When a 64-year-old man with classic stroke symptoms was misdiagnosed with Bell's Palsy, his care was delayed by 19 critical hours. Host Brendan Lupetin interviews classmates-turned-colleagues Ben Cohen and Carmen Nocera about their $856,000 medical malpractice verdict in Washington County, PA. The young attorneys reveal how they exposed contradictions in the defense's position, leveraged a damning phone call recording, and maintained credibility with the jury through a grueling two-week trial against experienced defense lawyers.

☑️ Ben Cohen | LinkedIn

☑️ Carmen Nocera | LinkedIn

☑️ Harry S. Cohen & Associates on LinkedIn | Facebook | YouTube

☑️ Brendan Lupetin | LinkedIn

☑️ Lupetin & Unatin, LLC

☑️ Connect: Facebook | LinkedIn | YouTube

☑️ Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | YouTube

• The case involved Steve Burrows, a 64-year-old active outdoorsman who experienced sudden onset of numerous stroke symptoms but was misdiagnosed with Bell's Palsy.
• Despite the medical maxim "time is brain," treatment for stroke was delayed 19 hours, resulting in permanent neurological deficits including a vocal cord paralysis that made eating and drinking extremely difficult.
• A critical phone consultation between the ER doctor and a neurologist, initiated only because the patient's friend insisted, revealed that the doctor presented incomplete information and was committed to the Bell's Palsy diagnosis.
• The defense tried to argue that stroke symptoms began the day before, putting the patient outside the treatment window, but records showed those minor symptoms had completely resolved.
• The attorneys explain how Washington County's generous voir dire process, including comprehensive questionnaires provided weeks in advance, helped them identify jurors comfortable making decisions between competing expert opinions.
• After a seven-hour deliberation, the jury awarded $856,000, finding negligence by both the hospital and emergency room physician.

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.

In this trial nugget, Brendan Lupetin challenges the notion that trial lawyers must deliver openings and closings completely from memory. Drawing inspiration from James Humes' book "Speak Like Churchill, Stand Like Lincoln," Brendan introduces the "power reading" technique used by communicators from Ronald Reagan to Rick Friedman. This approach combines written precision with conversational delivery through two key principles: "memorize, then conversationalize" and the "see, stop, say" method. Brendan shares how he successfully implemented these techniques in his recent trial victory, offering a practical alternative for attorneys who want to sound natural while maintaining complete control over their message.

Produced and Powered by LawPods

"It's a stroke of the leg, ladies and gentlemen." When critical limb ischemia struck their client Kirt, every minute counted—yet the county's only vascular surgeon remained at a wound care center despite multiple emergency calls. In this breakdown of their recent $2.2 million verdict, host Brendan Lupetin, partner Greg Unatin, and associate Garrett Trettel reveal how they overcame challenges including COVID-related defenses, contradictory timeline claims, and the fear of alienating the only specialist serving their rural community. 

☑️ Greg Unatin | LinkedIn

☑️ Garrett Trettel | LinkedIn

☑️ Brendan Lupetin | LinkedIn

☑️ Lupetin & Unatin, LLC

☑️ Connect: Facebook | LinkedIn | YouTube

☑️ Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | YouTube

• The case involved Kirt, who experienced acute pain in his leg and was diagnosed with critical limb ischemia, but experienced significant delays in treatment leading to an amputation.
• The defendant, Dr. Lynch, was the only vascular surgeon in the county, creating unique challenges for the legal team in persuading local jurors.
• Despite multiple calls from the emergency department about Kirt’s critical condition, Dr. Lynch remained at a wound care center and significantly delayed seeing the patient.
• A key defense strategy involved using an audit trail to suggest Dr. Lynch arrived at the hospital earlier than medical records indicated, forcing the team to adapt their approach.
• The lawyers explain how they effectively used the "increased risk of harm" causation standard to overcome challenging timeline issues in the case.
• The team discusses their decision not to call certain witnesses, such as the PA and emergency physician, relying instead on medical records as the strongest evidence.
• The verdict of $2.2 million came after a five-hour jury deliberation with a 10-2 decision, reflecting the challenging but ultimately successful case.

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.

Brendan Lupetin offers a practical strategy for explaining "increased risk of harm" causation to jurors in medical negligence cases. Using relatable examples like a Steelers game and a house fire, he demonstrates how to transform this challenging legal concept from a technical hurdle into a powerful asset. Brendan emphasizes the importance of introducing this concept in opening statements and reinforcing it during closing arguments to ensure juror comprehension.

Produced and Powered by LawPods

Trial lawyers John and Alicia Campbell join Brendan Lupetin to discuss how data analytics is transforming case evaluation and jury selection. The founders of Campbell Law and co-authors of “Jury Ball: The Big Data Revolution Is Here” explain their pioneering approach of using large sample studies to predict jury behavior, identify case values, and develop winning strategies. With over 900 civil cases analyzed, they share how their methods have helped attorneys secure multimillion-dollar verdicts, avoid costly mistakes, and make informed settlement decisions based on statistical evidence rather than gut instinct.

☑️ John & Alicia Campbell | LinkedIn - John | LinkedIn - Alicia

☑️ Campbell Law | Facebook 

☑️ Focus with Fred

☑️ “Jury Ball: The Big Data Revolution Is Here” 

☑️ Brendan Lupetin | LinkedIn

☑️ Lupetin & Unatin, LLC

☑️ Connect: Facebook | LinkedIn | YouTube

☑️ Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | YouTube

• John explains how their prediction model accurately forecasted the outcome of Brendan's medical malpractice case, including the counterintuitive finding that Trump supporters were favorable jurors for med-mal cases during the pandemic.
• The Campbells have analyzed over 900 civil cases and discovered that traditional assumptions about "good" and "bad" jurors often miss the mark, as cultural and societal factors can significantly impact jury behavior.
• They discuss the problem of "garbage in, garbage out" in jury research and explain their careful process to ensure that case presentations for both sides are balanced, credible, and authentic.
• Their "Fred" platform (described as "big data's little brother") offers affordable jury analytics for cases valued under $1 million, while their full big data studies are designed for high-value cases.
• The most universal insights from 900+ studies: jurors care deeply about the plaintiff and where the money will go; independent witnesses with no stake in the outcome are incredibly valuable; and credibility is the currency that runs through the entire case.

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.

In this Trial Nugget, host Brendan Lupetin discusses how trial lawyers can leverage AI tools like ChatGPT to simplify complex legal concepts for juries. As one example, he focuses on the "increased risk of harm" causation framework in medical malpractice. What’s a compelling, relatable way to explain that legal standard to a jury? Brendan shares a prompt that he gave to ChatGPT. Tune in to hear the result.

Produced and Powered by LawPods

Host Brendan Lupetin interviews the creators of Predict, a jury research and analytics tool available through Precise Trial. Pete Mansmann is the CEO of Precise Trial and Rich Epstein and Oscar McKnight founded a consulting firm called Scientific Legal Services that uses statistical data to predict the outcome of litigation. As Rich explains, Predict has many applications for lawyers throughout the trial process. The guests break down the science behind Predict, describe how it uses AI and "human-assisted AI,” and outline its different products. Ultimately, they suggest that the real value for lawyers is the case concepts that Predict reveals, rather than win probabilities or award amounts. 

☑️ Pete Mansmann | LinkedIn

☑️ Predict on LinkedIn | Facebook | YouTube | Instagram 

☑️ Rich Epstein | LinkedIn

☑️ Roetzel & Andress on LinkedIn | X 

☑️ Oscar McKnight | LinkedIn | Selected Works

☑️ Scientific Legal Services 

☑️ Brendan Lupetin | LinkedIn

☑️ Lupetin & Unatin, LLC

☑️ Connect: Facebook | LinkedIn | YouTube

☑️ Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | YouTube

• For the first time, Brendan welcomes three guests on the show: Pete Mansmann, CEO of Precise; Rich Epstein, of counsel at Roetzel & Andress and a collaborator with the third guest, Oscar McKnight, a statistician who designed the model that supports Precise’s Predict case-strategy evaluation tool.
• Oscar explains how he uses “Delphi” groups for Predict and how they differ from traditional focus groups.
• Trial lawyers can benefit from many applications of Oscar’s model, Rich says, because it can predict a jury’s response to a case.
• The Predict reports are presented in segmented, bite-sized chunks so that the fact pattern is revealed “almost like a movie,” Oscar says. Rich notes that, when clients read the reports, they identify strengths and weaknesses of the case “much more powerfully than you can tell them.”
• The Predict reports are also condensed to 1,500 words, a strategy that is designed to let the volunteer readers screen for important information and focus on the facts.
• Predict has two products – Vista and Infusion – that use AI and human-assisted AI. The products differ in the number of participants. Each has advantages depending on the lawyer’s needs.
• The most important thing that the Predict tool offers a lawyer is critical concepts about the case – not win percentages. The best use of the service, Rich explains, is for trial lawyers to take the themes and apply them. 

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.

Perfectionism isn’t just unrealistic; it can also be your undoing. In this Trial Nugget, Brendan Lupetin describes the dangers of clinging to illusions of a “perfect” trial. One risk? Missing opportunities at the real one. Tune in as Brendan recaps Chapter 9 of Rick Friedman’s "Becoming a Trial Lawyer" and offers a cure for perfectionism. Spoiler: It’s about preparation.

Produced and Powered by LawPods

In two decades of practicing law, host Brendan Lupetin hasn’t undertaken binding arbitration in a med-mal case. Sud Patel, past president of the Pennsylvania Association for Justice and leading trial lawyer at Fanelli, Evans & Patel, recently had two successful outcomes. So Brendan invites him to share his insights for plaintiffs’ lawyers with little or no experience in the process. In both of Sud’s cases, the arbitrator ruled in his clients’ favor, and the defense paid on time.

☑️ Sud Patel | LinkedIn

☑️ Fanelli, Evans & Patel on LinkedIn | X | Facebook

☑️ Brendan Lupetin | LinkedIn

☑️ Lupetin & Unatin, LLC

☑️ Connect: Facebook | LinkedIn | YouTube

☑️ Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | YouTube

• Sud was in junior high school, working at a golf club, when his immigrant father had a dispute with his business partner. Sud suggested that his dad call lawyers he knew from the club. Those lawyers would become Sud’s mentors and first employers.
• Sud discusses two cases that were resolved through binding arbitration: in one, the plaintiff died after their small bowel obstruction went untreated; in the other, the plaintiff’s Equina syndrome was misdiagnosed. 
• In both cases, there was no discussion of arbitration and no settlement offers. Defense counsel was a “hard no” on mediation, but judges suggested binding arbitration.
• Sud outlines the logistics of how arbitration worked for both cases, including the use of Zoom and in-person testimony.
• At arbitration, Sud is as formal as he is in court. His pre-arbitration statements, in particular, are comprehensive. 
• Sud’s closing at arbitration may be truncated, but he still covers jury instructions, preponderance of the evidence, more right than wrong, and other key elements of the case. He explains: “At the end of the day, the arbitrator is supposed to make a decision and apply the law, so I don't want to take [anything] for granted.” 
• Before both arbitrations, Sud had in-depth conversations with his clients so they understood what to expect, even showing them the technology, where they’d be sitting, and where microphones would be placed.
• Plaintiffs’ lawyers considering their first arbitration should research the venue so they understand the community’s feelings toward their type of case, Sud suggests.

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.

Brendan discusses the concept of simplicity in trial advocacy, drawing from the book "Becoming a Trial Lawyer" by Rick Friedman. He emphasizes the importance of presenting a simple, easy-to-understand case theme and streamlining evidence to connect with the jury.

Produced and Powered by LawPods