Paula Slaughter gathered a polished, prepared team – starting with co-counsel Sandra Hagen – to represent a 74-year-old man who suffered a stroke seven months after his vehicle was rear-ended. Unpacking the case with host Keith Fuicelli, the team reveal their surgical approach to trial teamwork, including Paula's voir dire method that doesn’t involve questionnaires and Sandra’s meticulous research into the defense expert’s past. After they exposed an unprepared defense and a “Parade of Horribles,” the jury responded with a verdict of $3.2 million.

Learn More and Connect with Colorado Trial Lawyers

☑️ Paula Slaughter

☑️ Sandra Hagen | LinkedIn

☑️ The Wilhite Law Firm on LinkedIn | Instagram | Facebook | X | YouTube

☑️ Keith Fuicelli | LinkedIn

☑️ Fuicelli & Lee Injury Lawyers Website

☑️ Fuicelli & Lee Injury Lawyers on X, Facebook, Instagram, YouTube, and LinkedIn

☑️ Subscribe Apple Podcasts | Spotify | YouTube

Episode Snapshot

1. The team’s client suffered a triple cardioembolic stroke seven months after his vehicle was rear-ended. The crux of the case became whether the crash caused the stroke.
2. Sandra showed that the defense neurologist's opinions were "historically absurd" by walking the jury through his prior cases — including one where he found no concussion after a warehouse dock door fell on a man's head.
3. Sandra and Paula revealed that every single ER systems check — including elder abuse and fall risk — was completed in four minutes.
4. Paula used Expert Radar to pull prior reports, depositions, pharmaceutical payouts, and a letter in which the defense neurologist himself complained about the bias of defense doctors.
5. Barred from asking a specific non-economic dollar amount by a motion in limine, Paula closed with: "This is his final chapter. This is his only chance. This has to be enough" — and the jury came back saying she hadn't asked for enough.

The information contained in this podcast is not intended to be taken as legal advice. The information provided by Fuicelli & Lee is intended to provide general information regarding comprehensive injury and accident attorney services for clients in the state of Colorado.

What turns an ordinary premises case into a $2.7 million verdict? Strategy.

When a 68-year-old woman tripped over a fallen curbside sign outside Target, Vern Ready didn’t just argue negligence — he built a case around corporate decision-making. Discovery revealed no wind-resistance policy, no inspection protocol, and no meaningful response to employee reports about falling signs. That allowed him to frame the case as “corporation versus customer” — and when employees testified, “corporation versus employee.”

In this episode of Colorado Trial Lawyer Connection with host Keith Fuicelli, Vern breaks down the tactical decisions behind the verdict: saving his cross of the defense doctor for trial, telling the medical story through the client’s lived experience instead of clinical jargon, using a simple ELMO instead of flashy demonstratives, and positioning damages after a $500,000 pre-suit offer.

The jury asked for a calculator — and returned $2.7 million.

A masterclass in framing, restraint, and trusting the jury to connect the dots.

Learn More and Connect with Colorado Trial Lawyers

☑️ Vern Ready | LinkedIn

☑️ Ready Law on Instagram | Facebook | X | YouTube

☑️ Keith Fuicelli | LinkedIn

☑️ Fuicelli & Lee Injury Lawyers Website

☑️ Fuicelli & Lee Injury Lawyers on X, Facebook, Instagram, YouTube, and LinkedIn

☑️ Subscribe Apple Podcasts | Spotify | YouTube

Episode Snapshot

1. Vern's client, a 68-year-old woman, tripped over a fallen portable curbside sign outside a Target, finished her shopping trip, and ultimately required two surgeries for ulnar nerve damage in her right hand.
2. Vern framed the case as "corporation versus customer" and “corporation versus employee” when Target's own employees testified that the company provided no guidance about wind resistance, sign maintenance, or safety procedures.
3. Discovery revealed that nobody at Target had checked the manufacturer's wind resistance specifications for the signs, no policy existed for bringing them in during wind, and nobody responded to internal reports about falling signs.
4. Rather than deposing the defense doctor, Vern saved his ammunition for trial, where he caught the doctor mid-testimony reading only half a sentence from a second-opinion record that actually supported his client's future surgical needs.
5. In opening, Vern told the medical story from the patient's perspective — not through clinical terminology — by asking, "What makes a person agree to have surgery to try to fix something?"
6. Instead of flip charts, Vern used an ELMO when writing – “just like an overhead projector.” The technique landed well with jurors, he says.
7. The jury asked for a calculator during deliberations and ultimately awarded $2.7 million — more than five times the $500,000 pre-suit offer that Target had made.

The information contained in this podcast is not intended to be taken as legal advice. The information provided by Fuicelli & Lee is intended to provide general information regarding comprehensive injury and accident attorney services for clients in the state of Colorado.

Gabriel Stoops secured a $1.2 million verdict in his first lead civil jury trial, a medical malpractice case that other firms had turned down due to weak economic damages and high risk. His client underwent routine PRK eye surgery to improve her vision, but when she developed pain and progressive vision loss three days later, her surgeon's office ignored her pleas for help. With the defense declining settlement offers, Gabriel – who started his firm in his mom's basement – invested everything into the case. “This could be a movie,” says host Keith Fuicelli as he unpacks the high stakes, incredible odds, and ultimate victory.

Learn More and Connect with Colorado Trial Lawyers

☑️ Gabriel Stoops | LinkedIn

☑️ Stoops Law Group

☑️ Keith Fuicelli | LinkedIn

☑️ Fuicelli & Lee Injury Lawyers Website

☑️ Fuicelli & Lee Injury Lawyers on X, Facebook, Instagram, YouTube, and LinkedIn

☑️ Subscribe Apple Podcasts | Spotify | YouTube

Episode Snapshot

1. Gabriel was inspired to pursue law by hearing his father's medical malpractice stories at the dinner table as a youth.
2. When a summer associate role at a big Houston firm didn’t turn into a permanent job, Gabriel did contract work and eventually started his own firm in his mom's basement.
3. Gabriel's client underwent routine PRK eye surgery, but three days later developed excruciating pain and vision loss in both eyes. The surgeon's office ignored her desperate calls for help and didn't see her until a full week after surgery.
4. The surgeon didn’t start antibiotics to treat the client’s eye infection soon enough, which led Gabriel to his case theme that “when you only have 24 hours, it can’t wait a week.”
5. The defense offered only not to pursue the client's costs if Gabriel dismissed the case before trial.
6. Gabriel had two experts: an economist who developed a vocational economic assessment and a life care planner who accounted for what his client would need going forward.
7. Most of the $1.2 million verdict were economic damages for the client’s life care plan and reduced earning capacity.

The information contained in this podcast is not intended to be taken as legal advice. The information provided by Fuicelli & Lee is intended to provide general information regarding comprehensive injury and accident attorney services for clients in the state of Colorado.

In Part 2 of his look at a high-profile civil rights case, host Keith Fuicelli interviews the young trial team that secured $20 million. These “main brains” behind the verdict – Ciara Anderson, Omeed Azmoudeh, and Crist Whitney – reveal how they divided duties to represent six bystanders who were injured when a former Denver police officer shot into a crowd. Tune in for their insights about voir dire (“we went in with the strategy of finding liberal gun owners”), themes in opening (“you do not shoot into a crowd”) and witness preparation (“for our client, I wanted to get his emotional story out to the jury.”). Learn more about the case in Part 1.

Learn More and Connect with Colorado Trial Lawyers

☑️ Ciara Anderson | LinkedIn

☑️ Omeed Azmoudeh | LinkedIn

☑️ Crist Whitney | LinkedIn

☑️ Rathod Mohamedbhai on LinkedIn | Instagram | X | YouTube

☑️ Keith Fuicelli | LinkedIn

☑️ Fuicelli & Lee Injury Lawyers Website

☑️ Fuicelli & Lee Injury Lawyers on X, Facebook, Instagram, YouTube, and LinkedIn

☑️ Subscribe Apple Podcasts | Spotify | YouTube

Episode Snapshot

1. Ciara's opening focused on establishing credibility while withholding powerful evidence like the defendant’s criminal conviction.
2. In voir dire, Crist’s strategy was to find “liberal gun owners” who understood gun safety principles and would recognize the recklessness of firing into a crowd.
3. The team distilled their case theme to a simple rule: "You do not shoot into a crowd.”
4. Officer Ramos suggested that a worse backdrop than shooting into a crowd of people would be "senators, presidents, and very important people." In his closing, Omeed noted that their clients are “very important people.”
5. Omeed organized his cross-examination of Officer Ramos into chapters, each making one narrow point, with questions becoming increasingly focused during preparation: A "know your target" chapter split into separate chapters on "know your target" and "know what's beyond.”
6. The team's collaborative preparation involved often working until 3:00 a.m. and extensive role-playing where Ciara portrayed Officer Ramos for Omeed's cross-examination practice.
7. For punitive damages, the team dismantled the defense attempt to minimize Officer Ramos’ criminal conviction. He had pleaded guilty in a “sweetheart” deal that avoided jail time. Omeed told the jury: “Look, folks, if you're as enraged as we are, here's what you should note. This guy has never been punished for this conduct.”

The information contained in this podcast is not intended to be taken as legal advice. The information provided by Fuicelli & Lee is intended to provide general information regarding comprehensive injury and accident attorney services for clients in the state of Colorado.

A former Denver police officer was never held accountable for shooting into a crowd, injuring six bystanders. That is, not until a civil rights suit brought by Siddhartha Rathod, name partner at Rathod Mohamedbhai, the largest civil rights firm in the state, and John Lee, name partner at Fuicelli & Lee Injury Lawyers. In its $20 million verdict, the jurors sent a message that “you need to take responsibility,” Siddhartha explains. In Part I of this case breakdown, host Keith Fuicelli (John’s partner) moderates the discussion to explore how the trial team delivered their message. Come back in January for Part 2, when the three young attorneys who handled much of this case will join Keith to reveal how they prepared and won the “monster” verdict.

Learn More and Connect with Colorado Trial Lawyers

☑️ Siddhartha Rathod | LinkedIn

☑️ Rathod Mohamedbhai on LinkedIn | Instagram | X | YouTube

☑️ John Lee | LinkedIn

☑️ Keith Fuicelli | LinkedIn

☑️ Fuicelli & Lee Injury Lawyers on X, Facebook, Instagram, YouTube, and LinkedIn

☑️ Subscribe Apple Podcasts | Spotify | YouTube

Episode Snapshot

1. Siddhartha and John outline the procedural landmines in civil rights cases: Bringing a federal 1983 claim can result in removal to federal court, while bringing a tort claim can expose clients to a Trinity hearing and potential fee/cost liability at the beginning of the case.
2. The July 2022 incident occurred in downtown Denver when police pursued a man who was wearing a hoodie with a bulge in the pocket. As that man kept reaching into his pocket, the officers became concerned that he wielded a weapon.
3. The officers’ suspect darted behind a car and, when cornered, tossed away his weapon. Down the block, Officer Ramos fired at the suspect and injured six bystanders, who became the team’s clients.
4. Despite having a half dozen different body cams and a halo cam, details of the event remained in dispute because the cameras capture different frames per second.
5. The trial team did use video showing that the defendant didn’t act reasonably, including how he had his flashlight pointed in the wrong direction.
6. Siddhartha and John made the strategic decision to have younger attorneys—many in their first five years of practice—handle 75% of the trial. As Siddhartha explains, senior attorneys wouldn't have done as good a job as the younger team members because this was their first trial, and they were extraordinarily well prepared.
7. “They weren't outliers. They weren't radicals,” Siddhartha says of the jurors. “They were enraged that Denver never held the officer accountable.” Result: $20 million verdict.

The information contained in this podcast is not intended to be taken as legal advice. The information provided by Fuicelli & Lee is intended to provide general information regarding comprehensive injury and accident attorney services for clients in the state of Colorado.

Their client was just 16 when a driver T-boned her vehicle, leading to years of debilitating headaches that require cutting-edge treatments every 12 weeks. In this case breakdown with host Keith Fuicelli, Melissa Hailey and Liz Hart reveal how they approached the case with meticulous pre-litigation case development, strategic big data jury research, and expert medical testimony. Jurors awarded $7.1 million in future medical costs and $500,000 in non-economic damages. Tune in for the team’s insights about limiting economic demands to maintain credibility – and about joining forces to develop a successful law practice.

Learn More and Connect with Colorado Trial Lawyers

☑️ Melissa Hailey | LinkedIn

☑️ Liz Hart | LinkedIn

☑️ Hailey | Hart on LinkedIn | Facebook  

☑️ Keith Fuicelli | LinkedIn

☑️ Fuicelli & Lee Injury Lawyers Website

☑️ Fuicelli & Lee Injury Lawyers on X, Facebook, Instagram, YouTube, and LinkedIn

☑️ Subscribe Apple Podcasts | Spotify | YouTube

Episode Snapshot

• Elizabeth's journey from wanting to be a criminal defense attorney to becoming a plaintiff's lawyer after five years in insurance defense.
• Melissa's unconventional path from conservation biology to environmental law to personal injury practice.
• The lawyers envisioned a women-owned plaintiff's firm during Covid and opened Hailey | Hart in 2021.
• Their collaborative trial approach: splitting responsibilities, with Liz handling jury selection and closing and Melissa doing opening and rebuttal.
• In this case breakdown, they describe representing a 16-year-old client who suffered chronic migraines after a T-bone collision.
• The client contacted lawyers three years after the crash when USAA refused to pay policy limits despite expensive ongoing neurological treatment.
• A cutting-edge infusion medication given every 12 weeks called VYEPTI became the cornerstone of the client's successful treatment plan
• The team used big data research to identify jury resistance points and craft strategy around potential damages objections
• They decided to limit their economic ask to $7.1 million for only two types of treatments (VYEPTI and trigger point injections) rather than including all medications.
• The jury awarded exactly $7.1 million in economics and zero in permanent impairment, validating their approach.

The information contained in this podcast is not intended to be taken as legal advice. The information provided by Fuicelli & Lee is intended to provide general information regarding comprehensive injury and accident attorney services for clients in the state of Colorado.

A broken sidewalk left like a "jigsaw puzzle" became the foundation of an $8.2 million verdict for Tim Garvey and Greg Bentley. Representing a 60-year-old man who suffered a moderate traumatic brain injury after falling on the sidewalk, Tim and Greg sued the telecommunications company and general contractor that had torn it up to install fiber optic infrastructure. In this case breakdown moderated by host Keith Fuicelli, the trial team reveals their strategies, including confronting deponents with their statements on a PowerPoint and using red masking tape on a model skeleton to show injuries. For a unique approach to damages, Keith encourages listeners to check out Sari de la Motte’s podcast episode where guest Christy Crowe Childers describes her “Damages House” strategy.

☑️ Tim Garvey | LinkedIn

☑️ Greg Bentley | LinkedIn

☑️ Dormer Harpring Personal Injury Lawyers on LinkedIn | Instagram | Facebook | YouTube

☑️ Keith Fuicelli | LinkedIn

☑️ Fuicelli & Lee Injury Lawyers Website

☑️ Fuicelli & Lee Injury Lawyers on X, Facebook, Instagram, YouTube, and LinkedIn

☑️ Subscribe Apple Podcasts | Spotify | YouTube

• In this case, a man riding his personal e-scooter was thrown face-first when he hit a sidewalk that had been left uneven and broken after a fiber optic project.
• One takeaway from suing under the Colorado Premises Liability Act, Tim suggests, is that plaintiffs’ lawyers try to keep negligence claims “until they either prove to you that it can't be a negligence claim or the court tells you it can't be a negligence claim.”
• Tim and Greg's multimedia trial presentation approach incorporated video depositions, PowerPoint, king boards, and a model skeleton they named “Skeletor.”
• To head off the suggestion that their client “did something wrong,” the team worked with trial consultant Jesse Wilson to prepare him for testifying.
• Using Jessica Brylo for focus groups and big data studies helped the team refine damage asks, prioritize voir dire questions, and predict jury apportionment.
• The $8.2 million verdict breakdown: $4.2 million in economic damages (fully awarded), $2 million in non-economic damages, and $2 million in impairment damages.
• The jury apportioned 35% of responsibility each to the general contractor and subcontractor, 15% to the city of Denver, and 15% to plaintiff.
• Other takeaways: making trials multimedia experiences, guarding against jurors "backing into" damage numbers rather than evaluating each category separately, and achieving exceptional results with teamwork.

The information contained in this podcast is not intended to be taken as legal advice. The information provided by Fuicelli & Lee is intended to provide general information regarding comprehensive injury and accident attorney services for clients in the state of Colorado.

What’s it like to try three jury trials in five weeks? Returning guest Tim Galluzzi of Cheney Galluzzi & Howard breaks down his whirlwind trial stretch—including wins, missteps, and a humbling loss. In this conversation with host Keith Fuicelli, Tim shares how he and his litigation team managed a total of five trials in five weeks, the systems they relied on (and improved), and how getting your “ass kicked” in the courtroom isn’t a setback—it’s part of the process. Tune in for a real-world look at sustainable trial practice, case selection strategy, and the power of showing up, even when it’s hard.

☑️ Tim Galluzzi | LinkedIn

☑️ Cheney Galluzzi & Howard on LinkedIn | Instagram | Facebook | X | YouTube

☑️ Keith Fuicelli | LinkedIn

☑️ Fuicelli & Lee Injury Lawyers

☑️ Fuicelli & Lee Injury Lawyers on X, Facebook, Instagram, YouTube, and LinkedIn

☑️ Subscribe Apple Podcasts | Spotify | YouTube

• In trying three cases in five weeks, Tim highlights the importance of using robust case management systems like Filevine.
• The team leveraged Filevine's 120-day trial button to automate tasks including expert subpoenas, witness confirmation, and certificates of authentication for medical records.
• Tim’s firm ranks trial cases on a 1-5 system; cases with over a million dollars in damages with clear liability and coverage get a 5.
• Tim's client preparation involves three pretrial meetings: initial question review, full direct examination dry run, and aggressive cross-examination practice with his trial partner.
• Getting certificates of authentication for medical records at 120 days prevents last-minute scrambling to find custodians when defense won't stipulate, Tim suggests.
• Tim describes the impact of his firm’s reputation for going to trial: opposing counsel calling more often with settlement offers. The firm achieves policy limits in 79% of their cases, which Tim attributes to their willingness to try cases.
• Tim explains how a loss in Summit County demonstrated the importance of understanding local jury pools and personal accountability attitudes.
• The firm emphasizes that losses and "getting your ass kicked" is essential for maintaining perspective and continued growth as trial lawyers.

The information contained in this podcast is not intended to be taken as legal advice. The information provided by Fuicelli & Lee is intended to provide general information regarding comprehensive injury and accident attorney services for clients in the state of Colorado.

A defense neuropsychologist claimed their client was faking a rare psychological condition for money. The jury's response? Nearly $7 million for the plaintiff. Jared Mazzei and Jessica McBryant secured this verdict on behalf of their client, who was injured after falling at a Kohl’s store. The case featured compelling surveillance video, late admission of liability from the defense, and a strategic division of physical and psychological injuries. Host Keith Fuicelli explores how the team from Ramos Law countered defense claims of malingering with powerful rebuttal testimony and compelling video evidence.

☑️ Jared Mazzei

☑️ Jessica McBryant | LinkedIn

☑️ Ramos Law | LinkedIn | Instagram | Facebook | X | YouTube

☑️ Keith Fuicelli | LinkedIn

☑️ Fuicelli & Lee Injury Lawyers Website

☑️ Fuicelli & Lee Injury Lawyers on X, Facebook, Instagram, YouTube, and LinkedIn

☑️ Subscribe Apple Podcasts | Spotify | YouTube

• The slip-and-fall occurred when a Kohl's employee removed COVID decals using Goo Gone-type products but failed to properly clean the area or post caution signs.
• Compelling surveillance video captured the entire incident, showing the client's feet going out from under her and her head hitting both an end table and the tile floor.
• The client developed functional neurological symptom disorder, a rare psychological condition that caused involuntary movements, speech difficulties, and walking impairments.
• Strategic division of the case between physical injuries (handled by Jessica) and psychological injuries (handled by Jared) helped the jury conceptualize the complex medical conditions.
• The defense neuropsychologist accused the client of malingering, claiming she was faking her symptoms for financial gain.
• Jared's cross-examination strategy included purchasing the MMPI-3 manual and creating a PowerPoint showing how the neuropsychologist’s interpretations contradicted the official test manual.
• Powerful rebuttal testimony effectively dismantled the defense expert's malingering claims using the actual test manual standards.
• Videos of the client's symptoms in the hospital, including her relearning to walk and involuntary movements, proved devastating to the defense's malingering theory.
• The jury awarded $6,945,040 total: $1,000,040 in non-economic damages, $650,000 in economics, and $4,875,000 in physical impairment.

The information contained in this podcast is not intended to be taken as legal advice. The information provided by Fuicelli & Lee is intended to provide general information regarding comprehensive injury and accident attorney services for clients in the state of Colorado.

Born with profound hearing loss, Spencer Kontnik spent a long time distancing himself from any fields of law related to disability. Then, the “light bulb” went off, and today he advocates for people with disabilities – like the client whose job offer from Denver Health was rescinded after she requested disability accommodations. In this case breakdown with host Keith Fuicelli, Spencer discusses how his team approached the issue of proving discrimination. “It's very difficult to prove that individual, that person, is a discriminatory person,” he explains. So the team focused on cultivating evidence and cross-examinations that showed that the defendant’s actions toward his client were discriminatory. Spencer secured a jury award, pre-judgment interest, back pay, and front pay totalling $500,000. 

☑️ Spencer Kontnik | LinkedIn

☑️ Kontnik | Cohen on Instagram | LinkedIn | Facebook | X

☑️ Keith Fuicelli | LinkedIn

☑️ Fuicelli & Lee Injury Lawyers Website

☑️ Fuicelli & Lee Injury Lawyers on X, Facebook, Instagram, YouTube, and LinkedIn

☑️ Subscribe Apple Podcasts | Spotify | YouTube

• Spencer's transformation from defense attorney to disability rights advocate after defending a case involving a deaf job applicant.
• Employment law requires employers to provide reasonable accommodations for disabilities that limit major life functions, with the burden shifting to employers to prove fundamental alteration or undue burden.
• The Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act (CADA) offers similar remedies to the ADA but allows cases to proceed faster in state court versus federal court.
• Spencer's client, a biostatistician with 130-plus peer-reviewed publications, was denied a job at Denver Health after requesting a one-hour later start time due to seizure disorder, short bowel syndrome, and depression/anxiety.
• Denver Health rescinded the job offer after the accommodation request, leading to a retaliation claim.
• The jury awarded $150,000 in compensatory damages, with $16,000 in pre-judgment interest, and the court awarded $130,000 in back pay plus $205,000 in front pay.
• Spencer's hearing loss requires CART interpreters in the courtroom, a vulnerability that he says isn’t a hindrance; it builds trust with juries.

The information contained in this podcast is not intended to be taken as legal advice. The information provided by Fuicelli & Lee is intended to provide general information regarding comprehensive injury and accident attorney services for clients in the state of Colorado.