We believe sharing knowledge helps improve our profession. If you have questions about anything we’ve written, reach out. Discussing concepts helps us all hone our skills.
Past and future wage loss. What was and would have been versus what is and will be. Significant wage loss can drive case value. In a best-case scenario, your seriously injured client is a high-wage earner with indisputable wage loss. But how often is wage loss more nuanced? When wage loss is not crystal clear, it’s time to scrutinize the details.
On Thursday, May 3, I met with Ms. B___ and her daughter. Ms. B___’s arm, specifically her radius, was shattered when she took a bad fall. Surgery, a plate, ten screws. I took notes as she told me how she could not work at the hospital for now and how difficult it was to care of herself. On Friday, May 4, I had a court appearance in Redwood City.
The lawyers sat there, stunned. The doctor sat across from them, giving the couple time to absorb the information. Their three-year-old daughter’s cough and fever? Not pneumonia. Cancer. A tumor. A big one, crushing the little girl’s right lung. Rare – a few hundred reported cases. And tough odds. Chemo, a surgery, more chemo. A year-long process and the hope that it doesn’t recur… because recurrence with the particular cancer does not end well.
The lawyer reviewed the material from defendants in the federal action. Rule 26 mandatory disclosures were wonderful. They kicked the case off and made federal cases much easier on the discovery front. Wouldn’t it be wonderful if California state court had something similar?
The mediator, an older male retired judge, spoke directly to the lawyer, ignoring the lawyer’s boss. The mediator did this despite the fact lawyer’s boss was without question the power in the room. While a long time ago, it still should not have happened. It was so off base it took the lawyer some time to recognize the behavior for what it was. The mediator, ignoring the lawyer’s boss, talked past her because the mediator saw her as insignificant. She was a woman, after all.
The lawyer listened. The situation had gone off the wire. Not fatal. Also not good. How had it happened? Ultimately the lawyer owned it. And within leader ownership, it was important to determine what led to the issue. Process failure, delegation failure, communication failure? All of these? None? Time to dig in, grab those involved, and conduct an After-Action Review.
The lawyer looked at the butcher block, counting up the incidents the lawyer and the witness had discussed. “I’m sorry – that’s, let’s see – one, two, three, four, five collisions involving your truck driver in the 18 months before he runs over a pedestrian in a crosswalk?” The jury glowered at the witness. The butcher block exhibit was having its effect.
The lawyer reviewed the material from defendants in the federal action. Rule 26 mandatory disclosures were wonderful. They kicked the case off and made federal cases much easier on the discovery front. Wouldn’t it be wonderful if California state court had something similar?
