Doug Olcott believes his 15 years as a defense attorney gives him a “leg up” representing plaintiffs. It did in his case against a snow tubing park, where his client suffered a catastrophic injury. “I think I have a better understanding as to what the defendants are going to do and then being able to anticipate how they're going to approach a game because, quite frankly, in my 35 years doing this, not a lot has changed on the defense bar side,” he tells host Brendan Lupetin. In this case breakdown, Doug explains how he overcame a signed waiver, exposed defense contradictions, and challenged an expert witness who said his client “lacked common sense.” The result: a $693,000 verdict, Somerset County's largest in at least 20 years: 

☑️ Doug Olcott | LinkedIn

☑️ Edgar Snyder & Associates on LinkedIn | Facebook | YouTube

☑️ Brendan Lupetin | LinkedIn

☑️ Lupetin & Unatin, LLC

☑️ Connect: Facebook | LinkedIn | YouTube

☑️ Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | YouTube

• Doug’s client was attending a children's birthday party at Hidden Valley's snow tubing park when her tube accelerated down the hill and launched off the back of a runout embankment.
• She suffered a T12 burst fracture requiring surgical placement of two rods across five levels of her thoracic spine, along with a pelvic fracture and other lesser fractures.
• After the court granted summary judgment on negligence claims based on a signed waiver, the case proceeded to trial on recklessness only—a significantly higher burden requiring proof of intentional or reckless disregard for known risks.
• Doug and co-counsel Jerry Hutton proved recklessness by establishing three critical failures: no workers stationed at the bottom to stop tubes, no deceleration mats deployed, and no barrier to prevent riders from going over the embankment.
• The defense's own policies and procedures contradicted their trial testimony—interrogatory answers identified specific safety protocols that witnesses couldn't verify had been followed on the day of the incident.
• Two independent parent-witnesses from the birthday party testified about the client's character and the community's response to her injury, establishing her credibility.
• The defense expert's own guidebook and Hidden Valley's written policies contradicted his trial testimony that the plaintiff "lacked common sense" for sitting on the tube—the approved method according to their own documents.
• YouTube videos found by the plaintiff's expert showed repeated instances of riders going over the embankment, refuting defense claims that it had never happened before.
• The jury returned a verdict of $693,000—Somerset County's largest verdict in at least 20 years—and the plaintiffs are pursuing punitive damages in a second trial.

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.

John Gismondi has never said to an associate, “You’re just going to work as my caddy for a few years, and then we're going to start to give you your own cases.” That goes for his son JJ. Just four months after JJ passed the bar, he joined his father in representing a 60-year-old woman who suffered a ruptured aneurysm due to a missed diagnosis. In this case breakdown with host Brendan Lupetin, the father-son team reveal how they faced a critical ruling that prevented an ex-defendant’s testimony from being read in – “the tipping point,” as John describes it. “It kept JJ and me up until literally two o'clock.” Tune in to hear how they made it over the tipping point to secure a verdict split equally between the wife's pain and suffering and the husband's loss of consortium.

☑️ John Gismondi | LinkedIn

☑️ JJ Gismondi | LinkedIn

☑️ The Law Offices of Gismondi & Associates on LinkedIn | Facebook | YouTube

☑️ Brendan Lupetin | LinkedIn

☑️ Lupetin & Unatin, LLC

☑️ Connect: Facebook | LinkedIn | YouTube

☑️ Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | YouTube

• The case involved a 60-year-old woman whose abdominal aortic aneurysm was missed by a radiologist and eventually ruptured.
• The case was tried in Mifflin County, where court personnel informed them that "this was only the second civil trial of any type that had gone to a jury in 12 years."
• The crisis day defendants who delayed transferring the patient and getting her to surgery settled before trial, leaving only the case against the radiologist and his practice.
• The defense radiologist dropped his cross-claim against the vascular surgeon on the morning of trial—a strategic move to prevent the Gismondis from reading in favorable deposition testimony from the vascular surgeon.
• After the judge ruled that the vascular surgeon's deposition testimony couldn't be read in, the Gismondis had to show increased risk of harm based on the radiologist’s testimony.
• The team successfully argued that proof of increased risk provides the factual basis for the jury to determine causation and that the failure to detect an aneurysm was so obvious that expert testimony on causation wasn't required.
• John used innovative technology by having the radiology expert use Zoom's annotation tools with a laptop to walk through CT scan images in real-time, giving the expert complete control and demonstrating exactly how a radiologist would review the images.
• During closing, John focused his liability argument on one word—"coronal"—to emphasize how the defense never addressed the coronal views of the CT scan that would have shown that the aneurysm wasn't a loop of bowel.

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.

When an insurance company told an injured driver to “take it or leave it,” the team at Janssen Law took the company to trial. In this case breakdown with host Brendan Lupetin, Bob Janssen, Ryan Froelich, and Bob’s son Zach Janssen explain that the insurer offered $45,000 – while their client had $93,000 in medical bills alone. They faced challenges, including a conservative Green Bay market and a client who didn’t have surgery and continued to work full-time. But they focused on her chronic pain and leveraged innovative trial strategies, like Ryan's memorable analogy to a grocery store visit gone wrong. The jury awarded $694,500.

☑️ Bob Janssen

☑️ Ryan Froelich | LinkedIn 

☑️ Zach Janssen

☑️ Janssen Law on LinkedIn | Facebook | YouTube

☑️ Brendan Lupetin | LinkedIn

☑️ Lupetin & Unatin, LLC

☑️ Connect: Facebook | LinkedIn | YouTube

☑️ Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | YouTube

• The Janssen Law team’s client suffered a meniscal tear when she was rear-ended while driving her son on a snowy Wisconsin day.
• Progressive Insurance paid their $100,000 limits, but Wadena Insurance offered only $45,000 against the client's $500,000 underinsured motorist coverage.
• The defense contested liability even in a clear rear-end collision, creating opportunities for the plaintiff's team to highlight their failure to accept responsibility.
• Two treating doctors testified live at trial: a chiropractor with 35 years of experience and a pain management doctor who performed injections and radiofrequency ablations.
• The treating doctors distinguished between the client’s prior medical history and what she dealt with in the five years after it. “The jury saw it clear as day,” Ryan says.
• In his closing, Ryan compared the client's experience securing coverage from Wadena to paying for groceries but having items removed from the bags before leaving the store.
• The team created a special verdict demonstrative that treating doctors filled out during testimony, establishing credibility for their damage calculations.

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.

“Have you seen this record?” Sam Martin asked trial partner Nathan Werksman. “This is unbelievable.” That record? "So far, there is no plan.” It became the theory of liability that the team leveraged against a surgeon whose 23-year-old patient died from abdominal compartment syndrome. Host Brendan Lupetin explores how the former Stanford Law School classmates navigated their case in a state where wrongful death damages are severely limited. Sam, an associate at Patrick Malone & Associates, and Nathan, a partner at Merson Law, combined their complementary skills—Sam's meticulous case analysis and Nathan's commanding trial presence—to secure a $2.3 million verdict.

☑️ Nathan Werksman | LinkedIn

☑️ Merson Law on LinkedIn | Instagram | Facebook | YouTube

☑️ Sam Martin | LinkedIn

☑️ Patrick Malone & Associates on LinkedIn | YouTube | 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.

When a 900-pound flail mower crushed a Delaware Department of Transportation mechanic, the defense claimed it was his fault and insisted his return to work proved minimal injury. When Dave Kwass sued the mower manufacturer, he exposed defense lies and revealed missing evidence. He also took jurors on a journey through the company’s history – including the “bizarre moment” when it rejected a design modification that would have made the mower safer because it would have increased repair costs. As Dave explains to host Brendan Lupetin, he set up the “narrative inevitability" that the flawed machine would injure someone. “The ‘Jaws’ music has been playing,” Brendan observes, “and they know that the attack is inevitable.” The jury awarded Dave’s client $11 million.

☑️ Dave Kwass | LinkedIn

☑️ Saltz Mongeluzzi Bendesky 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 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.