Morgan & Morgan Verdicts Magazine
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
2016 Morgan & Morgan VVerdicts Magazine Selected 2016 Verdicts - A Closer Look Fighting for the rights of workers, drivers, those who’ve suf- fered from medical malpractice, and others is something we do every day at Morgan & Morgan. It’s what it means to be “For The People,” and it entails working tirelessly to get our clients the compensation they not only need, but that justice demands. Our firm has grown, in the nearly 30 years since its incep- tion into one of the largest plaintiffs’ firms in the country. In that time, it has stayed true to its pledge never to represent insurance carriers or large companies, and remains deeply committed to its clients, community, and employees. This year, we’re growing again. We’re launching Verdicts Magazine to showcase some of the biggest successes throughout our practice. The publication will cover many of the cases won by our attorneys in 2016 and spotlight some of our best work. Some of our verdicts have been substantial. They represent examples of situations where insurance companies, employ- ers, doctors, and others thought they could get away with irreparably damaging the lives of our clients and their loved ones, with no concern for the many lifetimes of suffering they might have caused. There is the case in which a seven-year-old, barely embarked on life, relied on a doctor in Tennessee to fix a potentially deadly medical condition. Instead, the child was left heav- ily disfigured, and the doctor altered medical records and warped facts to cover for his mistake. There’s also a lawsuit in which Glenda Williams, a mid- dle-aged woman living in Georgia, was struck head-on in DeKalb County, suffering post-concussion syndrome and further traumatic brain injury. The perpetrator, a pizza de- livery driver, was shielded by a company all too willing to dispute the effect their employee had and the responsibility they now owed to Glenda. These are just some of the biggest cases we’ve litigated in the past year. Inside this magazine, you’ll find scores of the verdicts reported by attorneys in 2016. Distributed through- out are the five biggest verdicts of the year. All of the results exemplify what our employees at every level of our organi- zation build their foundation on: helping clients regain their lives by pursuing justice for them and their loved ones. 3 V Matt Morgan Attorney 01 Valdez vs. City of Orlando Verdict: $1,100,000 Pre-trial offer: $0 VAttorney: Matt Morgan One of our premier verdicts was against the City of Orlando on behalf of Trino Valdez, an Orange County res- ident who made the “mistake” of driv- ing down East Robinson Street. The re- sult was a laurel oak crushing him and his car as he drove to turn in a form to chaperone his daughter’s field trip. With the city unwilling to own up to the fact that the tree should have been removed long ago, Mr. Valdez was fac- ing enormous medical expenses and a broken back for an accident that was no fault of his own. Matt Morgan was the quarterback on this case, and suc- cessfully carried it through two trials to get his client the compensation he needed. 5 Q: Can you describe the nature of the case? Matt Morgan: On a beautiful clear night as he was traveling down a busy roadway in his vehicle, a large laurel oak tree fell on our client. The tree was known to be in poor condition by the named defendant for five years prior to it falling. The tree was obviously in need of removal. However, the city failed to take the remedial measure of removing the tree. Q: How did the outcome end up being so notable? MM: I believed in the case. It was very difficult to prove. Most people think a tree falling is an act of God. We had to work through thousands of pages to find one report regarding this particular tree. Once we found the report, it was as clear as day. However, the defendant still refused to pay. Q: What was one of the biggest hurdles you faced? MM: Find the smoking gun document. There are over 100,000 trees in Orlando. Finding a report before the date of loss for one tree seemed to be a very difficult task. Once we found it, it was just a matter of convincing the jury that it was not reasonable to allow this tree to remain once they learned it was in poor condition. 6 Q: What was the most memorable anecdote from this trial? MM: We had to try this case twice. The defense was con- vinced we would lose. I was convinced we would win if I could select a fair jury. I lost a lot of sleep over this case before the second trial, mainly because we were so right. What kept me up at night on this case was the thought that a biased jury could get the case and justice would not prevail. It made the jury selection process that much more critical. The thought of them getting a free pass on this one made me ill. Q: What makes this case so important? MM: It highlights the importance of the jury system. It is the ultimate equalizer. In this case, justice prevailed. It was David v. Goliath. My client had multiple surgeries as he was crushed in his car. The defendant was clearly liable in my opinion. And they de- cided they just did not want to pay the fair value. The verdict brought tears to my eyes because it confirmed my belief that we have the greatest judicial system in the world. There is no greater feeling than personally seeing justice through for your client. Q: How did the client react after receiving news of the verdict? MM: He was over the moon. It wasn’t about the money for any of us. We were all in this case for justice. Truly. 7 V Keith Mitnik Attorney 02 Price v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company Verdict: $6,400,000 Pre-trial offer: $0 VAttorney: Keith Mitnik & Greg Prysock with assistance from Tony Luciano and Katy Massa We’ve done a lot to make sure tobacco companies pay for the damage they’ve caused to families through deception, false advertising, and the willful caus- ing of addiction — scoring north of $90 million for clients. In this case, Ann Price sought to make R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company pay for the damage smoking wreaked on her beloved husband. Keith Mitnik and Greg Prysock led the charge with the help of Tony Luciano and Katherine Massa. The four have worked tirelessly to obtain several dif- ferent tobacco litigation verdicts from R.J. Reynolds. Here, Mitnik and Prysock focus on this case in particular. 9 Q: Can you describe the case? What happened to the plaintiff, and what’s interesting about it? Greg Prysock: The case was against R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company regarding the death of a long-time smoker, John Price. Mr. Price started smoking at the age of 12 and was addicted by the age of 16. He smoked two packs a day of R.J. Reynolds brands for 40 years, before being diagnosed with Chronic Obstructive Pul- monary Disease in the mid-1990s. Mr. Price suffered with COPD for the next 15 years, ultimately becoming bed-ridden and tethered to an oxygen tank. He died in 2010. The plaintiff in our case was Ann Price, the surviving spouse. Keith Mitnik: The claims involve fraud by concealment, con- spiracy, product defect, and negligence. These cases are unique because of the challenge presented taking on the most savvy, experienced, heavily armed litiga- tion machine in the history of injury lawsuits. 10 Q: How did you end up with the outcome? KM: We spend a lot of time studying cigarette companies’ litigation strategies and figuring out how to thwart them. If you think of us as a train headed for what we call justice, they are masters at derailing the train. We were able to diffuse the dynamite they planted along the tracks. Some of it was done by heading them off with pre-tri- al motions. Some of it was done by framing the case correctly to withstand the blasts we knew were coming. And some of it was done the old-fashioned way, with shootouts during the trial. Q: What makes this case notable? GP: Mrs. Price was the sole survivor. The verdict was for the loss of her husband and the pain and suffering she has en- dured. In the last year, she has been diagnosed with dementia, which has been progressing rapidly. Tragically, after caring for her husband for 15 years, she now needs someone to care for her. 11 Greg Prysock Attorney Q: What was the most challenging thing about this case? KM: Overcoming the argument that it was the smoker’s choice and he assumed the risk. GP: Mrs. Price couldn’t testify at trial because of her medical and mental conditions. Q: What made this case memorable? KM: Opening a pack of cigarettes during closing argument, slowly pulling one cigarette out, after another, and tossing each one in a small mesh trash can so everyone could see them piling up. It takes a long time to pull 20 cigarettes out at a leisurely pace. Then, opening a second pack to make the point just how many cigarettes two packs a day really is! It meant the client was lighting up every 15 minutes or so and each cigarette would take about ten minutes to smoke.