For the last two weeks, I served as a juror on a medical malpractice case before the Supreme Court of New York. The trial ended today. We found for the defendants. We felt really bad for the lady who was suing, because she had suffered the loss of a limb. But in the end, all the jurors agreed on the verdict. The plaintiff’s lawyers failed to prove that the doctors departed from good and accepted medical practice in the course of her treatment.
So, I learned a lot about the law, and how trials work, and I got out of work for two weeks. If you’ve ever been on a jury and want to compare experiences, or if you’ve never been on one, and want to know what it’s like, ask me questions and I’ll try to answer them.
There were three lawyers. I spent the first week thinking what douchebags they all were. So much drama. But I can see now they were only doing what they had to do.
The plaintiff’s lawyer is apparently some kind of celebrity among trial lawyers. I didn’t know that until it was all over, and I looked him up online (the judge asked us not to search on anyone involved in the trial while it was going on). The thing was, he was so intent on stuff that didn’t matter. He was cherrypicking tiny little details and making them out to be way more important than they were. I felt like he was trying to distract us from the real question we were trying to decide, which was whether the doctors’ conduct was below the standards of care for this patient. But of course, his job is to use anything that will help his client’s case.
One of the defendant’s lawyers was also obviously good, and argued very persuasively. But the other defendant’s lawyer… I’m not so sure about. His cross examinations of the plaintiff’s witnesses were mostly worthless. He stammered incessantly. I was convinced he was winging it. Several times, the judge had to clarify his questions to the witnesses. He used a lot of jargon. And he asked a lot of questions that he was clearly wanting or expecting a different answer than the one he got. And he looked all frustrated whenever that happened. Whenever he objected, he came off whiny. But he won his case, so I guess his client is happy.
I triple love the fact that a medical malpractice case did go to trial. I have seen too many doctors get convinced by their insurance company to pay off and settle even when they aren’t at fault for the bad outcome. I am glad these docs decided to fight back.
Honestly, what probably happened is that the Plaintiffs wanted more than the insurance was willing to settle for. Usually, the attorneys are paid for by the insurance company and the insurance company tends to refer things to a pool of firms. The second attorney was probably the Dr.s’ personal counsel
I prefer to think the doctor wouldn’t agree to settle for anything and not take the mark on his/her reputation. Especially since he/she had his/her own counsel present. But of course you could be right. In my experience the mal practice companies push and push these doctors to settle to avoid the risk of getting a jury that will give a verdict based on sympathy and not the facts. Recently a colleague of mine was so adamant about not settling that the insurance company, convinced they will have to pay the limits of the policy, didn’t even bother going to court at all. It cost him thousands and thousands out of his own pocket to fight but he prevailed.
The absolute worst part to him was after the trial, the plaintiff thanked him for performing a successful surgery but said that since there was hospital negligence claimed, their attorney said they HAD to name the admitting surgeon as well.
Actually, Notchimine and Caffeine.addict… oh, you are going to love what really happened:
After the whole thing was over, the judge came up to the jury room to thank us for our service and stuff like that, and to answer any questions we might have. We all felt kind of guilty for sending the plaintiff home with nothing, so somebody asked his honor about the expenses for the trial. Was she on the hook for all the lawyer’s fees? How about the expert witnesses, one of whom testified he was making about $15,000.00 from this? (And that guy was a total clown, defense counsel utterly destroyed him on cross, and then went back to dig up his corpse and re-rape it in his summation.)
Well, the judge explained that the malpractice insurance company made a deal before the trial to limit their exposure. If the jury returned a verdict favorable to the plaintiff, they would pay damages up to $700K, but if we found for the defendants and awarded nothing, she would get $200K. Do you understand? She would get $200K for losing the case. The upside for the insurance company was, if the jury had gone nuts and decided to award her $4 million, they would only have had to pay $700K.
After that, we didn’t feel so guilty.
Well, all three lawyers had very nice suits. In advocacy ability, two of them were impressive to watch, their talent was obvious… the third guy, eh. As for content, the plaintiff didn’t have much of a case, so the lawyer had to focus on tiny little details that didn’t matter, like I said above. The defense’s lawyers didn’t have an easy job though, because they had to answer for every one of those little tiny details. And they did that successfully.
To what extent did it depart from your prior expectations? I have the impression that some jurors have the idea that it will be quite a passive exercise in which the answer will be pretty obvious by the end, having been trained to think so by TV. To what extent were you disoriented by the mismatch between expectations and actuality?
I’ve seen those before. From both side’s perspective it can make sense. From the insurance companies perspective, the can limit their exposure. From the Plaintiff’s point of view, she ensures that she gets something.
Were any graphics presented? If so, what kind (medical illustrations, document callouts, PowerPoint or foam core board)? Did both sides have them? How did one side’s compare to the other’s? How did they help you find for the defendant?
Some things were just like they are on TV, like all the “Objection, your honor!” dramatic stuff. I never expect stuff in real life to be like it is on TV, so that was kind of a surprise. Otherwise, it was about what I expected. I thought it was going to be a heavy thing, and it was. Or at least it felt that way when we were hearing the testimony.
One of the lawyers used blow-ups on foam-core board. Another used an overhead projector. The third used a laptop with a projector. Honestly, I don’t feel like the visuals made that much difference to me. They showed us angiogram films, for example. I had no idea what I was looking at. Then there were the visuals of letters the doctors had written to each other and notes they had written to themselves. I didn’t really need to see that. In fact, I couldn’t see it, because they didn’t blow it up big enough. The verbal testimony of the witnesses was what really decided the case for me.
I was impaneled last year, but for just two days. It was a jury of 6 with one alternate. The defense attorney went after the victim’s credibility, kind of viciously. He got her to lose her cool and yell and cry on the witness stand. I pretty quickly came to the conclusion that if that was all he had, then he really didn’t have a case. We came to the verdict that he was a complete assclown.
Despite that, and despite the fact that we felt for the victim, we returned a verdict of not guilty on the criminal charge. There was certainly reasonable doubt.
Deliberation took about an hour. cuauhtemoc, how long did it take in your case?
I was the first one to speak. I said “I’m willing to listen to what you all think, but my impression is that the plaintiff didn’t prove that the doctors were at fault,” and every single person in the room nodded or said “yes” simultaneously. It was a huge relief to all of us, both because we knew we wouldn’t have to fight anybody about it, and because it gave us confidence that the verdict was the right one. Up to that point, I was thinking “Am I the only one who feels this way?” but after that, if we all came to the same conclusion, I mean come on.
But we got a surprise after the verdict was read in court, and we were reunited with the two alternates back in the jury room. One of them was convinced by the plaintiff’s case. I don’t know how, but she was. It wouldn’t have made a difference, because only five out of six of us had to agree for the question to be decided. But it was weird.