Oct 2011:  NBI Advanced Products Liability,  “Use of Demonstrative Evidence at Trial” and “How to make Science Understandable to a Judge and Jury”

Oct 2011: NBI Advanced Trial Techniques”,  “Use of Demonstrative Evidence at Trial–How to maximize Your Results”

Nov 2011: MBA “What Civil Court Judges Want You to Know”.  Mr. Llaurado was one of the moderator’s of a panel of three Milwaukee County Civil Court Judges discussing scheduling orders, pre-trial orders, use of depositions at trial, objections at trial, fundamentals of brief writing and motion practice.

I realized this had some potential for the legal profession. Jurors are accustomed to 20 second sound bites from things like the television news, and they want lawyers to get to the point and give them the information they need to decide the case. We are always looking for better communication skills, so why not give this a try?

At the 2011 Summer Seminar sponsored by the Wisconsin Association for Justice, I organized a group of four of our younger lawyers to give this a try. Two of the topics were quite technical, dealing with evidence problems and changes in insurance policies. Two of the topics were general, dealing with employment discrimination and the Family Medical Leave Act.  Each of the topics was followed by a three minute discussion session.

All the presentations went well, and I learned something significant in the process.  The format works better with the general topics, and not as well with the technical topics that deal with the language of a statute or an insurance policy. I also learned that it is important to have the presentation viewable to the presenter. In the future, I recommend either a display monitor on the podium, or a microphone that can be detached from the podium so the speaker can move around.  I also recommend that each slide, if it contains text, have short bullet points or a list, rather than the text of a statute or case.

This format forces a speaker to get to the point. It forces the speaker to streamline the presentation. And if it is a topic that is not of interest to you, the next topic will start in a short time period.

This format, or some variation of it, may be of assistance to lawyers in an opening statement to a jury in a simple case, or presentation of an argument to an arbitrator. Mediations or mock trials may also benefit from the format.  This format forces the speaker to fully prepare and organize the presentation, which can only help us get our point across.

The bills purport to adopt what is generally known as the Daubert rule, which has been the subject of a great deal of litigation in the federal courts since it was adopted there about 15 years ago. In cases we have in federal court, our experts’ testimony has never been restricted. But it can significantly drive up the costs of bringing cases to trial, further hindering injured victims’ access to the courtroom.

The rules of evidence, however, apply to all types of cases. They apply to business against business cases, to criminal cases, paternity cases, to essentially all types of court cases. The Wisconsin Court system compiles statistics on statewide case filings, showing that contracts and money judgments, typically business against business cases, or business against individual cases, outnumber personal injury case filings by more than 9 to 1. http://www.wicourts.gov/about/pubs/circuit/docs/civildispostate09.pdf

It is astounding to us that a proposed law that purports to help business, will actually make it more expensive for businesses to obtain redress when they are wronged.

Professor Daniel Blinka of Marquette University Law School, and the author of the definitive book on Wisconsin Evidence, addresses this proposed rules change in his blog:

“[W]hat public policy justifies the change? Will someone please point out the case law that illustrates the inadequacy of the current rule? I don’t see it. But I do foresee a great deal of litigation in the wake of these ill-starred revisions.”

Professor Blinka also points outs that while the proposed law may sound reasonable at first glance, it would actually create more confusion in addition to more expensive litigation. Read Professor Blinka’s blog here:

http://law.marquette.edu/facultyblog/2011/01/07/tort-reform-2011-true-science-or-pure-mischief/

As is the case when a person is a party to a lawsuit, she eventually had to go through a deposition; a process where the attorney for the insurance company has an opportunity to ask  questions under oath in the presence of a court reporter.    The idea of being interrogated by a strange attorney for a couple hours is daunting enough, but her apprehension was compounded by the fact that her two year-old son had never been left with strangers before.   She had no one to leave him with during the deposition, so Keith arranged with our receptionist Virginia Russo, to look after the child for the time she was in her deposition.    Virginia was able to keep the youngster occupied and content and the deposition went well.    Eventually Keith was able to negotiate a settlement on her behalf, and she was able to visit, with her son, her family and friends, people she had been unable to see for years.  She was kind enough to send Keith photographs of some of the landmarks she visited during her trip home, some of which we can share with you here.

It is always gratifying to be able to help our clients and help them resolve their claims.   This one was especially gratifying for Keith who was able to not only help this young lady receive compensation for the injuries she suffered, but help her to be reunited with family and friends half a world away.

11/14/08              Product Liability                13,538,525
Wrongful death of 3 year old from food poisoning

2/26/10                Product Liability                5,500,000
Paraplegia.

10/1/01                Product Liability                5,486,281
Arising out of a farm implement accident.

1/15/01                Product Liability                3,615,000
Mesothelioma.  Death.

2/1/01                   Product Liability                3,285,000
Asbestos/wrongful death case

10/2/07                Product Liability                2,300,000
Incomplete paraplegia

5/1/01                   Product Liability                2,131,718
2 fingers of left hand amputated and 2 others damaged.  Case again manufacturer of the saw being used to cut meat in a restaurant.

6/23/06                Product Liability                1,824,328
Alleged defective infant carrier.  Case against manufacturer.  Child ejected when he was belted in a carrier.  Cognitive injuries.

11/20/07              Product Liability                1,400,000
Neck injury

8/6/08                   Product Liability                1,400,000
Loss of hand and part of forearm

5/8/09                   Product Liability                1,133,000
Mesothelomia

10/1/00                Product Liability                1,114,500
Suit against the manufacturer of  a truck washing solution.  Various neurologic condition caused by exposure to chemical.

5/1/01                   Product Liability                1,100,000
Loss of finger due to defective manual lifting device by a construction worker.

2/1/00                   Product Liability                1,050,000
Stray voltage case.  Loss of income.

 What Civil Court Judges Want You to Know

The seminar will feature various Milwaukee County Trial Judges as well as two experienced trial attorneys

 Judge Sosnay – Scheduling Conferences and Final Pretrials

Jugde Pocan – Voir Dire

 Art Simpson and Thad Llaurado – Case Management, Trial Management and Discovery

Judge Dugan – What judges are taught about case management, what lawyers do that impresses judges and highlight local rules.

 Speaker(s): Judge Timothy G. Dugan / Judge William S. Pocan / Judge William Sosnay / Arthur P. Simpson, Simpson & Deardorff / Thadd J. Llaurado, Murphy & Prachthauser

Friday, November 19, 2010

12:45 – 1:00 p.m. (Registration) / 1:00 – 4:00 (Presentation) / 4:00 – 5:00 ((Reception – Hors d’oeuvres & Wine)

3.0 CLE credits

6/10/05                Vehicle Accident              9,375,000
Severe brain injury after collision between semi and his vehicle.

10/30/09              Vehicle Accident              6,900,000
Multiple plaintiffs killed/injured in a car/truck accident.

6/4/10                   Vehicle Accident              6,000,000
41-year-old female suffers right ankle fracture, herniation of stomach and colon.  Bilateral collapsed lungs, brain hemorrhage, cervical spine dislocation with bleeding into cervical spinal cord, ligament and nerve damage.

3/14/08                Vehicle Accident              5,200,000
10 year old has severely injured left extremities making walking difficult.  Also has cognitive damage.

2/1/03                   Vehicle Accident              4,600,000
Actually involves a boat struck by another boat and sunk.  Circumstantial evidence points to BP Amoco boat as the striking vehicle.  Wrongful death case results in these settlements.

7/1/04                   Vehicle Accident              4,300,000
Wrongful death case.  Accident happened in Illinois so wrongful death law of Illinois applied.

2/26/10                Vehicle Accident              3,142,588
Multiple orthopaedic fractures throughout her body, punctured lungs.

9/1/04                   Vehicle Accident              3,050,000
Loss of leg due to inattentive driver.

11/1/04                Vehicle Accident              2,500,000
Forks of a forklift ran through door of plaintiff’s vehicle causing numerous internal injuries to the occupant of the vehicle.

9/18/09                Vehicle Accident              2,471,513
Degloving injuries to right foot.  Bilateral heel fractures,  Fracture of right tibia, fibula  and femur.

12/1/01                Vehicle Accident              2,435,398
Complex regional pain syndrome in 32 year old following vehicle accident with bus.

3/27/09                Vehicle Accident              2,200,000
Below the knee amputation

7/1/04                   Vehicle Accident              1,854,222
Gravel truck rolls over, crushing car of pregnant mother.

10/2/07                Vehicle Accident              1,657,173
Numerous orthopaedic injuries.  Permanent loss of smell and taste.

6/19/08                Vehicle Accident              1,565,314
Permanent brain damage

9/11/09                Vehicle Accident              1,558,140
Orthopaedic injuries to leg and hip.

12/24/09              Vehicle Accident              1,510,000
Orthopaedic injuries to wrist, knee, ankle and PTSD

3/27/09                Vehicle Accident              1,500,000 (Approx.)
Injuries to two people in auto accident,.

2/26/10                Vehicle Accident              1,500,000
Wrongful death case.  24 year-old.

6/1/04                   Vehicle Accident              1,421,194
Brain damage and orthopaedic injuries.

2/15/01                Vehicle Accident              1,371,532
Various orthopaedic injuries from a motorcycle accident.

9/18/09                Vehicle Accident              1,350,000
Multiple orthopedic injuries.

9/1/04                   Vehicle Accident              1,312,500
Death of elderly woman following vehicle crash.

6/1/01                   Vehicle Accident              1,250,000
Traumatic amputation of arm above the elbow.

2/1/04                   Vehicle Accident              1,250,000
Orthopaedic injuries.  Knee and shoulder.

10/1/04                Vehicle Accident              1,250,000
Cervical injury to husband and wife.

12/1/01                Vehicle Accident              1,200,000
Wrongful death.  42 year old.

6/23/06                Vehicle Accident              1,200,000
Orthopaedic injuries.  Closed head injuries.  Cognitive disabilities.

3/14/08                Vehicle Accident              1,200,000
Numerous orthopaedic injuries to leg, both hips, both wrists, ribs, sternum, vertebrae, collar bone and left shoulder.

4/20/07                Vehicle Accident              1,190,000
Permanent psychological damages

2/24/09                Vehicle Accident              1,150,000
Numerous orthopaedic injuries.

10/2/07                Vehicle Accident (Rollover)            1,147,000
Serious injury to right arm above elbow.  Various orthopaedic injuries including fracture pelvis

2/24/09                Vehicle Accident              1,145,000
Exacerbation of back and neck injuries from a rear end auto accident

8/1/01                   Vehicle Accident              1,136,948
Various orthopaedic injuries.  Injuries to sciatic nerve, herniated vertebral disks.

4/18/08                Vehicle Accident              1,078,981
Orthopaedic injuries to legs

6/10/05                Vehicle Accident              1,028,500
Policy limits case.  Wrongful death of 3 individuals.

5/1/01                   Vehicle Accident              1,025,000
Wrongful death of husband and wife.

11/1/04                Vehicle Accident              1,021,364
Orthopaedic injuries with nerve damage to back.

6/22/07                Vehicle Accident              1,000,000
Wrongful death case.

1/1/01                   Vehicle Accident              1,000,000
Burns over 90% of body.

11/20/07              Vehicle Accident              1,000,000
Fractured hip/leg.  Aggravation of dementia.

6/19/08                Vehicle Accident              1,000,000
Multiple plaintiffs injured on school bus.  Policy limits allocated

Mark Baus will be speaking at the Wisconsin State Bar Center in Madison on September 24, 2010 at a seminar entitled “Interpreting Medical Information.”   This seminar is aimed at assisting attorneys and other legal professionals to understand and accurately interpret information contained in the medical clinic and hospital records.   Mark’s presentation at this seminar will focus on different styles in documenting patient medical information including the “SOAP” methodology and health care providers’ use of often-confusing abbreviations and technical medical terminology.

The positive change that we see in the new law involves uninsured and underinsured motorist coverage. Prior law allowed companies to include language in its policy that would reduce the limit of that coverage by other sources of insurance. A person who thought they had $100,000 in underinsured coverage could never receive that amount, as it would be reduced by any amounts the driver(s) who caused the accident had, or other sources such as workers compensation payments or disability coverage.   In some cases that underinsured coverage was reduced to zero, much to the surprise of our clients who thought they had good coverage.

When the law changed to prohibit this type of clause in the policy, the insurers complained that rates would jump dramatically.

When I received a renewal packet from my auto insurer, I first checked to see if the new language on uninsured and underinsured coverage was in the policy. It was. I looked at the declarations page, and the premium seemed to be in the range I remember it before the accident. I did check renewal with the same company for the same coverage, for 2009. The premiums for uninsured motorist coverage went down by $6 for myself, and $4 for my wife and son.

The claims of a dramatic prince increase were completely unfounded in my case.  I am relieved that insurers can no longer bury these exclusions in their policies.  Now, when your insurance policy says you have $100,000 in coverage, you truly have $100,000 in coverage.