Subscribe to our blog

Your email:

About CVN

Attorneys use CVN’s live trial webcasts to reduce travel, deploy teams, feed war rooms, and reach shadow jurors.

CVN’s research and training video libraries are essential tools to improve trial advocacy skills.

Posts by Month

Courtroom Views | The CVN Blog

Current Articles | RSS Feed RSS Feed

Plaintiff Wins Tobacco Trial Phase 1 (Liability)

 | Submit to Digg digg it | Submit to Reddit reddit | Add to delicious delicious | Submit to StumbleUpon StumbleUpon | Share on Facebook Facebook | Share on Twitter Twitter | Share on LinkedIn LinkedIn 

Verdict read in Cohen v. R.J. Reynolds

Judge Jeffrey Streitfeld read the verdict this afternoon in Cohen v. RJ Reynolds.  The jury found that Nathan Cohen had lung cancer, and that cigarette smoking was the legal cause of his lung cancer and death.

CVN will provide a live webcast of Phase 2 of the Cohen v. RJ Reynolds trial, starting tomorrow morning at 9:30am Eastern Time.


Firestone Tire Defect Trial Begins

 | Submit to Digg digg it | Submit to Reddit reddit | Add to delicious delicious | Submit to StumbleUpon StumbleUpon | Share on Facebook Facebook | Share on Twitter Twitter | Share on LinkedIn LinkedIn 

Opening Statement in Moreno v Ford defective Firestone radial tire caseAlthough many Firestone-Ford Explorer cases are pending before Judge Anthony Mohr in Los Angeles, Moreno v. Ford has actually gone to trial. 

The accident in Moreno v. Ford occurred on May 24, 2006, when a 12 year-old Firestone Radial ATX Tire suffered a tread separation or a belt separation that precipitated a fatal accident.  The Ford Explorer slid off the road and rolled over multiple times.  Although all of the vehicle occupants were wearing safety belts, 11 year-old William Moreno suffered massive head trauma and died.

According to the plaintiff, the defective tire was a spare tire that had been in the vehicle since 1994, and was negligently rotated into service in January, 2006, by American Tire Depot, even though the tire had been recalled.

According to the defense, road conditions were optimal for handling a tire separation emergency, and the driver could have safely stopped the vehicle without leaving the road, but instead turned the wheel right, which was an unsafe turning maneuver.

In addition, the defense asserted that the William Moreno suffered a fatal head injury due to a failure of the Ford seatbelt system. 

This Firestone Tire and Ford Explorer Trial against American Tire Depot is being webcast live by CVN

 

 


Cohen v. Reynolds Goes to the Jury

 | Submit to Digg digg it | Submit to Reddit reddit | Add to delicious delicious | Submit to StumbleUpon StumbleUpon | Share on Facebook Facebook | Share on Twitter Twitter | Share on LinkedIn LinkedIn 

Cohen v. R.J. Reynolds Closing Argument

Closing arguments are complete, and the jury has been instructed, in Phase 1 of Cohen v. RJ Reynolds.

Defense attorney Stephanie Parker told the jury in closing, "Cancer that starts in the pleura is not caused by smoking...and the test results for COPD (Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease) ruled out COPD."

In rebuttal, plaintiff attorney Adam Trop said, "Lung cancer is what the death certificate says...The pathology report says it's lung cancer...They've got a different excuse for why every piece of the puzzle doesn't fit perfectly -- but it does fit perfectly."

If the jury finds liability in Phase 1, then damages will be considered in Phase 2.

CVN is webcasting the Cohen v. RJ Reynolds trial live. CVN also offers a complete Tobacco Litigation Video Collection providing affordable access to all our Tobacco trials.


Opening Statements in Cohen v. Reynolds Tobacco Trial

 | Submit to Digg digg it | Submit to Reddit reddit | Add to delicious delicious | Submit to StumbleUpon StumbleUpon | Share on Facebook Facebook | Share on Twitter Twitter | Share on LinkedIn LinkedIn 

Opening statements are complete in the Engle-progeny tobacco trial Cohen v. RJ Reynolds. Robin Cohen's husband was a smoker who died of cancer in 1994.

Defense attorney Stephanie Parker argued that Mr. Cohen died of cancer of the pleura, not lung cancer, and therefore Cohen was not a victim of lung cancer caused by smoking.

Engle-progeny tobacco trial Cohen v. RJ Reynolds 

CVN offers a Tobacco Litigation Video Collection, consisting of a number of tobacco trials. You can watch the Courtroom View Network gavel-to-gavel webcast of Cohen v. RJ Reynolds live or on-demand. 


Medical Malpractice Litigation Video Collection

 | Submit to Digg digg it | Submit to Reddit reddit | Add to delicious delicious | Submit to StumbleUpon StumbleUpon | Share on Facebook Facebook | Share on Twitter Twitter | Share on LinkedIn LinkedIn 

Medical Malpractice Litigation

CVN is pleased to announce that our Medical Malpractice Litigation Video Collection now includes nine trials: Belaski v. Doctors HospitalKornak v. North Broward Hospital DistrictSmith v. ParkerEvans v. DeshazoKing v. GreathouseKroll v. ZolfaghariCuppy v. Surgical ProfessionalsPullin v. Team Physicans, and Konke v Mayer.

These nine trials bring to practitioners a broad range of medical malpractice litigation issues, and experts, including:

  • - Obstetrics
  • - Anesthesiology
  • - Drug Overdose
  • - Chiropractic
  • - Failure to Diagnose
  • - Internal Bleeding
  • - Ventricular Dysfunction
  • - Orthopedic Surgery
Belaski v. Doctor's Hospital.  The plaintiff's sciatic nerve was permanently injured during hip replacement surgery, resulting in chronic pain. The plaintiff sought over $1M in damages.

The defendant orthopedic surgeon had undergone eye surgery for a detached retina 20 days before the defendant performed the hip replacement surgery on the plaintiff.
 
The plaintiff allegedly did not know that the defendant would be performing surgery with impaired vision.
 
The defendant asserted that his vision was only impaired in his left eye, due to an incident that occurred when the defendant was 20 years-old, and the defendant had been right-eyed for his entire career.  The defendant allegedly has previously performed 2,500 hip replacement surgeries without complication. Therefore, the defendant's overall rate of complications was not below the standard of care.
 
The jury found for the defendant.
 
Kornak v. North Broward Hospital District. Plaintiff Martha Kornak's husband, 35 year-old James Kornak, died after surgery to install a pacemaker.  The pacemaker was successfully implanted, but due to a complication, two surgeries were performed -- the second operation was a continuation of the first, but performed the following day. Kornak died of respiratory complications 17 days later.
 
According to the plaintiff, Kornak's lungs were clear before the first surgery, but bilateral congestion subsequently developed, and the anesthesiologists should have recognized the respiratory distress and waited a few days before placing Kornak under anesthesia for the second time, given that the procedure was elective and non-urgent.
 
The defense argued that Kornak did withstand the second anesthesiology, and instead his respiratory distress did not result from the surgery, but instead that pulmonary hemorrages in his lungs were caused by Kornak's underlying anatomy. 
 
The jury found in favor of the plaintiff against all defendants, and awarded total damages of approximately $4.5M.
 
Smith v. Parker involved a baby who suffered a brachial plexus injury, allegedly as a result of a vacuum-assisted vaginal delivery without complications.  
 
The jury found in favor of the defendant.
 
Evans v. Deshazo. On April 11, 2005, 28 year-old Bobby Evans died of a drug overdose after consuming alcohol, the recreational drug Ecstasy (methamphetamine), and the pain killer oxycodone.
 
According to the decedent's plaintiffs (the decedent's parents), people rarely die from using Ecstasy, but oxycodone is a highly addictive drug that is incredibly dangerous when taken with alcohol or other medications.
 
The plaintiffs asserted that the defendant's treatment fell below the standard of care because even though the defendant prescribed increasing doses of oxycodone over nearly a year, there was no documented treatment plan, nor a sufficient medical history or examination adequate to support the prescription, nor did the defendant adequately explain the risks of taking oxycodone in combination with alcohol or recreational drugs, even though the decedent disclosed his use of alcohol.
 
The defendant, a doctor of osteopathy, claimed that he prescribed the decedent medication for back pain -- first hydrocodone, then oxycodone, then roxicodone.  The defense claimed that there was no indication of addition or drug-seeing behavior.  Instead, the decedent was the classic presentation of a chronic pain patient, experiencing actual pain from actual accidents.
 
The jury found in favor of the defendant.
 
King v. Greathouse. The plaintiff visited the defendant chiropractor due to lower back pain. After the defendant performed a cerebrovascular assessment, the plaintiff allegedly reported nausea and dizziness. The defendant remained by the plaintiff's side for six seconds, after which the plaintiff fainted (syncopy), fell off the examination table, and landed face down on the floor, allegedly suffering a permanent spinal cord injury.
 
The defense asserted that the standard of care was not breached because the plaintiff only reported temporary nausea, which cleared up immediately. According to the defense the plaintiff's injury was not foreseeable because the defendant did not know that the plaintiff had a congenitally narrow spinal cord, as well as preexisting degenerative disc disease. Moreover, the defense claimed that the plaintiff's spinal cord injury more likely resulted from a trauma that occurred six weeks earlier, when the plaintiff hit his butt on the bottom of a swimming pool after dong a "cannon ball" jump.
 
The jury found that the defendant was not negligent.
 
Kroll v. Zolfaghari. Haylee Kroll, age 15 at the time of trial, was allegedly born with an enterovirus infection, contracted from her mother at birth, the late diagnosis of which resulted in brain, liver, and kidney damage in the child.  The mother's amniotic sac had ruptured weeks before delivery, and the mother had a fever at the time of Haylee's birth.
 
Although the infant was placed in the neonatal intensive care unit, the doctors did not diagnose and treat the viral infection in time to prevent the damage.
 
The jury returned a $4.3M verdict in favor of the plaintiff.
 
Cuppy v. Surgical Professionals. An appendectomy patient who had been taking the anti-coagulant Coumadin (due to a prior heart valve replacement) died after the attending surgeon allegedly overlooked internal bleeding before completing the operation.
 
The plaintiff also alleged that the physician failed to obtain informed consent for emergency surgery, and that the patient's acute symptoms had subsided at the tiem fo the surgery decision because the plaintiff did not in fact have appendicitis.
 
The plaintiff also alleged that the physician over-prescribed Lovenox (a form of Heparin, another anti-coagulant) for DVT prophylaxis, and that the physician did not appropriately respond to the patient's deteriorating condition.
 
The jury returned a verdict in favor of the defendants.
 
Pullin v. Team Physicians. The defendant suffered from right ventricular dysfunction, and she eventually died of right ventricular failure. According to the plaintiff, the decedent's condition could have been and should have been easily diagnosed with an echocardiogram during her 20 hours in the intensive care unit (ICU), and if diagnosed and followed the condition could have been resolved with thrombolytic therapy.
 
The defense asserted that the patient was stable, and even improving, until moments before her collapse, and never met the critical care guidelines for hemodynamic instability or shock, and therefore the standard of care did not require thrombolytic therapy.
 
The jury found in favor of the plaintiff.
 
CVN is continuing to expand its Medical Malpractice Litigation Video Library. Purchase online access to the entire collection for just $59 per month.

Punitives Awarded in Alterman v. Zep Construction Trial

 | Submit to Digg digg it | Submit to Reddit reddit | Add to delicious delicious | Submit to StumbleUpon StumbleUpon | Share on Facebook Facebook | Share on Twitter Twitter | Share on LinkedIn LinkedIn 

Mitchel Chusid in Alterman v. Zep trial

The jury in Alterman v. Zep Construction awarded punitive damages against both defendants: $100,000 against Zep Construction, and $50,000 against Traffic Control Products.  

The jury found that both defendants' actions had been unreasonably motivated by desire for financial gain.  The jury polled 6-0 in favor of the verdict in the punitive damages phase.

CVN webcast the entire Alterman v. Zep Construction trial live.

 


Multi-Million Dollar Verdict in Alterman v. Zep Construction

 | Submit to Digg digg it | Submit to Reddit reddit | Add to delicious delicious | Submit to StumbleUpon StumbleUpon | Share on Facebook Facebook | Share on Twitter Twitter | Share on LinkedIn LinkedIn 

Alterman v. Zep Construction Verdict

The jury in Alterman v. Zep Construction awarded the plaintiff approximately $4.5 million in compensatory damages, $4M of which was for Tyler Brashear's loss of his father.

The jury assigned 65% negligence to Zep Construction; 30% negligence to Traffic Control Products, and 5% negligence to Pablo Merlos, the driver of the truck.

The jury also found by clear and convincing evidence that punitive damages were warranted against both Zep Construction and Traffic Control Products.  

As a result, the punitive damages phase of the trial will begin tomorrow (Thursday, February 25th) at 9:30am Eastern Time.

CVN will continue to webcast the Alterman v. Zep Construction trial video live

 


Closings in Kuhnke v. Alfa Laval Live Webcast

 | Submit to Digg digg it | Submit to Reddit reddit | Add to delicious delicious | Submit to StumbleUpon StumbleUpon | Share on Facebook Facebook | Share on Twitter Twitter | Share on LinkedIn LinkedIn 

Judge Charles Kahn speaks to the jury in Kuhnke v. Alfa Laval and General ElectricJudge Charles F. Kahn, Jr., informs the jury that the presentation of evidence will be completed today, and then closing arguments will begin this afternoon, in Kuhnke v Alfa Laval

 CVN is covering this asbestos-mesothelioma trial live. 

UPDATE 1: Judge Kahn is instructing the jury prior to opening arguments.  UPDATE 2: The case settled during closing arguments.

Judge Kahn instructs the jury in Kuhnke v. Alfa Laval
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 

Traffic Control Products Closing Statement in Alterman v. Zep

 | Submit to Digg digg it | Submit to Reddit reddit | Add to delicious delicious | Submit to StumbleUpon StumbleUpon | Share on Facebook Facebook | Share on Twitter Twitter | Share on LinkedIn LinkedIn 

Aram Megerian, representing Traffic Control Products, began his opening statement by asserting that "Pablo Merlos was the sole cause of this accident because he was not paying attention for at least 10.5 seconds before [the accident.]" He did virtually nothing for those 10.5 seconds. Megerian then counted to ten seconds, "One-one-thousand, Two-one-thousand..."

According to Megerian, the truck driver did not apply his brakes until the very last second. "After hitting James Brashear's car, and 10 other vehicles, the truck traveled another 200 feet." Megerian said there was "no doubt" that the truck was traveling at 70 miles per hour.

Mejerian said that the truck driver "was given more than enough warning, and he chose to ignore every one of those warnings." First, there was a "construction ahead" sign, approximately 2 miles before the construction. "He did not turn off his cruise control. He did not become more alert."

Megerian urged the jury not to allocate any damages to Traffic Control Products (TCP) because TCP was not responsible for safety at the time of the accident, and did not plan the rolling roadblock, even if one TCP employee participated in the rolling roadblock.

But in any case, Mejerian urged that Tyler Brashear would be more than adequately compensated by $700K-$750K, rather than the plaintiff's suggestion of $500K/year for 60+ years, which would be more than $30M.  Houses cost $250K, said Mejerian; cars cost $20K. 

Defense attorney for Traffic Control Products Aram Mejerian 


Zep Construction's Closing Argument in Alterman v. Zep

 | Submit to Digg digg it | Submit to Reddit reddit | Add to delicious delicious | Submit to StumbleUpon StumbleUpon | Share on Facebook Facebook | Share on Twitter Twitter | Share on LinkedIn LinkedIn 

Defense attorney Greg Giannuzzi, representing Zep Construction, challenged the plaintiff's characterization of events.

Giannuzzi began by challenging the credibility of the plaintiff's expert witness, and denying the appropriateness of punitive damages based on a gross negligence standard.

"There cannot be any question that there was a sign," said Giannuzzi, naming three witnesses who testified to seeing blinking lights and/or a sign. Further, said Giannuzzi, there was no criticism of the signage by the Florida DOT, nor of the prior rolling roadblocks.

Giannuzzi argued that there is no difference between a rolling barricade and a rolling roadblock, or a rolling blockade.

But, said Giannuzzi, according to the plaintiff's theory, there was no signage, there was no construction zone. So the truck driver should have stopped, just as if there had been any obstruction in the road, such as due to a fender bender, or slowed traffic due to road debris or a patrol car on the shoulder.

"This rolling roadblock did not change the traffic laws for [the truck driver]," said Giannuzzi. "You could have elephants crossing the road. It doesn't matter what's there. He was still required to stop."

Greg Giannuzzi's closing argument in Alterman v Zep Construction 

Alterman v. Zep Construction is being webcast live by CVN


All Posts