Long Beach 562.432.5855 / San Diego 619.814.5900
·
mmotico@kellytrotter.com
Apply To The Firm

Verdicts

Learn More About Prominent Verdicts Below

We Have a Combined Total of Over 350 Trials Among Our 50+ Attorneys

2023

Richard Carroll and Michael Mertens Win San Diego Trial

The 41-year old plaintiff alleged an emergency medicine specialist failed to diagnose a subdural hematoma, causing her permanent brain injury requiring future care and loss of earning potential.  Dick and Mike successfully defended the physician, arguing he did not fall below the standard of care and did not cause the plaintiff’s injuries.  The jury agreed.  Congratulations to Dick and Mike!  (June 2023)

 

Jessica Munoz Wins First Covid Trial in the Nation

Jessica successfully defended an assisted living facility against allegations its staff committed elder neglect against an elderly gentleman, who contracted Covid and passed away approximately two weeks later.  In what is known as the first Covid case to be tried in the United States, Jessica obtained a unanimous verdict.  The jurors understood the difficulties of managing Covid, and also did not find the cause of the death was related to Covid.  Congratulations to Jessica!  (April 2023)

John Kelly and Patrick Goethals Win Nonsuit Mid-Trial

John and Pat represented a hospital in a birth injury case.  The allegations involved a surrogate mother who claimed injuries and twin babies, one who passed away shortly after delivery.  Following plaintiff’s case, John and Pat moved for a non-suit, arguing plaintiffs failed to demonstrate how standard of care violations by the nurses were a substantial factor in the alleged harm.  The judge agreed and provided plaintiffs’ counsel with additional time to make an offer of proof as to how plaintiffs could cure the defects in their case.  Plaintiffs’ counsel failed to do so, and the non-suit was granted.  Congratulations John and Pat!  (March 2023)

Dick Carroll Obtains Defense Verdict In San Diego Case

Dick Carroll successfully represented a pain management specialist against allegations his treatment was not indicated and did not provide the proper informed consent.  The patient suffered unfortunate complications of a hematoma, a spinal cord injury, and permanent paralysis.  Plaintiff’s counsel asked the jury to award $30 million in damages.  The jury found for the defense.  Congratulations Dick! (March 2023)

Ben Cramer Successfully Defends Two Emergency Medicine Physicians

Ben Cramer represented two emergency medicine physicians against allegations they failed to timely diagnose and treat wound botulism.  The now forty-year old plaintiff suffered an unfortunate complication from the wound, and was tragically in a vegetative state.  Plaintiff’s counsel requested the jury award $13.3 million in economic damages.  The jury rejected this request, and found the two emergency medicine physicians were not liable.  Congratulations Ben!  (March 2023)

Dick Carroll Obtains Defense Verdict In San Diego Case

Dick Carroll successfully represented a pain management specialist against allegations his treatment was not indicated and did not provide the proper informed consent. The patient suffered unfortunate complications of a hematoma, a spinal cord injury, and permanent paralysis. Plaintiff’s counsel asked the jury to award $30 million in damages. The jury found for the defense. Congratulations Dick! (March 2023)

2022

Dick Carroll Wins Impressive Bellwether Trial

A plaintiff accused a hospital of “gross negligence” in allowing physicians to use “imitation” metal screws in her spinal fusion surgery. Dick Carroll successfully defended the hospital, arguing the hospital properly relied on an outside investigation by the FDA that did not raise red flags about counterfeit parts. The jury returned a defense verdict as hundreds of similar cases were paused while the bellwether trial proceeded. Congratulations Dick Carroll! (November 2022)

John Kelly Obtains Defense Verdict In Compartment Syndrome Case

In a case involving an emergency room physician allegedly failing to diagnose compartment syndrome, John Kelly successfully defended the physician’s care and treatment and made compelling causation arguments.  The plaintiff presented to the emergency room with a clear diagnosis of a deep venous thrombosis and was admitted for stabilization prior to being transferred to a hospital within her network.  Once she was transferred, a fasciotomy three days later revealed viable tissue.  As such, it was unlikely the patient had compartment syndrome at the time of the emergency department visit.  A jury agreed.  Congratulations to John Kelly for another meritorious defense win!  (August 2022)

Ben Cramer Wins Jury Verdict In Just 45 Minutes

Ben Cramer defended an emergency medicine physician and a pediatrician accused of failing to diagnose an infection in a four month old infant.  The infection resulted in a cleft lip.  A Van Nuys jury deliberated for just 45 minutes before returning a defense verdict.  (March 8, 2022)

Dick Carroll And Daniel Weinberg Win Jury Verdict

Dick Carroll and Daniel Weinberg defended a plastic surgeon who performed a rhinoplasty.  Plaintiff suffered a post-operative complication of an infection and required additional surgery.  He claimed he was not made aware of the potential risks of the surgery and that if they were discussed, he would not have undergone the surgery.  Defendant rejected a six-figure demand.  A Los Angeles jury found for defendant.  (March 8, 2022)

John Kelly And Mercedes Rezai Win Jury Verdict

John Kelly and Mercedes Rezai defended a surgeon accused of medical malpractice before a jury at the Santa Monica Courthouse.  Plaintiff alleged the surgeon lacerated the aorta during the course of a laparoscopic appendectomy. Despite conducting a trial in the middle of the pandemic, the 12 jurors were a captive audience and returned a defense verdict after only an hour of deliberation. (January 12, 2022)

2021

Matthew Klimkowski Wins Directed Verdict

The plaintiff underwent a surgery to remove an ovarian cyst, and claimed the surgery was unnecessary.  Her attorney alleged lack of informed consent and medical battery.  After the plaintiff’s case in chief, Mr. Klimkowski moved for a directed verdict.  The judge granted Ms. Klimkowski’s motion, finding plaintiff had failed to present evidence to support any of the claims against the OB/GYN.  (August 10, 2021)

2011

Rosen v. St. Joseph Hospital (2011) 193 Cal.App.4th 453

Affirmed dismissal by demurrer. Plaintiff alleged causes of action for (1) conversion and conspiracy to commit conversion, (2) violation of fiduciary duty, (3) violation of privacy, and (4) intentional infliction of emotional distress; alleging defendants secreted an angiogram in a conspiracy to help the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) defeat plaintiff’s claims of injury based upon an alleged bus accident. Court agreed that the labels used by Rosen were properly disregarded, and that complaint was properly dismissed as the facts alleged amounted to spoliation of evidence claims barred by California Supreme Court decisions.

PacifiCare of California v. Bright Medical Associates (2011) 198 Cal.App.4th 1451

Medical group’s good faith settlement affirmed. Plaintiff sued only PacifiCare. PacifiCare cross-complained against Bright. Bright agreed to settlement with plaintiff, and trial judge dismissed PacifiCare’s cross-complaint, finding the settlement to be in good faith. PacifiCare challenged the group’s settlement, arguing that because plaintiff never sued Bright the settlement was collusive and intended to disadvantage PacifiCare’s defense. PacifiCare also contended it had a right to recover its attorney fees (exceeding $1 million) from Bright. PacifiCare contended “it incurred those fees solely to defend claims based on Bright’s acts or omissions, rather than anything PacifiCare did or failed to do.” Health and Safety Code section 1371.25 barred PacifiCare’s indemnity claim for attorney fees – “neither plans nor providers are liable for the costs of defending others.”

Guerrero v. Southern California Kaiser Permanente Medical Group (Cal. Ct. App., Sept. 21, 2011, B225999) [not published]

Court of Appeal affirmed dismissal of plaintiff physician’s claim against his employer based upon another employee’s theft of his identify, agreeing plaintiff could not delay the running of the statute of limitations until the date of the perpetrator’s criminal conviction. A plaintiff cannot delay filing a civil action until that plaintiff obtains “the proof beyond a reasonable doubt required for a criminal conviction.”

Dozier v. Shapiro (2011) 199 Cal.App.4th 1509

Nonsuit affirmed because standard of care testimony was properly excluded from trial. Plaintiff’s attorney obtained treating physician’s agreement to criticize defendant’s care without complying with the requirements for designating a “retained expert.” The treating physician was “transformed” into a retained expert, when plaintiff’s attorney gave him additional information and asked him to testify at trial to opinions formed on the basis of that additional information.

Carter v. Prime Healthcare Paradise Valley (2011) 198 Cal.App.4th 396

Affirming dismissal of complaint alleging elder abuse. Court of Appeal agreed that to maintain a claim for enhanced remedies under the Elder Abuse Act from a health care provider, a plaintiff must show more than simple or even gross negligence in the provider’s care or custody of the elder – “a plaintiff must allege conduct essentially equivalent to conduct that would support recovery of punitive damages.” To maintain a claim of elder abuse, the plaintiff must also allege facts “establishing the causal link between the neglect and the injury” “with particularity.” The Court agreed that plaintiff’s allegations did not show that “the Hospital did anything sufficiently egregious to constitute neglect (or any other form of abuse) within the meaning of the Elder Abuse Act,” and that allegations of “failure of medical practitioner to provide necessary medication or treatment is malpractice,” not abuse.

2008

Titan Electric Corp. v. Los Angeles Unified School Dist. (2008) 160 Cal.App.4th 188

February 19, 2008 – In a published opinion, the 2nd District Court of Appeal agrees with Richard Carroll and David Pruett that an administrative hearing occurring after replacement of a subcontractor on a public works project is effective to approve the earlier replacement of that subcontractor, as the purposes of the Public Contract Code to prevent abuses were satisfied (the public entity had the opportunity to assess and accept the replacement during the project).

Krishnan v. Cedars Sinai Medical Center (2008) 2008 Cal.App.Unpub.LEXIS 561

January 23, 2008 – In an unpublished opinion, the 2nd District Court of Appeal agrees with Richard Carroll’s trial court outcome. The Court of Appeal affirmed the decision of the trial court to grant defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment on the grounds that plaintiff’s Opposition was untimely and was properly stricken, and further that defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment satisfied the initial burden of proof.

2007

Perrillo v. Picco & Presley (2007) 157 Cal.App.4th 914

December 6, 2007 – In a published opinion, the 2nd District Court of Appeal agrees with Richard Carroll and David Pruett that a physician who provides expert evaluations in the workers compensation context cannot maintain a lien for those same expert services on the employees’ settlement of a civil toxic tort action.

2005

Colleen M. v. Fertility and Surgical Associates of Thousand Oaks (2005) 132 Cal.App.4th 1466

September 28, 2005 – In a published opinion, the 2nd District Court of Appeal agrees with Michael Trotter that plaintiff had no reasonable expectation of privacy regarding her medical records, and their disclosure was authorized pursuant to the Confidentiality of Medical Information Act (“CMIA”). Since the patient paid for in vitro fertilization treatments using her ex-fiance’s credit card, disclosure was proper to any person who was paying the patient’s health care expenses.

 

2002

Kalaba v. Gray (2002) 95 Cal.App.4th 1416

February 7, 2002 – In a published opinion, the 2nd District Court of Appeal agrees with Mark Franzen that plaintiff’s present examining and/or treating physicians should not be permitted to testify as expert witnesses at trial, because plaintiff’s treating physicians were not specifically identified by name. Sine subsequent treating physicians are “percipient experts” they must be identified by name in the expert witness designation.