“Come and get me! Come and get me!” That’s what the 34-year-old man suffering from a mental health breakdown told state troopers responding to his family’s call for help.

At least that’s what one of the troopers testified during cross-examination in federal court. Attorney Noah Geary brought civil rights claims against the trooper, arguing that he used excessive force when he fatally shot Anthony Gallo during that tragic encounter in 2017. 

In this unique episode of Just Verdicts, Noah and host Brendan Lupetin dramatically re-enact the exchange between Noah and the trooper, Chad Weaver. 

“When did you come up for the first time with this new claim that Gallo said, ‘Come get me! Come get me!’” Noah says, reading from the transcript.

“Uh, just the other day,” says Brendan, reading for Weaver.  

Tune in to hear details of this case, including the roadblocks that Noah overcame to a $21 million verdict. 

Learn More and Connect

☑️ Noah Geary | LinkedIn | Email    

☑️ Brendan Lupetin | LinkedIn

☑️ Lupetin & Unatin, LLC

☑️ Connect: Facebook | LinkedIn | YouTube

☑️ Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | YouTube

Episode Preview

• Why Rule 12, qualified immunity, poses a challenge for plaintiffs’ lawyers in civil rights cases 
• Factors motivating the increasing rate of excessive force by police 
• The constitutional basis for civil rights claims
• Noah’s case against a state trooper who fatally shot Anthony Gallo as he was going through a mental health breakdown
• The “total sham” of a coroner’s inquest and the “nauseating” state police investigation
• What the defendant’s state police personnel file revealed about his behavior
• “This guy's going to kill somebody”: Four women reported their fears about the defendant after a disturbing interaction with him nine days before the Gallo killing.
• Noah’s opening: “I let it all hang out.”
• Noah’s message to the jury on punitive damages: “Folks, this is a death 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.Produced and Powered by LawPods

Gasoline is refined from crude oil that contains benzene, a known carcinogen, but oil companies have long considered removing benzene from the gasoline manufacturing process a “dollars-and-cents” decision. Jurors considering whether ExxonMobil’s gasoline caused a Pennsylvania man’s leukemia made this decision: $725.5 million for the plaintiff.

Andrew DuPont, partner at Locks Law Firm, won that verdict by framing his argument as ExxonMobil’s failure to warn consumers about benzene’s health hazards, even though its dangers were known by the time his client was using gasoline as a solvent to clean automotive parts in the 1970s. Breaking down complex scientific evidence in a way that would stick with the jury, Andrew fended off ExxonMobil’s defense that “gasoline’s not benzene, gasoline doesn’t cause cancer.” Tune in to hear Andrew share his successful strategy with host Brendan Lupetin.

Learn More and Connect

☑️ Andrew J. DuPont | LinkedIn | Email

☑️ Locks Law Firm on Facebook | LinkedIn | X | YouTube

☑️ Brendan Lupetin | LinkedIn

☑️ Lupetin & Unatin, LLC

☑️ Connect: Facebook | LinkedIn | YouTube

☑️ Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | YouTube

Episode Preview

• The history behind benzene and its link to cancer
• How defendants try to distract jurors in cases involving benzene exposure
• How the oil and gasoline industry protects profits over people
• The background of Andrew’s case against ExxonMobil and his $725 million verdict
• How Andrew leveraged ExxonMobil’s “significant mistake” in its opening statement

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.Produced and Powered by LawPods

An inexperienced physician’s assistant misdiagnosed Richard Godshall and Christine Clarke’s client. But when they tried the case, they took it in an opposite direction than many would expect: not from the incident up, but from the top down.

In the end, the Clarion County jury awarded their client $7 million. In this conversation with host Brendan Lupetin, Richard, owner and managing partner of Ostroff Godshall Injury and Accident Lawyers, and Christine, partner and head of the firm’s medical malpractice division, reveal the “secret sauce” to winning that verdict. Tune in to hear how they proved that their client was a victim – not of the PA but of systemic failures at the facility itself.

Learn More and Connect

☑️ Richard Godshall | LinkedIn

☑️ Christine Clarke | LinkedIn

☑️ Ostroff Godshall Injury and Accident Lawyers on LinkedIn | X |  Facebook | YouTube | Instagram

☑️ Brendan Lupetin | LinkedIn

☑️ Lupetin & Unatin, LLC

☑️ Connect: Facebook | LinkedIn | YouTube

☑️ Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | YouTube

Episode Preview

• The background of Delaverne v. Health Services of Clarion
• Message to the jury: Good people make bad mistakes
• Revealing the failure to communicate between physician’s assistant and physician 
• Why their closing focused on the system, not the client’s suffering
• How the jury broke down responsibility 

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.Produced and Powered by LawPods

People go to hospitals to have their injuries treated. Unfortunately, however, sometimes patients are injured through the hospital’s negligence.

On this episode of Just Verdicts, host Brendan Lupetin is joined by Pittsburgh med-mal attorney Sandra Neuman of Sandra Neuman Law to discuss a $1.4 million verdict she recently secured for an injured client. Listen as Sandy breaks down the case, describes what she did to show how the hospital violated its standard of care, and provides insight on how to establish non-economic damages without suggesting a number.

Learn More and Connect

☑️ Sandra Neuman | LinkedIn 

☑️ Sandra Neuman Law on LinkedIn and Facebook

☑️ Brendan Lupetin | LinkedIn

☑️ Lupetin & Unatin, LLC

☑️ Connect: Facebook | LinkedIn | YouTube

☑️ Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | YouTube

Episode Preview

• Sandy Neuman’s path to becoming a trial attorney
• Background facts of Rotz v. UPMC Passavant
• How the defendants violated the standard of care owed to the plaintiff
• Implementing a speedy trial strategy to show the simplicity of the dispute
• Attacking credibility with deposition testimony and cross examination
• Establishing the order in which evidence is presented
• Establishing damages without suggesting a number
• Overcoming the defense’s motion for mistrial

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.Produced and Powered by LawPods

“There's no glory in trying to make something out of nothing. Cases are won and lost on the facts. If you don't have a good case, you're not going to win that case 99.9 percent of the time.”

In this episode of Just Verdicts, host Brendan Lupetin is joined by Kila Baldwin, shareholder at Anapol Weiss. Kila has been involved in a number of high-profile cases, including as lead counsel in trials that resulted in verdicts of $80 million, $57.1 million, and $41 million against Johnson & Johnson in transvaginal mesh cases.

Tune in as Brendan and Kila discuss Kila’s experience trying transvaginal mesh cases and what she did that led to mega verdicts, how to get documents into evidence when going up against “big corporate America”, and advice on how to succeed as a trial lawyer.

Learn More and Connect

☑️ Kila Baldwin | LinkedIn | Email

☑️ Anapol Weiss on LinkedIn, Facebook, Twitter/X, & YouTube

☑️ Brendan Lupetin | LinkedIn

☑️ Lupetin & Unatin, LLC

☑️ Connect: Facebook | LinkedIn | YouTube

☑️ Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | YouTube

Episode Preview

• Making the jump from law student to trial lawyer
• Keys to becoming a capable trial lawyer
• Kila’s experience trying transvaginal mesh cases
• What led to massive verdicts on Kila’s transvaginal mesh cases
• How to get documents into evidence when defendants fight you tooth and nail 
• Tactics for effective cross examinations
• Career advice for succeeding as a trial lawyer

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.Produced and Powered by LawPods

Slip-and-fall cases benefit from being “off code”–dialing down aggression and slowing things down. Especially when there’s no clear evidence of a premises violation, building credibility (yours and your client’s) is the best way to proceed. 

In this episode of Just Verdicts, host Brendan Lupetin is joined by slip-and-fall attorney Scott Perlmuter of Tittle & Perlmuter to break down how Scott (and trial attorney Katie Harris) recently won a $1.3 million all non-economic damages verdict on a slip-and-fall premises liability case–despite no evidence of a clear violation. 

Tune in as Brendan and Scott discuss the importance of being “off code" in this case, how focus groups helped Scott and Katie figure out the best way to frame evidence, and when not to present plaintiff medical bills.

Learn More and Connect

☑️ Scott Perlmuter  | LinkedIn

☑️ Tittle & Perlmuter  | LinkedIn | Facebook | Instagram | Twitter | YouTube 

☑️ Brendan Lupetin | LinkedIn

☑️ Lupetin & Unatin, LLC

☑️ Connect: Facebook | LinkedIn | YouTube

☑️ Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | YouTube

Episode Preview

• Getting to know Scott Perlmuter  
• Building a case based on cumulative evidence in slip-and-fall
• Polarizing the case–and coming up with the tiebreaker
• How to handle a missing surveillance video in a slip-and-fall case
• Discovery of a franchisee and using evidence at 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.Produced and Powered by LawPods

“Another one for the books.” How do you get a $2.5M verdict on two shoulder surgeries? It comes down to telling a compelling story to motivate the jury. 

In this episode of Just Verdicts, host Brendan Lupetin is joined by the show’s first returning guest, trial attorney Clancy Boylan of Morgan & Morgan. 

Tune is as Brendan and Clancy break down Clancy’s recent trucking case including, how he turned down a settlement offer more than double the medicals, the question he asked the defendant’s corporate designee which froze the witness into silence, how he structured his closing argument, and how to talk about damages to the jury when you can’t say a number. 

Learn More and Connect

☑️ Clancy Boylan | LinkedIn | Facebook | Email | Cell

☑️ Morgan & Morgan | LinkedIn | Facebook | Twitter/X | YouTube | Instagram

☑️ Brendan Lupetin | LinkedIn

☑️ Lupetin & Unatin, LLC

☑️ Connect: Facebook | LinkedIn | YouTube

☑️ Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | YouTube

Episode Preview

• Background of Clancy’s trucking case
• Why FMCSR 392.14 is so powerful in trucking litigation  
• How Clancy asked about caps on damages during jury selection
• Breaking down cross tactics, including wild moments that left the defendant’s witness speechless
• Clancy’s closing

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.

A product intended to ensure safety should not be the source of an injury. In 2023, veteran trial attorney Wesley Ball of Farrar & Ball LLP helped secure a verdict against a car manufacturer that put defective seat belts in their cars. 

In this episode of Just Verdicts, Wes tells host Brendan Lupetin how he prevailed on behalf of a client whose devastating injuries caused by a defective seat belt left him a quadriplegic. Wes recalls how focus groups helped him prepare his trial strategy, the process of picking a Philadelphia jury, and the challenges of anchoring a case for damages in a jurisdiction that does not allow attorneys to suggest an amount of damages to the jury.

Tune in to hear how Wes successfully advocated for his client and made a corporate bad actor pay.

Learn More and Connect

☑️ Wesley Ball | Email

☑️ Farrar & Ball LLP 

☑️ Brendan Lupetin | LinkedIn

☑️ Lupetin & Unatin, LLC

☑️ Connect: Facebook | LinkedIn | YouTube

☑️ Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | YouTube

Episode Preview

• The proper mindset for attorneys seeking large verdicts
• Using focus groups to prepare for trial
• Picking juries in Philadelphia 
• Using opening statements to frame your case for the jury
• Establishing damages without suggesting a value to Pennsylvania juries
• Anchoring your case throughout 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.

Produced and Powered by LawPods

Fighting for what is right can be difficult. But that fight is worth it when justice is done.

In this episode of Just Verdicts, host Brendan Lupetin is joined by Philadelphia injury attorney Tom Bosworth to discuss the case of Diane Melendez, whose undiagnosed condition caused her to experience extreme pain and lose her job. Tom recalls impeaching Ms. Melendez’s primary care physician, attacking the credibility of defense witnesses, and showing the jury how the defendants’ bad behavior had far-reaching ramifications on Ms. Melendez’s health.

Tune in to hear how Tom’s fight for justice led to a $19.7 million verdict from a Philadelphia jury.

Learn More and Connect

☑️ Tom Bosworth | LinkedIn | TikTok

☑️ Bosworth Law | LinkedIn

☑️ Brendan Lupetin | LinkedIn

☑️ Lupetin & Unatin, LLC

☑️ Connect: Facebook | LinkedIn | YouTube

☑️ Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | YouTube

Episode Preview

• Why Tom Bosworth became a plaintiff’s attorney
• Advice for people who want to become trial attorneys
• Background facts of the Melendez case
• Direct examination of the defendant healthcare provider
• Attacking credibility in direct and cross examination
• Establishing the order in which evidence is presented
• How to determine whether to take a medical malpractice 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.

Produced and Powered by LawPods

In Pennsylvania, plaintiff lawyers call Fayette County “Fayette-Nam.” They say jurors are anti-establishment. They say it’s one of the toughest counties in the Commonwealth. They say job one is to get their case out of Fayette County. 

James Tallman and Tom Crenney tried their med mal case in Fayette County. They won. 

In this episode of Just Verdicts, James and Tom tell host Brendan Lupetin how they prevailed on behalf of the family of a 35-year-old woman who died after what should have been a routine gallbladder surgery. They recall jitters, such as when their expert witness had to testify via Zoom. Would the wifi work? They share surprises: What did the jury really care about in the defendant doctor’s testimony? They describe how they argued for damages: “the old-fashioned way.”

Tune in to put yourself in a Fayette County courtroom as this med mal team champions for their client.

Learn More and Connect

☑️ Tom Crenney | LinkedIn

☑️ Tom Crenney & Associates | LinkedIn

☑️ James Tallman | LinkedIn

☑️ Elliott & Davis, PC | LinkedIn | Facebook

☑️ Brendan Lupetin | LinkedIn

☑️ Lupetin & Unatin, LLC

☑️ Connect: Facebook | LinkedIn | YouTube

☑️ Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | YouTube

Episode Preview

• What they faced in the Pennsylvania county known a “Fayette-Nam”
• Why “anti-establishment” jurors can be an asset
• What the jurors cared about 
• How their expert witness made an impact testifying via Zoom
• What they revealed about the defense’s expert witness
• How they framed the loss
• How they argued for damages

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.

Produced and Powered by LawPods