accent, apparently a Basque. After giving in a nut shell his C.V., experience and qualifications as a witness in cases considered post-traumatic, he revealed that he had ample experience on the matter. He indeed had served for years the Veterans Administration and Social Security Administration as a provider of second opinions in disputed cases where there was chronic disability claimed. He admitted to still provide those second opinions for various Insurance companies (‘IMEs’ or Independent Medical Evaluations), though with his reports often meeting disgruntled personal injury lawyers and claimants, some extremely upset, he said he was cutting back afraid for his safety, already having felt ‘stocked’ a few times. He even admitted to having been reported for one such case -just as bad for his safety- to the State Health Department as ‘misconduct.’
At any rate, the lawyer for the insurance company asked him about the testimony just heard of the four experts for the plaintiff. He categorically stated that the event described as an ‘accident’ (one vehicle gently pushing the other with no objective car damage to either), that there was no likelihood of medical consequence to any occupant. The pains described by the orthopedist and by the chiropractor, he discarded quite vehemently, as subjective and inadmissible towards any degree of ‘big recovery.’
As an unexpected, nearly comedic stunt probably well rehearsed previously between he and the insurance attorney, both of these got permission from the judge to ‘act’ in front of the jurors an unexpected ‘hit-from-behind’ scene between moving vehicles: A low speed action display between lawyer and expert witness, each sitting on a free rolling office chair, one behind the other and both facing the same direction right in front of the jurors and judge. The lawyer sat on the chair up front and the doctor-Basque in the chair behind, both sitting still. Then the doctor rolled with his feet his chair forward and hit with his hands ‘pretty strongly’ the back of the lawyer’s chair propelling it, unimpeded, a few feet forward. It was quite impressive, and it brought a gentle smile to the judge’s face and even frank laughter to several jurors as the plaintiff’s attorney screamed bloody murder and called it “Theatrics! Unacceptable in a courtroom and of no relevance to what happens with moving motor vehicles.”
Back in the witness cubicle and answering the questions of the lawyer for the insurance company, the doctor said of the common, incipient cataracts shown by the eye doctor and of the MRI UBOs shown by the Asian doc that he saw them all the time in regular, uninjured people, with no consequence… The daring Basque was vigorously crossed examined but he held on to his guns very calmly, sounding believable.
A dead silence followed at that point in judge Good’s courtroom. They still had time for the closing arguments that Tuesday in late afternoon.
Their closing words did not bring to the judge’s or to the jurors’ ears anything new that they hadn’t heard already; the point of the triviality ‘of the hit’ in the insurance company’s opinion appeared clear; and so did seem equally clear the plaintiff’s complaints-with-medical-things-plus-experts-support. The judge called the day.
Judge Good had overnight in his mind most likely more worries than any juror in the case. He was sure of what his decision would be if it was just he to deliberate and decide. And he was sure most jurors probably thought like him. But he knew that a simple negative decision for the claimant would not be well seen by the plaintiff’s lawyer, or by most personal injury lawyers with their known weight in court rulings, assignment of judges to cases, one’s reputation of being ’pro-this’ or ‘pro-that,’ etc. It would all be pasted on the Internet within hours. He hardly slept that night.
Back in court Wednesday morning he was to give his impartial speech to the jurors… but then, after encouraging them to consider every piece of evidence carefully, he told them that they were not to rule on whether the claimant’s symptoms were or not a true medical issue, a truth or a fabrication, but solely on whether the impact from behind was the responsible cause of the reported complaints verifiable or not. Within five minutes he sent them to deliberate and he withdrew to his chambers.
The judge told his personal law clerk not to disturb him till the jurors came out… or, till HE came out. But then, 15 minutes later, he came out himself barging out of the door, and startled her out of the coffee mug she was holding. He then asked her to call both attorneys for each case and ask them to meet with him behind closed doors.
Both lawyers, each with an associate, were at the judge’s chambers within five minutes. The claimant-lady and the insurance company representative were told to stay outside.
“The issue is that I am afraid each juror, ALL jurors, are in agreement with my own feeling of a totally negative judgment for the claimant,” the judge said.
“So, if it is as clear to you as it is to me -and probably to my opponent’s fear- why don’t we just let things roll and wait for the jurors to come out and hear what they decide,” said the attorney for the insurance company, himself confident in winning…
“Because if it is so decisive and clear, it may ruffle some feathers in the legal and judicial world with some uncomfortable repercussions” said the judge.
“But that’s what we chance when we bring a dispute to a courtroom,” countered the same lawyer. “If that is the case, uncomfortable repercussions will be only for you, judge. For my client and for me it will only be the anticipated, just outcome”
The claimant’s lawyer in the meantime remained silent, not saying a word or showing a facial expression of surprise, approval or disapproval.
A full minute of a soundless pause went by when each lawyer had left the judges’ chambers and went to the hallway where they were seen talking to their respective clients, and then on their cell phones, perhaps to others in their respective offices. When both returned, the insurance lawyer said: “Do you have a suggestion, judge, to intervene at this point, asking us, both parties to agree to some sort of settlement, to which we did not agree before we got here?”
“Seeing this trial as a waste of time, I had pressed you guys before to reach a settlement by any means, but you would not agree to conditions, demands or even to a face-saving figure.”
“My client” said the insurance lawyer, “was, and remains, very adamant about not giving a cent for a personal injury for which there is no hard evidence. After talking to them, they remain that way.”
“And your side,” the judge said addressing himself to the claimant’s lawyer, “still demands a million dollars? After all the facts and evidence have been laid out clearly in front of the seven jurors?… I am afraid they are also going to give you nothing.”
….. “Well, yes, after conferring with my client, the lady is willing to settle for a lower figure,” said her lawyer.
“For a MUCH lower figure?” asked the judge emphasizing the ‘much’ word.
…. “Yes…….. your honor.”
“Does each of you have the power to negotiate the figure between the two of you right now, with or without me present? And if that is the case, can I interrupt the jurors in their deliberations and tell them to pause and wait for us to get back to them?”
Both lawyers assented. Thus the judge went to the jurors’ room and passed the word that a settlement was likely and that THEY probably would not have to reach a decision, ANY decision.
After about 20 minutes Judge Good heard from the lawyers that they had agreed to a settlement for 1/2 of the initial demand, for $500,000 to be paid immediately to the ‘injured’ lady. As it is standard, she would get of course only 2/3 of that, minus ‘the disbursements’ her lawyer claimed [that, added to the 1/3 of the cost of the tests she had (X-Rays,
