soon after, one of her attorneys asked dr Wax to serve as an expert witness in the case. As her treating physician, he felt a moral obligation to support Mary's claim. Her lawyer said she was asking only for damages to help provide for her grandchildren—which ultimately became more important when her husband died unexpectedly from a post-surgical pulmonary embolus.
It appeared that the case would be resolved quickly, considering that the defendant freely admitted his error. However, this turned out to be far from true.
Affidavits were submitted and depositions taken, including his. With the comments and bare facts now available, the case went to trial. While this easily could have been a $1 million-plus case, tort reform in Nevada meant Mary couldn't receive more than $350,000 in noneconomic damages (pain and suffering) or any collateral source payments. The value of Mary's medical costs, which exceeded $100,000 and were covered by insurance, wouldn't be included in any award.
The trial lasted six days. Dr Wax was on the witness stand for two hours for direct and cross examination. he stated that described the statistical decrease in Mary's five-year survival, as well as all treatment variations between the different stages of melanoma. He also stated that he thought the pathologist's admission of his mistake was "honorable."
As he expected, the jury found the original pathologist negligent. But, to his surprise, Mary wasn't awarded any damages. One of her attorneys later told him that the jury wanted to pin an award on the pathologist's professional corporation, but it hadn't been named in the suit. The jurors reasoned that the pathologist had not acted maliciously, and that if he were found liable for a monetary award, he might leave the state. They were likely influenced by political ads that ran during the state's tort reform ballot campaign, describing physicians who were leaving Nevada because of its malpractice crisis.
The trial judge was incensed by the verdict, because the jury didn't follow the legal standard that should have been applied in the case. Dr Wax was later informed that the defense attorneys planned to go after Mary for court costs, something that the judge vowed he'd never let happen.
Today, Mary is a widowed grandmother, caring for her grandchildren with few resources—injured, admittedly, by a physician's error. She's been off of all therapies since the interferon, which proved successful. But if her melanoma recurs, it will likely be fatal.
Dr Wax stated that when he helped spearhead the tort reform movement in Nevada, he didn't foresee the unintended consequences of innocent, truly injured individuals not receiving their rightful awards due to jurors' misguided emotions.
So jurys do not always get it right,. And in fact in more that 2/3 of cases the plaintiff looses. Not because of a frivolous lawsuit , but because juros still see doctors as white nights and tort reform propganda has seeped into their thinking.
by Anthony Castelli cincinnati personal injury attorney Please note that I do not handle medical malpractice cases. They are too expensive, too difficult to win and time consuming.
.
posted by
Anthony Castelli
at
5:26 AM
0
comments
