By: Michael Peterson, Keenan Law Firm
This month’s Reptile© Superstar is Thomas Greer. Thomas has been practicing law for 11 years. He is licensed in Tennessee and currently practices law at Bailey & Greer PLLC where his firm focuses on wrongful death, MVC, and med mal cases.
Introduction to Reptile©:
Thomas was introduced to the Reptile© via the Reptile© book in 2009, followed by his attendance to the Welcome to the Revolution Reptile© Intro seminar in 2010. According to Thomas, “All of this new information was exciting. It was a new way of thinking, and I sought to implement Don’s teachings immediately.”
Thomas’ favorite Reptile© tool is safety rules. He has found safety rules to be most effective in 1983 claims and med mal cases. According to Thomas, safety rules either force the defendant to agree with the safety rule or risk looking stupid in front of the jurors. Thomas follows Don Keenan’s Trial Blog weekly and is active on his State’s Reptile© Listserv, as he seeks to discover ways to incorporate Don’s strategies into each of his cases. In his last four trials, he has beaten the insurance company’s offer by four, seven, 74, and 10 times, respectively.
Facts of the Case:
Thomas’ case concerns a motor vehicle versus truck collision. The wreck occurred in 2012 in Memphis. Thomas’ client was traveling on the interstate heading to Little Rock, Ark., driving at around 30-40 mph due to heavy traffic. A truck that was traveling in the right lane veered into the plaintiff’s lane, forcing the plaintiff to veer toward a concrete barricade on the left shoulder. With nowhere to go, Thomas’ client pressed on her brakes and braced herself, gripping the steering wheel. The truck continued to enter her lane, colliding into the plaintiff’s vehicle.
The truck did not cause much damage to the vehicle. When the police came to investigate the wreck, Thomas’ client refused medical attention and informed the police that she was only suffering from mild pain in her right shoulder.
Thomas’ client was on business and was driving a rental car at the time of the wreck. Afterwards, she got a new rental car and continued to her business meeting in Little Rock (about 2 hours away). Thereafter, she flew to home to Houston, Tex. The next day, she saw an orthopedic doctor for her shoulder pain. The doctor assumed that it was a minor soft tissue injury and that she would likely recover. He supplied her with anti-inflammatory medication and told her to come back in six weeks if she was still in pain.
After a couple of days, Thomas’ client began to feel pain across both shoulders and after a couple of weeks, she began experiencing numbness in her arms and hands. Thomas’ client returned to the doctor, who prescribed physical therapy for her shoulders and cervical spine. The physical therapist scheduled eight sessions; however, she was only able to complete four sessions due to increased pain. All of her post-accident care came under worker’s compensation, a process that caused delays or “gaps” in treatment, which the defense sought to exploit. Eventually, the treating workers comp doctor informed her that he was concerned that she was suffering from cervical radiculopathy. Her physician ordered an MRI, which showed that Thomas’ client suffered from a disc protrusion.
Thomas’ client continued to work full-time during her treatment. She expressed to Thomas during witness prep that she was afraid to miss time from work due to the demands of the sales industry, and feared her employer would fire her if she had too many absences. As the pain progressed, Thomas’ client decided not to continue with physical therapy and she even refused her physician’s recommendation for epidural steroid injections. The client’s medical bills amounted to a mere $9,500.
The defendant argued that Thomas’ client was not as hurt as she claimed, because she chose not to accept treatment. The defense relied on the fact that Thomas’ client did not finish physical therapy, there were “gaps” in her treatment, she did not take narcotic pain medication, her medical records did not accurately reflect what she says she complained about, she continued to go to work full time, and she even went on several exotic vacations after the wreck. Moreover, there was evidence that Thomas’ client had a preexisting neck injury in 2010. Furthermore, in 2008, she had low back pain for which she chose to receive epidural steroid injections. This led the defense to question the plaintiff’s motives. The defense admitted liability early in the case.
Reptiling the Case:
Thomas started jury selection with passion questions to humanize him and, by extension, his client. Much of Thomas’ jury selection centered on the venire’s perception of the accuracy of medical records; he asked whether they or anyone they knew had problems with inaccurate medical charts and records. Everyone on the panel raised their hand and the panel agreed to listen to what the plaintiff said about her injuries, not just the medical records. Thomas went on to ask the venire how they felt about a person who continued to work despite being hurt. The venire stated that outside of serious injuries, they expect individuals to continue working. Thomas also asked about his client’s refusal to undergo epidural steroid injections and refusal to take narcotic pain medication. The panel agreed that undergoing a medical procedure was a personal choice and that it was wise to avoid prescription pain medication at all costs. Thomas used his remaining questions to eliminate the rats that could not see past his client’s pre-existing injuries and delays in treatment.
Prior to trial, Thomas deposed his client’s doctor, as well as a second opinion workers comp doctor who had been selected by the workers comp company. Both doctors stated the client’s neck and shoulder injuries stemmed from the wreck and that the injury was permanent.
At trial, Thomas started his proof by calling two of his client’s friends to testify about her character as a hard worker, and breast cancer survivor. They testified about how she truly enjoyed her work and she was extremely hard working. Furthermore, they testified that it was normal for her to continue working despite the stresses that were affecting her personal life. Thomas had them testify to the fact that she returned to work immediately after her breast cancer surgery, as an example of her dedication and love for her profession. Their testimony showed the jury that she was tough as nails and willing to persevere through anything. They also testified that she never complained about things and would downplay her pain, but that they had seen a big difference in her activities and overall demeanor since the wreck. Finally, they testified that she was the most honest and dependable person they knew.
Next, Thomas played the deposition of the treating workers comp doctor. He used the plaintiff’s treating physician to teach the jury about his client’s injuries using diagrams and models. He also had him explain why there were “gaps” in her treatment (i.e., workers comp denied visits, diagnostic tests and other therapies).
Thomas followed up the treating physician’s testimony with the videotaped deposition of the second opinion workers comp doctor. Thomas made a big deal about how the second opinion doctor was handpicked by the workers comp company to question the opinions of the treating doctor. Yet, he also agreed that there was a permanent injury. This testimony strengthened the credibility of treating physician and helped Thomas retain the jury’s trust.
Next, Thomas called his client and her husband. Their testimony was short and to the point. They testified about when the pain developed, how the pain never went away, and how the pain affected their lives in every respect.
The defendant called a local DME to testify that any problems she was experiencing did not stem from the wreck, but from her prior injuries. He testified that she may have had symptoms for six to 12 weeks related to the wreck, but anything after that was due to her pre-existing problems.
Thomas kept his cross of the defense very short, as to not give any of his statements any credence. His one objective was to place the expert on-code. Thomas focused his cross on the defendant’s bias towards the defense. Thomas had the expert admit that 90 percent of his testimony was for the defense and that he had worked several times with the defense’s law firm. Thomas pointed out that the defendant actually paid to fly his client from Houston to Memphis to see him and he asked the doctor, “Why would the defense firm do that?” The answer didn’t matter. Thomas went on to juxtapose the DME’s position to the medical position of the plaintiff’s treating physician, and the second opinion workers comp doctor.
Thomas performed a side-by-side comparison of findings made by the DME, to findings made by the treating doctors, in order to show that they were starkly different. Finally, he got the DME to admit that his opinion means that the wreck was a mere coincidence, and had nothing to do with her current condition. By the end of his testimony, the jury could clearly see the DME was on an island as it pertained to his opinions. Thomas’ strategy was successful at placing the defenses’ expert on code.
Right after the defenses’ expert, Thomas recalled his client so that she could directly contradict many of the DME’s statements. The plaintiff testified that she had to sit for 85 minutes in the waiting room before the DME started her examination and once started, it took only 10 minutes. She also flatly disputed many of the tests that the DME claimed to have performed on her. Her testimony coupled with the DME’s testimony proved to the jury that the expert was on code.
Closing:
During closing, Thomas focused on the jury’s role as the conscience of the community. Thomas told the jury that their verdict must speak – not just for today, but for the next 30 years – and must speak for every honest, hardworking, and dependable member of society who is injured by someone who violates the rules of the road. He talked to the jury about responsibility. He discussed how responsibility requires a person to admit to their actions and then do everything possible to make it right. Thomas went on to address how the defendant admitted to liability, but failed to attempt to make right and instead denied any responsibility for the damages in this case. He told the jury that this was their opportunity to make it right. Thomas explained that safety rules existed for one reason: To make us all safe from harm. And when rules are broken, the violator must pay for all the harm, not just some of it. Thomas revisited the medical records and treating physician’s testimony to prove that her injuries stemmed from the wreck. Thomas chastised the defense for how they had treated his client in trial by calling her a liar and a cheat.
To highlight the harm done to his client, he told the jury about how well she felt right before the wreck after her fight with cancer was finally over. He mentioned the fact that her youngest child had recently gone off to college, and that she looked forward to playing golf, taking walks, and taking vacations with her husband. Thomas wanted the jury to know that she had things she was looking forward to other than work that the defendant snatched away through his negligent actions.
Thomas told the jury that if they believe the defense’s version of the facts, then they must also believe that the defendant was the luckiest trucking company on the face of the earth. The facts showed that the plaintiff was in a wreck, started having pain immediately after the wreck, that the pain spread within a couple of days, and that the pain never went away. Yet, Thomas told the jury, the defense would have you believe that the wreck has nothing to do with her condition today. Thomas also addressed his client’s pre-existing conditions by saying,
“We all preexist before a wreck, and thus people may have problems they do not even know about. The defense is saying if you are in a wreck in Memphis, Tenn., you better be in perfect physical condition, or else you’ll get nothing for your injuries. You better not have any wear and tear or preexisting medical problems, or else you can’t recover for your injuries. Well folks, this not the law that the judge instructed and you all swore to uphold the law.”
Verdict:
The jury returned with a unanimous verdict of $300,000, which was 10 times the pre-trial offer. Despite the plaintiff’s pre-existing injuries, inconsistent medical records, lack of medical treatment and the continued work, Thomas was able to win his case through jury selection questions, swift boating, and placing the defendant and defense experts on-code, while showing that his client was worthy of their verdict. Congratulations to Thomas on use of the Reptile©. This verdict made his client whole, awakened the community’s Reptile©, and put the defense on notice!