There was a clear violation from the basic standards of medical care.
Those departures from good medical care caused this woman's blindness.
The defense refused to acknowledge this fact for over two years.
They fought this case tooth and nail.
They made us conduct lengthy question and answer sessions of everyone involved, known legally as depositions.
My experts confirmed that the eye doctor committed malpractice.
My experts confirmed that the ophthalmologist's malpractice was a direct cause of the patient going blind.
During each settlement conference with the judge, the defense kept delaying and claimed that they had not yet had an opportunity to conference this matter with the insurance company to decide what their settlement posture would be.
The judge gave them an ultimatum.
If they did not have an answer at the next settlement conference, she was going to send us out for jury selection immediately.
When we returned for our final settlement conference, the defense attorney finally had an answer.
They were willing to negotiate.
This is a typical defense posture in an attempt to limit liability.
After I again presented the facts of our case to the judge and explained that my client was now permanently blind in one eye, the defense attorney chimed in and said to me “What's the big deal? She still has one good eye in which to see.”
That caused me to flip out.
I was furious.
I started yelling at the defense attorney.
He didn't get it.
It was not until my outburst that this defense lawyer finally acknowledged that maybe my client's vision loss was more significant than he originally portrayed it to be.
To learn even more, I invite you to watch the quick video below...