In the second Trial Nugget devoted to punitive damages, host Brendan Lupetin breaks down Goretzka v. West Penn Power, in which a woman was fatally electrocuted when a power line fell on her. Brendan reads key moments from the punitive section of Shanin Specter’s closing argument, including when he reframed West Penn Power’s $244 million net worth. Shanin showed the jury a $10 bill and suggested that the appropriate way of considering damages would be to say, “‘What would it be if it were a guy with $10? How much would that be to make him feel it? To make him not do it again?’ And then just do the math on that $244 million.” The jury awarded $109 million. Unpacking Shanin’s strategies, Brendan observes: “One clever point that Shanin pointed out: Whether they're worth $1 or $20 billion, it doesn't matter.”

Produced and Powered by LawPods

At Blankingship & Keith, they often say: "There's a smoking gun in every case; just, sometimes, you don't find it." With tenacity and strategy, a firm team found smoking guns in their recent case against a commercial trucking company. The team – Rob Stoney, Chidi James, Barkley Horn, and Matt Tsun – uncovered inspection failures that allowed a truck with inadequate brakes and safety features to be on the road. It collided with their client’s vehicle, causing her life-altering injuries. Listen to this case breakdown with host Brendan Lupetin to learn how they turned a $300,000 insurance policy into a $4.4 million jury verdict.

☑️ Chidi James | LinkedIn

☑️ Barkley Horn | LinkedIn

☑️ Matt Tsun | LinkedIn

☑️ Rob Stoney | LinkedIn

☑️ Blankingship & Keith on LinkedIn | Instagram | X 

☑️ Brendan Lupetin | LinkedIn

☑️ Lupetin & Unatin, LLC

☑️ Connect: Facebook | LinkedIn | YouTube

☑️ Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | YouTube

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.

The hospital had a good policy that would have prevented a 67-year-old woman from being prematurely discharged. Instead, she was discharged and found dead 12 hours later. Host Brendan Lupetin unpacks this wrongful death case with the trial team of Dorothy Dohanics, Carmen Nocera and Ben Cohen. Tune in to hear how Dorothy's meticulous discovery work and Carmen and Ben's strategic courtroom work drove their $5.25 million verdict. 

☑️ Ben Cohen 

☑️ Dorothy Dohanics | LinkedIn

☑️ Carmen Nocera | LinkedIn

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

☑️ Brendan Lupetin | LinkedIn

☑️ Lupetin & Unatin, LLC

☑️ Connect: Facebook | LinkedIn | YouTube

☑️ Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | YouTube

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 the first of a two-part series about approaches to arguing punitives, host Brendan Lupetin focuses on Mark Lanier's $9 billion verdict against Takeda Pharmaceuticals. Brendan breaks down the three-part strategy that ensured Mark’s success: emphasizing the purpose of punitive damages beyond compensation, empowering jurors to understand their verdict will travel globally within 30 seconds, and making astronomical corporate wealth comprehensible by converting $60 billion into relatable $60,000 scenarios. Come back for the second installment, when Brendan will analyze how Shanin Specter won $109 million from West Penn Power Company in the Goretzka case.

Host Brendan Lupetin tackles the strategic paradox every trial lawyer faces: how to emphasize your strongest evidence through repetition without annoying jurors who hate lawyers who "say the same thing over and over." Drawing extensively from David Ball's "Theater Tips and Strategies for Jury Trials," Brendan explains the critical distinction between strategic repetition that wins cases and mindless repetition that loses them. He reveals Ball's gold standard for what to repeat—only what you want favorable jurors to say in deliberations—and shares the cautionary tale of a lawyer who said "in the blue Honda Civic southbound on US Interstate Highway number 95" sixty-seven times in a six-day trial, undermining his case's impact.

Produced and Powered by LawPods.

When Jordan Strokovsky received a call about a 27-year-old medical assistant who lost his leg at Temple University Hospital, he knew within minutes something wasn't right. In this breakdown of his career-defining $25.9 million verdict in Parks v. Temple University Hospital, Jordan reveals to host Brendan Lupetin how he transformed a damages-only case into one of Philadelphia's largest amputation verdicts. 

☑️ Jordan Strokovsky | LinkedIn | Facebook

☑️ Strokovsky LLC on LinkedIn | Facebook

☑️ Brendan Lupetin | LinkedIn

☑️ Lupetin & Unatin, LLC

☑️ Connect: Facebook | LinkedIn | YouTube

☑️ Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | YouTube

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.

While representing a client who lost his foot after relying on his employer’s medical helpline, Helen Lawless and the trial team realized that the helpline did “exactly what it was supposed to do.” And their strategy was born. In this case breakdown with host Brendan Lupetin, Helen explains that the helpline was actually a lucrative business model designed to keep workers from getting proper medical care. Their “constant refrain” to the jury, Helen says, was that the company benefited from the deceptive helpline just as it intended. Ultimately, a Philadelphia jury awarded her client $4.2 million.

☑️ Helen Lawless | LinkedIn

☑️ Kline & Specter on LinkedIn | Instagram | Facebook | YouTube 

☑️ Brendan Lupetin | LinkedIn

☑️ Lupetin & Unatin, LLC

☑️ Connect: Facebook | LinkedIn | YouTube

☑️ Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | YouTube

• Helen reveals how the Workcompvidence company deliberately kept injured workers from seeking proper medical care, monitoring patients but only providing "first aid" advice to avoid recordable workplace injuries.
• The company used a strategy called "tight management" to reduce "panic factors" that might lead workers to seek proper medical treatment, with nurses representing themselves as part of a doctor's practice.
• When the construction site job ended, the company "closed" their client's case without informing him, leaving him without care until his foot deteriorated to the point of requiring amputation.
• The defense claimed they owed no duty to the injured worker, but the jury disagreed, awarding $4.42 million in compensatory damages despite having no offer from the defense before trial.
• The trial featured detailed testimony about the company's business model that included marketing materials showing how they promised to reduce worker compensation costs for employers.

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.

Host Brendan Lupetin breaks down two powerful psychological principles that can transform your trial strategy: the focusing illusion and the framing effect. Drawing from cognitive research and courtroom experience, Brendan explains that jurors focus on what's presented as most important – and lawyers who don’t control the jurors’ focus leave their case to chance. Using examples from a recent medical malpractice victory involving critical limb ischemia, he demonstrates how deliberate focusing—rather than presenting every available fact—leads to stronger verdicts and more persuasive arguments. 

Produced and Powered by LawPods.

A $25 million medical malpractice verdict came from strategies most attorneys would reject: omitting economic damages entirely, using minimal medical literature, and framing informed consent to transcend political divides. Katie Bertram and Kieran Murphy of Bertram & Murphy dissect their victory with host Brendan Lupetin. The attorneys reveal how focus groups guided their decision to withhold a $7 million economic loss claim that could have anchored the jury to a lower amount. Tune in for an inside look into their methodical approach to cross-examination that avoided battles over medical literature while exposing expert credibility issues.

☑️ Katie Bertram | LinkedIn

☑️ Kieran Murphy | LinkedIn

☑️ Bertram & Murphy on LinkedIn | Facebook | YouTube 

☑️ Brendan Lupetin | LinkedIn

☑️ Lupetin & Unatin, LLC

☑️ Connect: Facebook | LinkedIn | YouTube

☑️ Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | YouTube

• Katie shares her core trial philosophy: Stop trying to convince jurors and instead frame facts in ways they can understand.
• The team’s $25 million verdict for a cancer patient came after the counterintuitive decision to omit economic damages worth millions, which prevented defense attorneys from nitpicking their client's future earnings.
• Kieran explains how they proved the lack of informed consent by demonstrating the primary care doctor didn't understand her own electronic medical record system, undermining her claim that she properly communicated with the patient.
• Rather than presenting complex medical literature in cross-examination, they focus on letting the expert's character reveal itself.
• Their trial preparation emphasizes authenticity while crafting a narrative focused on the defendant's actions rather than emotional appeals.

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.

"We're big believers in looking at cases and trying to drive the value we believe they're worth," says Eric Chaffin about the $130,000 verdict he and Justin Joseph secured when the insurance company offered just $10,000. Host Brendan Lupetin explores how the trial partners transformed a "typical" meniscal tear case into a compelling human story. Using psychodrama techniques and focusing on the emotional impact of the injury, they convinced jurors to look beyond minimal vehicle damage and limited medical treatment to see the true impact on their "quintessential Pittsburgh" beer delivery driver client.

☑️ Eric Chaffin | LinkedIn | Instagram 

☑️ Justin Joseph | LinkedIn | Instagram

☑️ Chaffin Luhana on LinkedIn | Instagram | Facebook | YouTube

☑️ Brendan Lupetin | LinkedIn

☑️ Lupetin & Unatin, LLC

☑️ Connect: Facebook | LinkedIn | YouTube

☑️ Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | YouTube

• The client, a 58-year-old beer delivery driver, was injured when a garbage truck backed into his stopped vehicle, striking his knee against the dash and tearing his meniscus.
• Despite being an admitted liability case, the defense challenged causation, arguing the meniscal tear was age-related rather than traumatic.
• The attorneys used psychodrama to help their "stoic Pittsburgher" client better visualize and articulate his experience, strengthening factual and emotional aspects of his testimony.
• When the defense admitted liability just days before trial, the attorneys pivoted their strategy to focus exclusively on damages, emphasizing the human impact of the injury.
• A key defense mistake was continuing to challenge the client's credibility even after admitting liability, allowing the plaintiff's team to highlight the contradiction of "accepting responsibility" while simultaneously attacking their client.
• Despite the client having only six months of documented treatment, the jury awarded $30,000 for past pain and suffering and $100,000 for future damages, recognizing the ongoing impact of the injury.

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.