Tag: Verdicts

  • Social Inflation’s Impact on Jury Verdicts

    Social Inflation’s Impact on Jury Verdicts

    Social Inflation’s Impact on Jury Verdicts in Healthcare Litigation

    Our guests wrote in the Journal on Emerging Issues in Litigation: “These outsize awards are often driven by myriad factors including sympathetic jurors, societal conceptions about income and wealth of corporations, the use of emotion-driven ‘Reptile Theory’ tactics by plaintiff attorneys, the media spotlight on ‘bad apple’ physicians, and numerous other social factors. A new factor that influences elevated jury verdicts is the increasing volume of information—whether true or false—that is exchanged on social media platforms.”

    Podcast on jury verdictsListen to my interview with Hall Booth Smith P.C. attorneys Sandra Cianflone, Samantha Myers, and Lindsay Nishan, each of whom represents members of the healthcare industry, as they discuss what drives large verdict and what attorneys should consider in mitigating the effects of this phenomenon.

    In keeping with tradition, we may have strayed a bit from the topic. One guest’s Aunt Lulu made an appearance. It turns out Covid lockdowns may have produced more enthusiastic jurors. And I added another reason why writing and podcasting, and not the practice of law, was a better career path for me. (Apparently lawyers aren’t supposed to laugh in people’s faces. Noted.)

    This podcast is the audio companion to the Journal on Emerging Issues in Litigation, a collaborative project between HB Litigation Conferences and the Fastcase legal research family, which includes Full Court Press, Law Street Media, and Docket Alarm. The podcast itself is a joint effort between HB and our friends at Law Street Media. If you have comments or wish to participate in one our projects, or want to tell me how much  you learned from Sandie, Sam, Lindsay, or Aunt Lulu,  please drop me a note at Editor@LitigationConferences.com.

    Tom Hagy
    Litigation Enthusiast
    Host of the Emerging Litigation Podcast

    Jurors’ perceptions of big corporations, insurance companies, drug companies, physicians and other healthcare providers is increasingly colored by TV and social media. 


    The same is true for people’s understanding of the practice law or medicine, which may be as wrong as it is immovable. “Social inflation” refers to rising litigation costs and the resulting higher insurance payouts which drive up the cost of insurance. The phrase has taken on new meanings as it is used in the general press. To some it means tort reform rollbacks, litigation funding, and is most often seen in references to so-called “nuclear” jury verdicts, i.e., awards that exceed $10 million.

    What factors contribute to these jury awards?

  • Mega Verdict Threat: Tackling Damages Early Can Mitigate Outsized Jury Awards

    Mega Verdict Threat: Tackling Damages Early Can Mitigate Outsized Jury Awards

    Mega Verdict Threat: Tackling Damages Early Can Mitigate Outsized Jury Awards

    Abstract

    Why have medical malpractice verdicts in recent years reached such astronomical new heights? In this article the author addresses several of the factors that drive juries to return such punishing awards, discussing the unexpected impact of tort reform, the role of life-care planners and economists in determining damages, the ramifications of litigation financing, plaintiff attorneys’ utilization of the so-called reptile theory, and the influence of how the media reports on these verdicts. The author offers practical methods for defense attorneys involved in this litigation and insights that will benefit attorneys in any type of tort matter.

    Author

    Sandra M. Cianflone (scianflone@hallboothsmith.com) is an attorney at law firm Hall Booth Smith, P.C., whose practice primarily focuses on medical malpractice.

    About
    The Journal on Emerging Issues in Litigation is a co-production of HB, Fastcase, and Law Street Media. You can also hear the complementary (and complimentary) Emerging Litigation Podcast wherever podcasts appear. For questions, contact Tom Hagy, Editor in Chief, at Editor@LitigationConferences.com.

    Loading Viewer…

  • The Mega Verdict Trend in Healthcare Litigation with Sandra Cianflone

    The Mega Verdict Trend in Healthcare Litigation with Sandra Cianflone

    The Mega Verdict Trend in Healthcare Litigation with Sandra Cianflone

    Joining me to discuss this high-stakes litigation is Sandra M. Cianflone of Hall Booth Smith, P.C.Sandiecounsels and defends hospitals, physicians, nurses and institutional employees in a broad spectrum of catastrophic injury and medical malpractice cases. She received her Juris Doctorate from Pace University School of Law and her undergraduate degree from Fairleigh Dickinson University.

    This podcast is the audio companion to the Journal on Emerging Issues in Litigation, a collaborative project between HB Litigation Conferences and the Fastcase legal research family, which includes Full Court Press, Law Street Media, Docket Alarm and, most recently, Judicata. If you have comments or wish to participate in one our projects, or want to tell me how insightful and informative Sandie is, please drop me a note at Editor@LitigationConferences.com. This podcast is based on an article she wrote for the forthcoming issues of the Journal.

    Note that in my introduction I have created the phrase “badly wrong,” which is, itself, badly wrong.  Listen to the bitter end when Sandie and I discuss working from home, and how we really feel about family and co-workers.  Feel free to scold me at the email address provided. I hope you enjoy the interview and this professional’s practical insights into defending healthcare providers.

    Tom Hagy

    Damage awards against physicians, hospitals, and other healthcare providers have been coming in bigger and bigger, with juries awarding more than $20 million in a string of cases that should send chills down the spines of defendants and counsel. 

    What are the factors behind this trend? Besides the severe (or even alarming)  nature of the harm alleged, what is fueling these mega verdicts?

    What can defense attorneys do, knowing they are facing a well-organized, well-funded plaintiffs bar?

    For that matter, what can defense attorneys learn from their opponents?

    What strategies can defense employ early in the life of a case?