During opening statements, Bruce Anderson tells jurors that lack of communication between Drs. Gregory Pavlat and Benjamin Moore caused Margaret Roberts' stroke.

Jacksonville, FL—As trial began Wednesday in a suit over a stroke that left a woman with life-long brain damage, attorneys argued whether lack of communication between doctors who treated the woman for blood clots ultimately caused the stroke.  Roberts v. St. Vincent’s Medical Center, 2011-CA-007017.

When the patient at the center of a medical malpractice case dies following a relatively routine medical procedure, the defense must often overcome a natural tendency among jurors to believe the healthcare staff involved must have committed some error. During closing arguments of Bailey v. Corso, Daniel Huff delivered a powerful appeal to reason that convinced jurors his client, an Emory Healthcare surgeon, was blameless in the procedure that punctured his patient's heart. 

Update: Dr. Magdi Hanafi, the gynecologist that performed a 2007 hysterectomy on Tammy Toomer, prevailed Monday evening in Toomer's suit claiming Hanafi forged her signature on consent forms and negligently performed the procedure.

Jurors deliberated for four hours before clearing Hanafi on claims ranging from medical malpractice to fraud. The decision capped a week-long trial and followed a closing in which Toomer's attorneys requested up to $5 million, plus attorney fees in the case. 

CVN will publish video of the trial as soon as it is available. 

Atlanta, GA—Trial begins today in Fulton County State Court in a medical malpractice case involving a gynecologist who is accused of forging his patient’s signature to a consent form for a hysterectomy he performed on her. Tammy Toomer v. Magdi Hanafi, MD et al. (09EV006809).

Covington, GA—A man whose outpatient gall bladder operation turned into over eight months of hospitalization and six years missed from work lost his Newton County Superior Court med mal case against the surgeon who performed the initial operation. William Ron Aiken and Sherri T. Aiken v. Newton Health System, Inc., and Steven Whitworth, MD (2011-SU-CV-2533-1)

A closing argument in a medical malpractice case is a rhetorical highwire act, requiring a good attorney to ensure jurors understand key medical concepts while arguing how those concepts apply to the the specific case at hand. Spend too much time reiterating general medical concepts and risk losing the jurors' attention. Spend too little time on those topics and risk confusing the jury as you argue the evidence. In a $10 million trial over the stroke-related death of an emergency room patient, Mary Jaye Hall's closing efficiently combined complex medical information with powerful argument to strike at the theory of plaintiff's case.