Just Verdicts

“I thought that was insulting,” Todd Hollis says of a defense offer of $500,000. His client agreed, and Todd went “guns banging” to trial. The case involved a woman who was killed when the driver of a rental car, who had a suspended license, hit her head-on. In this breakdown with host Brendan Lupetin, Todd describes how the rental car company acknowledged that 15% of their 525,000 annual rentals potentially go to drivers without valid licenses. When the defense argued that the legislature doesn’t require electronic background scans, Todd argued that the legislature does say that a rental car company can’t rent to anyone who they know is incompetent to drive. Tune in to hear how the jury responded with “millions” in punitive damages.Learn More and Connect☑️ Todd Hollis | LinkedIn☑️ Todd J. Hollis Law on Facebook | YouTube☑️ Brendan Lupetin | LinkedIn☑️ Lupetin & Unatin, LLC☑️ Connect: Facebook | LinkedIn | YouTube☑️ Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | YouTubeEpisode PreviewTodd Hollis describes “jumping” from criminal defense after a painful moment waiting for a client to pay him $200 that he would use to buy Christmas gifts for his son. After a humbling experience selling hotdogs for a year, and after his daughter was born, he switched to the plaintiff side.In the Everson case, Todd sued a rental car company after it rented a car to a driver with a suspended license. That driver killed a woman after he crossed into the opposite lane and struck her vehicle head-on.The rental car company charged drivers under 25 an additional $25 per day because they're "higher risk" but did nothing to ensure these drivers were actually licensed or safe to drive.Todd’s theme in the case was community safety: How many rental cars on the road have been rented to a driver who is not legally safe or competent?li...

An unwitnessed fall, a client with prior back problems, 10 years of unemployment, and over $5 million in disability benefits already paid – this case had every reason to fail. Yet trial partners Brendan Lupetin and Greg Unatin secured a record-setting $7.25 million verdict for the former chief of pain management at UPMC Hamot. In this case breakdown, Brendan and Greg reveal the strategies that shaped their victory: exposing UPMC's betrayal of their client through a series of emails, levering focus group insights to develop their winning liability theory, and highlighting their client’s loss of his passion in life: being a doctor.Learn More and Connect☑️ Greg Unatin | LinkedIn☑️ Brendan Lupetin | LinkedIn☑️ Lupetin & Unatin, LLC☑️ Connect: Facebook | LinkedIn | YouTube☑️ Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | YouTubeEpisode PreviewTheir client fell on snow-covered ice while exiting a UPMC surgery center through a required after-hours door, suffering severe back and shoulder injuries that ended his career as chief of pain management at UPMC Hamot.The team strategically navigated the issue of their client’s prior back problems by explaining to the jury that he’d recovered from a spine surgery; the issue at trial was his shoulder injury: “I think that that ultimately played just fine, and we really made it all about the shoulder,” Brendan says.The attorneys dropped their theory about a code violation relating to a defective step after focus groups showed that jurors cared more about the snow and ice issue.Their winning liability theory became simple: When UPMC directed staff to exit a specific door, they had a duty to ensure that door was safely maintained.A trail of emails revealed UPMC's corporate betrayal: praising their client as their "golden boy" when he was profitable, then ghosting him after his injuries...

A pregnant woman’s blood pressure drops dangerously. An obstetrician never picks up the phone. A “Keystone Cop” situation that tragically leads to the death of an unborn baby. Tracey Dellacona and Caleb Walker combined forces to secure $25 million after a surgeon missed their client’s preeclampsia diagnosis. Tune in as host Brendan Lupetin explores the case with the team: Tracey, a nurse turned med-mal attorney who founded Dellacona Law Firm, and Caleb, litigator and appellate partner at McArthur Law Firm. Tune in for their insights about managing voluminous medical records, asking for non-economic damages, and developing collaborative law firm partnerships.Learn More and Connect☑️ Caleb Walker | LinkedIn☑️ McArthur Law Firm on LinkedIn | Facebook | YouTube☑️ Tracey Dellacona | LinkedIn☑️ Dellacona Law Firm ☑️ Brendan Lupetin | LinkedIn☑️ Lupetin & Unatin, LLC☑️ Connect: Facebook | LinkedIn | YouTube☑️ Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | YouTubeReady to refer or collaborate on med mal, medical negligence, and catastrophic injury cases? Visit our attorney referral page at PAMedMal.com/Refer. We handle cases in Pennsylvania and across the United States.Produced and Powered by LawPods

Tim Wojton was prepared to tell jurors that a skilled nursing facility violated six different standards of care, leading to a patient’s death from hypovolemic shock. Then he realized that there was really just one. “I thought, wait a minute, understaffing isn't just another breach. Understaffing is the original sin.” In this case breakdown, Tim and trial partner Matt Scanlon describe to host Brendan Lupetin how they tracked down former employees, turned brutal cross-examination moments into powerful jury connections, and used a simple tree analogy to help jurors understand corporate negligence. Jurors awarded $750,000.Learn More and Connect☑️ Matt Scanlon | LinkedIn☑️ Tim Wojton | LinkedIn☑️ Scanlon & Wojton Attorneys at Law on Facebook☑️ Brendan Lupetin | LinkedIn☑️ Lupetin & Unatin, LLC☑️ Connect: Facebook | LinkedIn | YouTube☑️ Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | YouTubeReady to refer or collaborate on med mal, medical negligence, and catastrophic injury cases? Visit our attorney referral page at PAMedMal.com/Refer. We handle cases in Pennsylvania and across the United States.Produced and Powered by LawPods

Did the primary care physician cause his patient’s death from an undiagnosed pulmonary embolism? A trial court said no, on summary judgment. In representing the patient’s widow on appeal, Patrick Sullivan realized that he had to “scrap everything and start from square one.” In this case breakdown with host Brendan Lupetin, Patrick describes how he reframed the case even as he faced hurdles: The patient never complained of chest pain (pulmonary embolism's key symptom) and the defense characterized him as an alcoholic. Patrick reveals how he exposed the PCP’s behavior – putting business interests above his patient’s care – and how he strategically ordered his witnesses for maximum impact. The jury responded, awarding $3.5 million.Learn More and Connect☑️ Patrick Sullivan ☑️ Dallas Hartman on LinkedIn | Facebook☑️ Brendan Lupetin | LinkedIn☑️ Lupetin & Unatin, LLC☑️ Connect: Facebook | LinkedIn | YouTube☑️ Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | YouTubeEpisode PreviewPatrick Sullivan represented a widow whose husband died from a pulmonary embolism after his primary care physician cleared him for surgery without discussing or noting his history of blood clots on the surgical clearance form.The trial court let the primary care physician out on causation at summary judgment; Patrick got that decision overturned on appeal and then sued the PCP again.The jury found the PCP negligent, awarding $3.5 million in wrongful death damages and assigning zero comparative negligence to the patient.Patrick emphasizes constant learning through reading trial strategy books, getting in the arena early and often, and maintaining genuine passion for clients.Ready to refer or collaborate on med mal, medical negligence, and catastrophic injury cases? Visit our attorney referral page at PAMedMal.com/Refer. We handle cases in Pennsylvania and across the United States.Produced and Powered by LawPods

Doug Olcott believes his 15 years as a defense attorney gives him a “leg up” representing plaintiffs. It did in his case against a snow tubing park, where his client suffered a catastrophic injury. “I think I have a better understanding as to what the defendants are going to do and then being able to anticipate how they're going to approach a game because, quite frankly, in my 35 years doing this, not a lot has changed on the defense bar side,” he tells host Brendan Lupetin. In this case breakdown, Doug explains how he overcame a signed waiver, exposed defense contradictions, and challenged an expert witness who said his client “lacked common sense.” The result: a $693,000 verdict, Somerset County's largest in at least 20 years: Learn More and Connect☑️ Doug Olcott | LinkedIn☑️ Edgar Snyder & Associates on LinkedIn | Facebook | YouTube☑️ Brendan Lupetin | LinkedIn☑️ Lupetin & Unatin, LLC☑️ Connect: Facebook | LinkedIn | YouTube☑️ Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | YouTubeEpisode PreviewDoug’s client was attending a children's birthday party at Hidden Valley's snow tubing park when her tube accelerated down the hill and launched off the back of a runout embankment.She suffered a T12 burst fracture requiring surgical placement of two rods across five levels of her thoracic spine, along with a pelvic fracture and other lesser fractures.After the court granted summary judgment on negligence claims based on a signed waiver, the case proceeded to trial on recklessness only—a significantly higher burden requiring proof of intentional or reckless disregard for known risks.Doug and co-counsel Jerry Hutton proved recklessness by establishing three critical failures: no workers stationed at the bottom to stop tubes, no deceleration mats deployed, and no barrier to prevent riders from going over the embankment.The defense's own policies and procedures contradicted their trial testimony—interrogatory answers identified specific safety protocols that witnesses couldn't verify had been followed on the day of the...

John Gismondi has never said to an associate, “You’re just going to work as my caddy for a few years, and then we're going to start to give you your own cases.” That goes for his son JJ. Just four months after JJ passed the bar, he joined his father in representing a 60-year-old woman who suffered a ruptured aneurysm due to a missed diagnosis. In this case breakdown with host Brendan Lupetin, the father-son team reveal how they faced a critical ruling that prevented an ex-defendant’s testimony from being read in – “the tipping point,” as John describes it. “It kept JJ and me up until literally two o'clock.” Tune in to hear how they made it over the tipping point to secure a verdict split equally between the wife's pain and suffering and the husband's loss of consortium.Learn More and Connect☑️ John Gismondi | LinkedIn☑️ JJ Gismondi | LinkedIn☑️ The Law Offices of Gismondi & Associates on LinkedIn | Facebook | YouTube☑️ Brendan Lupetin | LinkedIn☑️ Lupetin & Unatin, LLC☑️ Connect: Facebook | LinkedIn | YouTube☑️ Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | YouTubeEpisode PreviewThe case involved a 60-year-old woman whose abdominal aortic aneurysm was missed by a radiologist and eventually ruptured.The case was tried in Mifflin County, where court personnel informed them that "this was only the second civil trial of any type that had gone to a jury in 12 years."The crisis day defendants who delayed transferring the patient and getting her to surgery settled before trial, leaving only the case against the radiologist and his practice.The defense radiologist dropped his cross-claim against the vascular surgeon on the morning of trial—a strategic move to prevent the Gismondis from reading in favorable deposition testimony from the vascular...

When an insurance company told an injured driver to “take it or leave it,” the team at Janssen Law took the company to trial. In this case breakdown with host Brendan Lupetin, Bob Janssen, Ryan Froelich, and Bob’s son Zach Janssen explain that the insurer offered $45,000 – while their client had $93,000 in medical bills alone. They faced challenges, including a conservative Green Bay market and a client who didn’t have surgery and continued to work full-time. But they focused on her chronic pain and leveraged innovative trial strategies, like Ryan's memorable analogy to a grocery store visit gone wrong. The jury awarded $694,500.Learn More and Connect☑️ Bob Janssen☑️ Ryan Froelich | LinkedIn ☑️ Zach Janssen☑️ Janssen Law on LinkedIn | Facebook | YouTube☑️ Brendan Lupetin | LinkedIn☑️ Lupetin & Unatin, LLC☑️ Connect: Facebook | LinkedIn | YouTube☑️ Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | YouTubeEpisode PreviewThe Janssen Law team’s client suffered a meniscal tear when she was rear-ended while driving her son on a snowy Wisconsin day.Progressive Insurance paid their $100,000 limits, but Wadena Insurance offered only $45,000 against the client's $500,000 underinsured motorist coverage.The defense contested liability even in a clear rear-end collision, creating opportunities for the plaintiff's team to highlight their failure to accept responsibility.Two treating doctors...

“Have you seen this record?” Sam Martin asked trial partner Nathan Werksman. “This is unbelievable.” That record? "So far, there is no plan.” It became the theory of liability that the team leveraged against a surgeon whose 23-year-old patient died from abdominal compartment syndrome. Host Brendan Lupetin explores how the former Stanford Law School classmates navigated their case in a state where wrongful death damages are severely limited. Sam, an associate at Patrick Malone & Associates, and Nathan, a partner at Merson Law, combined their complementary skills—Sam's meticulous case analysis and Nathan's commanding trial presence—to secure a $2.3 million verdict.Learn More and Connect☑️ Nathan Werksman | LinkedIn☑️ Merson Law on LinkedIn | Instagram | Facebook | YouTube☑️ Sam Martin | LinkedIn☑️ Patrick Malone & Associates on LinkedIn | YouTube | Facebook☑️ Brendan Lupetin | LinkedIn☑️ Lupetin & Unatin, LLC☑️ Connect: Facebook | LinkedIn | YouTube☑️ Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | YouTubeReady to refer or collaborate on med mal, medical negligence, and catastrophic injury cases? Visit

When a 900-pound flail mower crushed a Delaware Department of Transportation mechanic, the defense claimed it was his fault and insisted his return to work proved minimal injury. When Dave Kwass sued the mower manufacturer, he exposed defense lies and revealed missing evidence. He also took jurors on a journey through the company’s history – including the “bizarre moment” when it rejected a design modification that would have made the mower safer because it would have increased repair costs. As Dave explains to host Brendan Lupetin, he set up the “narrative inevitability" that the flawed machine would injure someone. “The ‘Jaws’ music has been playing,” Brendan observes, “and they know that the attack is inevitable.” The jury awarded Dave’s client $11 million.Learn More and Connect☑️ Dave Kwass | LinkedIn☑️ Saltz Mongeluzzi Bendesky on LinkedIn | Instagram | Facebook | YouTube☑️ Brendan Lupetin | LinkedIn☑️ Lupetin & Unatin, LLC☑️ Connect: Facebook | LinkedIn | YouTube☑️ Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | YouTubeReady to refer or collaborate on med mal, medical negligence, and catastrophic injury cases? Visit our attorney referral page at PAMedMal.com/Refer. We handle cases in Pennsylvania and across the United States.Produced and Powered by LawPods

In the second Trial Nugget devoted to punitive damages, host Brendan Lupetin breaks down Goretzka v. West Penn Power, in which a woman was fatally electrocuted when a power line fell on her. Brendan reads key moments from the punitive section of Shanin Specter’s closing argument, including when he reframed West Penn Power’s $244 million net worth. Shanin showed the jury a $10 bill and suggested that the appropriate way of considering damages would be to say, “‘What would it be if it were a guy with $10? How much would that be to make him feel it? To make him not do it again?’ And then just do the math on that $244 million.” The jury awarded $109 million. Unpacking Shanin’s strategies, Brendan observes: “One clever point that Shanin pointed out: Whether they're worth $1 or $20 billion, it doesn't matter.”Produced and Powered by LawPods

At Blankingship & Keith, they often say: "There's a smoking gun in every case; just, sometimes, you don't find it." With tenacity and strategy, a firm team found smoking guns in their recent case against a commercial trucking company. The team – Rob Stoney, Chidi James, Barkley Horn, and Matt Tsun – uncovered inspection failures that allowed a truck with inadequate brakes and safety features to be on the road. It collided with their client’s vehicle, causing her life-altering injuries. Listen to this case breakdown with host Brendan Lupetin to learn how they turned a $300,000 insurance policy into a $4.4 million jury verdict.Learn More and Connect☑️ Chidi James | LinkedIn☑️ Barkley Horn | LinkedIn☑️ Matt Tsun | LinkedIn☑️ Rob Stoney | LinkedIn☑️ Blankingship & Keith on LinkedIn | Instagram | X ☑️ Brendan Lupetin | LinkedIn☑️ Lupetin & Unatin, LLC☑️ Connect: Facebook | LinkedIn | YouTube☑️ Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | YouTubeReady...

The hospital had a good policy that would have prevented a 67-year-old woman from being prematurely discharged. Instead, she was discharged and found dead 12 hours later. Host Brendan Lupetin unpacks this wrongful death case with the trial team of Dorothy Dohanics, Carmen Nocera and Ben Cohen. Tune in to hear how Dorothy's meticulous discovery work and Carmen and Ben's strategic courtroom work drove their $5.25 million verdict. Learn More and Connect☑️ Ben Cohen ☑️ Dorothy Dohanics | LinkedIn☑️ Carmen Nocera | LinkedIn☑️ Harry S. Cohen & Associates on LinkedIn | Instagram | Facebook | YouTube☑️ Brendan Lupetin | LinkedIn☑️ Lupetin & Unatin, LLC☑️ Connect: Facebook | LinkedIn | YouTube☑️ Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | YouTubeReady to refer or collaborate on med mal, medical negligence, and catastrophic injury cases? Visit our attorney referral page at PAMedMal.com/Refer. We handle cases in Pennsylvania and across the United States.Produced and Powered by LawPods

In the first of a two-part series about approaches to arguing punitives, host Brendan Lupetin focuses on Mark Lanier's $9 billion verdict against Takeda Pharmaceuticals. Brendan breaks down the three-part strategy that ensured Mark’s success: emphasizing the purpose of punitive damages beyond compensation, empowering jurors to understand their verdict will travel globally within 30 seconds, and making astronomical corporate wealth comprehensible by converting $60 billion into relatable $60,000 scenarios. Come back for the second installment, when Brendan will analyze how Shanin Specter won $109 million from West Penn Power Company in the Goretzka case.Produced and Powered by LawPods.

Host Brendan Lupetin tackles the strategic paradox every trial lawyer faces: how to emphasize your strongest evidence through repetition without annoying jurors who hate lawyers who "say the same thing over and over." Drawing extensively from David Ball's "Theater Tips and Strategies for Jury Trials," Brendan explains the critical distinction between strategic repetition that wins cases and mindless repetition that loses them. He reveals Ball's gold standard for what to repeat—only what you want favorable jurors to say in deliberations—and shares the cautionary tale of a lawyer who said "in the blue Honda Civic southbound on US Interstate Highway number 95" sixty-seven times in a six-day trial, undermining his case's impact.Produced and Powered by LawPods.

When Jordan Strokovsky received a call about a 27-year-old medical assistant who lost his leg at Temple University Hospital, he knew within minutes something wasn't right. In this breakdown of his career-defining $25.9 million verdict in Parks v. Temple University Hospital, Jordan reveals to host Brendan Lupetin how he transformed a damages-only case into one of Philadelphia's largest amputation verdicts. Learn More and Connect☑️ Jordan Strokovsky | LinkedIn | Facebook☑️ Strokovsky LLC on LinkedIn | Facebook☑️ Brendan Lupetin | LinkedIn☑️ Lupetin & Unatin, LLC☑️ Connect: Facebook | LinkedIn | YouTube☑️ Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | YouTubeReady to refer or collaborate on med mal, medical negligence, and catastrophic injury cases? Visit our attorney referral page at PAMedMal.com/Refer. We handle cases in Pennsylvania and across the United States.Produced and Powered by LawPods

While representing a client who lost his foot after relying on his employer’s medical helpline, Helen Lawless and the trial team realized that the helpline did “exactly what it was supposed to do.” And their strategy was born. In this case breakdown with host Brendan Lupetin, Helen explains that the helpline was actually a lucrative business model designed to keep workers from getting proper medical care. Their “constant refrain” to the jury, Helen says, was that the company benefited from the deceptive helpline just as it intended. Ultimately, a Philadelphia jury awarded her client $4.2 million.Learn More and Connect☑️ Helen Lawless | LinkedIn☑️ Kline & Specter on LinkedIn | Instagram | Facebook | YouTube ☑️ Brendan Lupetin | LinkedIn☑️ Lupetin & Unatin, LLC☑️ Connect: Facebook | LinkedIn | YouTube☑️ Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | YouTubeEpisode PreviewHelen reveals how the Workcompvidence company deliberately kept injured workers from seeking proper medical care, monitoring patients but only providing "first aid" advice to avoid recordable workplace injuries.The company used a strategy called "tight management" to reduce "panic factors" that might lead workers to seek proper medical treatment, with nurses representing themselves as part of a doctor's practice.When the construction site job ended, the company "closed" their client's case without informing him, leaving him without care until his foot deteriorated to the point of requiring amputation.The defense claimed they owed no duty to the injured worker, but the jury disagreed, awarding $4.42 million in compensatory damages despite having no offer from the defense before trial.The trial featured detailed testimony about the company's business model that included marketing materials showing how they promised to reduce worker compensation costs for employers.Ready to refer or collaborate on med mal, medical negligence, and catastrophic injury cases? Visit our attorney referral page at...

Host Brendan Lupetin breaks down two powerful psychological principles that can transform your trial strategy: the focusing illusion and the framing effect. Drawing from cognitive research and courtroom experience, Brendan explains that jurors focus on what's presented as most important – and lawyers who don’t control the jurors’ focus leave their case to chance. Using examples from a recent medical malpractice victory involving critical limb ischemia, he demonstrates how deliberate focusing—rather than presenting every available fact—leads to stronger verdicts and more persuasive arguments. Produced and Powered by LawPods.

A $25 million medical malpractice verdict came from strategies most attorneys would reject: omitting economic damages entirely, using minimal medical literature, and framing informed consent to transcend political divides. Katie Bertram and Kieran Murphy of Bertram & Murphy dissect their victory with host Brendan Lupetin. The attorneys reveal how focus groups guided their decision to withhold a $7 million economic loss claim that could have anchored the jury to a lower amount. Tune in for an inside look into their methodical approach to cross-examination that avoided battles over medical literature while exposing expert credibility issues.Learn More and Connect☑️ Katie Bertram | LinkedIn☑️ Kieran Murphy | LinkedIn☑️ Bertram & Murphy on LinkedIn | Facebook | YouTube ☑️ Brendan Lupetin | LinkedIn☑️ Lupetin & Unatin, LLC☑️ Connect: Facebook | LinkedIn | YouTube☑️ Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | YouTubeEpisode PreviewKatie shares her core trial philosophy: Stop trying to convince jurors and instead frame facts in ways they can understand.The team’s $25 million verdict for a cancer patient came after the counterintuitive decision to omit economic damages worth millions, which prevented defense attorneys from nitpicking their client's future earnings.Kieran explains how they proved the lack of informed consent by demonstrating the primary care doctor didn't understand her own electronic medical record system, undermining her claim that she properly communicated with the patient.Rather than presenting complex medical literature in cross-examination, they focus on letting the expert's character reveal itself.Their trial preparation emphasizes...

"We're big believers in looking at cases and trying to drive the value we believe they're worth," says Eric Chaffin about the $130,000 verdict he and Justin Joseph secured when the insurance company offered just $10,000. Host Brendan Lupetin explores how the trial partners transformed a "typical" meniscal tear case into a compelling human story. Using psychodrama techniques and focusing on the emotional impact of the injury, they convinced jurors to look beyond minimal vehicle damage and limited medical treatment to see the true impact on their "quintessential Pittsburgh" beer delivery driver client.Learn More and Connect☑️ Eric Chaffin | LinkedIn | Instagram ☑️ Justin Joseph | LinkedIn | Instagram☑️ Chaffin Luhana on LinkedIn | Instagram | Facebook | YouTube☑️ Brendan Lupetin | LinkedIn☑️ Lupetin & Unatin, LLC☑️ Connect: Facebook | LinkedIn | YouTube☑️ Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | YouTubeEpisode PreviewThe client, a 58-year-old beer delivery driver, was injured when a garbage truck backed into his stopped vehicle, striking his knee against the dash and tearing his meniscus.Despite being an admitted liability case, the defense challenged causation, arguing the meniscal tear was age-related rather than traumatic.The attorneys used psychodrama to help their "stoic Pittsburgher" client better visualize and articulate his experience, strengthening factual and emotional aspects of his testimony.When the defense admitted liability just days before trial, the...