EP 924- $10M Med Mal Verdict

Episode Notes

Transcript

Announcer:

Welcome to Heels in the Courtroom, where the trial lawyers of the Simon Law Firm break down what it takes to win in the courtroom and in life.

Elizabeth Lenivy:

Hello and welcome back to another episode of Heals in the Courtroom. I’m Liz Lenivy. And today joining me is Elizabeth McNulty, Erika Slater, and Mary Simon. And we have a really exciting episode for you because we’re going to discuss a very, very, very, I have about 10 million plus varies I could add. I see what you did there. Big verdict achieved by our very own Mary Simon. Yay. Thank you. Along with John and Erika. And so we are very excited to talk about this and I want to know all of the details. I know a little bit about the case, but obviously you all lived it. I want to hear about what the case was about. I want to hear about what happened at trial and how you all were able to achieve such an incredible result for what I understand as an incredibly deserving client.

Erika Slater:

And a medical malpractice case. That’s

Elizabeth Lenivy:

Right. So Mary, I’m going to pitch this to you. Can you tell me, tell our listeners about the facts of this case? I know it was a medical malpractice case. I know it was a surgery type situation, but what happened?

Mary Simon:

Yeah. So kind of to set the stage for this case, I actually have been with this same client since 2017, and that’s actually when I got licensed. So I have been with this client for the beginning. Yes, since the very beginning. For my entire career, I have worked for this client. That’s exactly right. So it’s so crazy when I start to think about this case. I can’t really think about it without thinking about the last seven years working with this client. When I met her, she had just had her daughter. And by the time we tried this case for a second time, and I’ll fill that in a second, her daughter was seven years old. And it’s just been an incredible privilege to be a part of her story and her family story. And it just makes me so happy to have such an incredibly deserving client.

And we actually worked this case up and tried it a year ago, a little over a year ago, and it resulted in a hung jury. And that trial went from Monday into late Saturday night, and the jury couldn’t come to an agreement. So they came out three different times and said, “How long do we sit here?” Just staring at each other until something else happened. So it ended up resulting in a mistrial or a hung jury. I immediately got a new trial setting and my client is just so resilient and steadfast in her willingness to see this through and trust our trial team to continue to represent her. So it results in a hung jury about a year ago. I get a new trial setting for about 11 months later, almost a year later, which anyone who practices, who handles trials, you always know anytime you go to get a trial setting, it’s always later than what you want.

So we spent this last year kind of reworking up the case in a way, and eventually we got it set for a second time in January of 2024 in St. Louis County, and we tried the case to verdict, and they resulted in more than a $10 million verdict in St. Louis County. But to kind of back up and set the stage for what this case is about, my client underwent a C-section back in 2016, and during the C-section, there was an extension of the uterine incision. So the opening into her uterus during the C-section widened, and there was an extension on the left side. And when the attending and the resident who were handling the surgery went to stitch the uterine incision, the extension closed, they stitched through my client’s left ureter. And I don’t know how familiar our listeners are with urinary system anatomy, but it is drilled in my brain by this point.

And ureters are muscular tubes that connect your kidneys down to your bladder, and they push urine down from your kidneys into your bladder. In this case, they stitched through my client’s left ureter and they sent her home after the C-section. And in the days following the C-section, she was having increased fevers, nausea, vomiting. She wasn’t feeling great. She came back to the hospital and still was kind of unsure what was going on, but clearly there was an infection of some sort. A urologist eventually gets called in. 13 days had passed from the initial C-section and the date that the urologist was called in. A urologist goes in and identifies that there was a stitch. Her left ureter was completely occluded or blocked on the left side. And so urine wasn’t able to pass down that left side, so it was resulting in these infections for her.

So a urologist, 13 days after the fact, places a stent into her ureter, hoping that the ureter would heal on its own. That stent didn’t work. And then a couple weeks later, he did it again and again and again and again. So overall, she had four stent replacement procedures over the next months. And it’s important to acknowledge here that my client at the time is 18. So she’s a healthy, before this, a healthy 18-year-old new mom who’s just ready to be home with her baby and she’s having these repeated surgeries. After she undergoes the four stent procedures, which didn’t work, she has to undergo what’s called a ureteral re-implantation procedure. And what happens in a re-implantation procedure, there’s a couple different ways to do it, but the overall goal is to remove the part of the ureter that’s damaged and then take the bladder and stretch it up to what’s remaining of the healthy ureter.

So kind of picture like a straw or something and you’re cutting off the bottom and then you’re pulling the bladder up to what’s remaining of the healthy straw or ureter. That way, urine can actually go through the ureter down to the bladder. The problem with this is, and it’s a known … The goal of the procedure is to remove the bad part of the ureter, but the issue that you’re left with is reflux because the valve, the part of the ureter that’s attached to the bladder is removed during this procedure. So instead of the ureters functioning as they would in a healthy individual where the urine just flows down into the bladder from the ureters through the valves, her left valve was removed, so her urine would just reflux up into her bladder. So if my client lays down, her urine goes up into her kidneys.

There’s nothing stopping it because that valve that keeps your urine down into your bladder is gone. So she’s left with permanent urine reflux up into her left kidney. This obviously results in kidney infections. So now she has chronic kidney infections. During this time period after her ureter was injured, she also experienced chronic UTIs and difficulty voiding, difficulty actually going to the bathroom. And as time goes on, she’s having recurrent UTIs, recurrent kidney symptoms, and kidney infections, and eventually starts treating with a urologist for her voiding problems that she’s had for the last couple years, and the urologist informs her that she’s going to have to self-catheterize for the rest of her life. So he prescribes her a lifetime of catheters. She goes through the process of learning how to catheterize. And for my client, it was particularly difficult for her to self-catheterize for a couple reasons.

One was because her anatomy is actually distorted. Her bladder is now in a different position than it is because of that re-implantation procedure. And another is because she has constant reflux up into her kidneys, so she has constant pain. So it’s not like … Catheterizing is not easy as is, but she also has these other roadblocks in place. And in addition to her bladder anatomy being changed and her pain from the infections, she also developed a tight pelvic floor. One of her urologists talked about this as pelvic floor muscular dysfunction. And a way to talk about that is, or a way to kind of describe that is every time she goes to place the catheter, her pelvic floor muscles tense up because she’s introducing pain into her body. It ended up being kind of this storm of … It was a storm for my client.

I mean, it’s just so, so difficult. And it’s every time she’s going to the bathroom. And when she’s not going to the bathroom, her bladder’s filling and she’s experiencing the discomfort and urine going up into her kidneys. So for the last seven years, my client has been in and out of doctor’s offices on a routine basis. Over time, and between the time we tried the case initially and the second time we tried it, it only got worse. Her damages just kept getting more complex. When we went to try this case for a second time, we really focused on how to simplify for the jury to have an understanding of what her damages are in the most effective way. At trial, it was me, my dad, and Erika Slater, and we really spent a great deal of time leading up to the case thinking about what is the most effective way to present these damages to the jury.

And we were able to trim down our case from the first time that we tried it and really fine tune the elements of the case that we needed to present to the jury. We had a urology expert to talk about her causation and damages. We had an OB- GYN to talk about the stitching error, and we had a life care planner. Our life care plan was presented in a way that offered two options for our client. One of the options was to have a nurse assist her, self-catheterize a couple times a day during the work week for the rest of her life, because really, she has problem self-catheterizing, even her. Healthcare providers have problems catheterizing her. It’s very difficult for her. But we also came to appreciate for our client who’s a young, single mom, that can be practically difficult to implement. So our expert and the life care planner implemented a second option for her, which allocated for hospital care and medical care that she would need from this point forward.

Again, it sounds kind of like this perfect storm that can be a little bit difficult to understand, but just to give you a snapshot of this young woman who now at the time of this most recent trial is 25 years old, she spent 49 days in the hospital in 2023. She is a full-time working, single mom. She is resilient, she is strong, and she is one of the most determined individuals, and she has done every single thing she can to help herself, and that still resulted in her spending 49 days in the hospital. So this option two in our life care plan allocated for medical costs that she will need this point moving forward. So that’s kind of like a snapshot of the overall facts of the case. And again, anyone who has practiced or any trial attorneys who have handled the medical malpractice cases, you know it really becomes a matter of admissions from experts and a battle of experts.

We had three, they had seven, and it was really our goal to get to condense down our case to the admissions that we got from the defense experts and let the jury meet and understand our client. Having the admissions that we did, it was just a matter of getting those back out in the courtroom in front of the jury. So we ended up really putting on our case in a day and a half. Monday was limited to jury selection. Tuesday by noon, we were done with opening statements and I think we rested at the end of the day on Wednesday, which is … I thought it was pretty efficient in the way that we put on our case. I think the jury had a really clear understanding as to what both sides were going to present their case after opening statement. And I know that sounds obvious.

It’s like, well, duh, that’s what opening statement is. I believe that we did such a clean job of sticking with the same consistent facts that we relied on for each of the elements of our case and got them out in a way that really mirrored the way we told the jury we would. We did exactly what we said we would, but one of the same things that we encountered again and again and again was this, in large part, a defense of putting a lot of it on our client. And so dealing with that, there were several times in the case where I would look to Erika or feel frustrated about something that they were talking about or testimony that they were trying to elicit, that in my gut, I just thought I know that my client is sitting back there for the second time now, listening to attorneys and defense experts talk about her role in causing her own problems.

Erika Slater:

Yeah. And I think too, like when you looked at the evidence, it was overwhelming the amount of care that this young woman who had, in the moment she was injured, become a new mother, had had to undergo. So you’re talking about 49 days admitted in the hospital. That is not to say how many touch points she had with the medical system in that year alone. And then when, I mean, we just had pages and pages and pages of like dates where she was at a doctor or physical therapist or whatever, any other kind of specialist dealing with this problem, and it was ridiculous. So I think that there was at the end of the case, a failure to mitigate her damages instruction that the court gave at defendant’s request, and they couldn’t walk back from that because … And we argue that they shouldn’t be able to do that, but quite frankly, that was the evidence that they set forth in the case.

So no doubt the judge made the right decision even though we opposed it.

Easy to say when you’re sitting here having won the case, but we’re glad we won despite that. But the defendants made a strategic decision that they were going to present evidence of this young woman not doing enough to address her problem or not … They put on evidence calling into question her report about how often she had to self-catheterize based on like the bills for the catheters and like there was a simple explanation. One, I don’t know if you guys think all electronic medical records are always accurate or if you’ve gotten medical bills that are perfect from every medical encounter you’ve ever had. But I mean, the problem was that if she did not have these catheters, she wasn’t going to make it. Right. She wouldn’t be

Mary Simon:

Here today.

Erika Slater:

Yeah. I mean, this isn’t like not being able to empty your bladder is not like something you can live with for a long time. That is an organ failing. And so, you know, and she was at the medical offices so often and like left with a handful of catheters each time or the hospital, like they’d give her the box once they open a box of catheters to start using them for her. And so that was the strategy that they took and it was, it’s one way to do it. And I’m not saying they’re wrong. It’s worked in other cases, but I don’t … I think that in part, the verdict reflected your and your dad’s steadfastness as far as how you presented the case. And once they gave you an opportunity to show a little bit of indignation, like how dare they? They injured her and now they’re saying she didn’t do enough to help herself, like that resonated because that’s what it is.

You’re just talking to 12 people with 24 eyes, 24 years, you can’t fool them. I’m glad it didn’t work because Mary, did you feel any reaction to when they were blaming your client? My gosh,

Mary Simon:

That’s exactly right. I just don’t think I’ve ever seen that testimony drawn out as long as it was. It wasn’t sort of this, of course it’s the underlying tone throughout the case because they’re defending the case. That happens all the time. We do the same thing, but it was actual testimony of non-expert testimony for hours of the jury listening to testimony about catheters and number of catheters. And I just-

Erika Slater:

From like a person who was talking about the billing from a company.

Mary Simon:

Correct. Every single day at the end of trial, trying to find the words to say to your client of, “I’m so proud of you and you’re doing a great job sitting here and I know that this is hard.” I said a lot more than that, but just for brevity’s sake, having to sit in front of someone who you are watching them endure this testimony about her lived experience and how it’s not what she is saying it is, that was so difficult because this is the second time she’s already done this one. She already sat through the first trial and I was so proud of her for not feeling jaded or hopeless. And I say that, I say that truly regardless of outcome. I say that like mid trial, I mean, she still was able to just look at me in the eyes and I’m just like, hang in there.

You just got to trust that you’re just going to keep hanging in there and you’re going to keep showing up at the same time every day. I know you’re tired. And seeing her show up, I think gave just me and Erika and my dad that extra whatever, that tenacity, we were able to bring the same tenacity every single day through every single witness of bringing home those same points of, it’s not okay to be entertaining these defenses or inferences that somehow she is responsible for this outcome.

Erika Slater:

Okay. Mary, I’m going to brag on you for a little bit. So when you put our client on, this is logistics, but my stomach dropped. So you got up and I mean, the thing is her testimony was extremely important to the case and it’s, as you and I talked about, it’s hard until you get in the moment of putting a client on or any witness for that matter of like understanding where you are in the story sometimes because so many of the, actually what happened and you know, you don’t need to like set any of the stage usually, but it’s hard to realize exactly how it’s going to fit in until you’re there. So it’s hard to make an outline other than like big bullet points of things you want to make sure you cover or things you’ve discussed with your client that you know have determined makes sense to bring up.

But you had, and I think you developed that bullet point outline and you got up and your paper outline’s gone, nowhere to be fun. Couldn’t

Mary Simon:

Find it.

Erika Slater:

And you’re just looking around and you’re like, and you looked back at our paralegal Caitlin and you’re like, “Do you have it? ” And she’s like, you know, she’s looking like she’s going to pass out. She’s like, “Totally.” Because you know at trial you’re on a stage and you feel like everything is like whatever, but you had none of that like nervous energy. You were just like, “Okay, I’ll just do this. ” And you grabbed your computer, you go up to where you wanted to stand to start talking to her because your outline was on there and you started with her because you’re literally just talking to someone who, although a client you have a client friendship with and you guys aren’t terribly different ages and you’re just like, “Hey, tell the jury who you are. ” And like as natural as you could start and then I’m watching you because I’m still like, “So is she okay up there?” Yeah.

I didn’t see

Mary Simon:

Erika in my peripheral vision, like seeing if my outline was somewhere on our table or-

Erika Slater:

Yeah, like I took it on, I’m like, “I’m about to find your outline for you, right? April right now. Okay, here we go. ” But you’re just like searching, you’re flipping through a page on your computer and you’re like, “That nevermind.” And then you just went on and you just had a conversation with your client and like, I mean, happy accident probably made it better than it ever could have been. Like your demeanor in front of the jury is very comfortable and I think it’s far beyond your years of practice as far as what I see when I look at other attorneys, not attorneys in this firm of course, but when I see other attorneys practice, you just have an ease that I really admired from you and your dad did too. And I hope he told you directly, but he sure as heck was talking behind your back.

So you need to know that.

Mary Simon:

No, I appreciate it. And the thing that’s so funny about that is I couldn’t even tell you. It was almost like I was asking questions to her while our system is loading on my computer. I’m like, I have to log in and do this and I’m trying to … Part of me that has that ease in front of the jurors comes from me thinking in my head, I just know what’s true and I know what the truth is and I know that my client knows what the truth is and there’s absolutely nothing I can do beyond just get the truth out to this group of people and they’re going to believe me or they’re not, but there is nothing that puts me more at ease than just telling the truth. Oh my gosh. It’s just outline, no outline. I think by the time that we tried that case again, I could have put on any witness in the case without an outline because it’s just, it was one of those things that whether it was our clients or their experts, it turned into kind of one of these things where you almost wanted to say to the expert, “Look, man, you know that I know that you know what’s in these records.” I was talking to my mom about this case for the last seven years, so thanks mom.

And I was telling her how it is baffling sometimes how hard and how much work has to go into convincing a group of 12 people of what is just the truth, what is blatantly true and has been this woman’s lived experience for the last seven years and the amount of effort and energy it takes into even preparing a cross-examination to discount other things that could be said to suggest to the jury that it’s beyond or something different than what is reflected in the records. This was just one that there were a lot of times where we could say there was no dispute that it was a stitch. There was no dispute that it was a complete block. There’s no dispute that she needed this medical care. It was a lot of clearing away the mud to get to the clean water of putting it in front of the jury to see it.

And it was a really good case to try for many reasons. And I had a lot of fun learning from you, Erika, and trying case with my dad is always a great experience of just the level of advocacy was unwavering honestly on both sides in many ways, but I just, the level of advocacy for our client, I think the jury felt that. And it kind of goes along to other conversations that we’ve had even on the podcast of being able to experience losses with our clients and wins with our clients and devastation of our clients with us being a part of that. I’ve never been more eager to get into the courtroom to try a case having tried it again with a hung jury. There were several times where comments were made about how plaintiff’s counsel were approaching their case or their arguments. And I just, I think it’s a good thing for us because I think when those comments are coming out, it’s showing that there has to be some acknowledgement about how we are advocating to the extent we are, that’s how apparent it is.

And I’ve seen that done in many cases on the other side of cases with our trial teams, but I just, I think it was a very just outcome for a very deserving client and I can’t express enough the amount of resilience it takes for a plaintiff to see a case through a second time to verdict. I will say something that was memorable, many things were memorable about this trial, but one thing in particular, Erika, was I think the jury went out maybe at like four and then came back around 8:30 or so, something like that. But when they came back in with the verdict, the court asked us if we wanted to, if counsel wanted to view the verdict.

Erika Slater:

Oh yeah. Yeah. It really changed the courtroom drama like logistics. Explain. Explain exactly how this went down. I’ve never been a part of this is how the verdict was.

Mary Simon:

Same. And a funny part of this too is me being the youngest attorney in the entire case, I went, “Yes, please,” to the judge. So the jury, we get told they’ve got a verdict. We all come into the courtroom, we’re all waiting for the jury. The jury comes in, they sit down, the court asks, “Do you have a verdict? Have you reached it? ” The bailiff gets the verdict form, hands it to the judge. We’re all standing up waiting for Her Honor to read the verdict and she asked, “Does counsel wish to view the verdict before it is read aloud?” And we’re all standing there and I said, “Yes, yes, Your Honor. Yes.” And we just walked up to the bench and we actually- At the sidebar. At SideBar. We went up to a sidebar and we got to look at it before it was read to the jury.

And I know I just at this point- And

Erika Slater:

Our client’s not there.

Mary Simon:

No, no, no.

Erika Slater:

She’s got no idea.

Mary Simon:

No, she’s sitting in the back of the courtroom. At this point, I know her so well that I know if certain looks for her means something to her and vice versa. And so I look at it and I am immediately thinking I want to look at my client. I need to make eye contact with my client. And I just, it was so-

Erika Slater:

But the jury’s looking at us too. Oh yeah. The jury’s looking at

Mary Simon:

Us, but verdict is in though. Verdict is in. So I look at it- No

Elizabeth Lenivy:

Take backseat. I’m like

Mary Simon:

Looking at it, I’m like, “How long do I need to look? Okay. I’m looking at this. Defense counsel’s looking at it. ” And you’re

Erika Slater:

Like, “Man, that’s a lot of

Mary Simon:

Numbers.” A lot of zeros. And I’m just looking at it and I just slowly turn. And so I’m standing up there with my dad even trying for me and him to just go by and I just make eye contact with my client. I just smile and give her a nod of the head. And I go back to council table and they read the verdict. Obviously I go back to the client, she’s crying, her mom’s crying. It’s this very, I won’t even call it a happy moment. It’s a very emotional moment. It’s a lot of things are coming to a final end here at the finish line. And after it was over, I remember talking to our folks on our trial team and one of them was like, “Yeah, we had a feeling we knew what the verdict was because Mary looked back at us and smiled.” And I was like, “I couldn’t help it.

” I’ve never been in that position before.

Erika Slater:

And the report was we all marched back down from the side of the judge’s bench and your dad has, no one can read your dad completely stoic, which in my head I’m like, “I’m sure John’s completely stoic right now.” So he gets back to the table first and walks back facing the clients. I’m behind him and I’ve I’m biting the insides of my cheeks to not smile. And then apparently that translates from everybody else’s report to me looking mad. Yes. And I realized that my face looks mad because I am trying not to be very joyous. And I looked at … I may have caught one person’s eye right before I sat down and gave a quick smile. And then the report was Mary’s just skipping back to the table basically. Yeah, I just second smiled at my client. I should have been smiling at the jury, at least nine of them.

Mary Simon:

I did. I smiled at them, smiled at the client. In my head, I just was thinking she has been waiting so long to get any answer. Whether we win, whether we lose, she’s been waiting so long to get any answer. And I couldn’t wait to tell her that anymore. In my head, I just think I owe her any amount of indication of what this says as quickly as I possibly can get it to her. She’s waited long enough.

Elizabeth Lenivy:

Did the judge explain why she did it that way? Because I’ve never heard of that.

Mary Simon:

Yeah, maybe she did. I think she even asked us. Well,

Elizabeth Lenivy:

Mary, you’ve been in front of this judge before.

Mary Simon:

Yes, but I think she even asked us if we … I think there was a conversation beforehand of … I plan on asking if you want to view it before if you want to. And I said, yes.

Erika Slater:

Why would you say no? There were two verdict forms and you’re looking to make sure that so- Consistent. So yeah, the attorneys are looking for three things. Is this properly filled out? Are nine jurors names on each verdict form? And obviously to learn what the result is. But you’re looking for the sufficiency of the verdict form, which quite frankly, a courtesy from the judge, because the judge is going to look it over, but wants to hear from counsel if they think there’s any errors before she reads this in open court, because this was nuts, but some of the case law that we were using during the trial about some of the instructional issues, like in the case, they filled it out. They filled out the verdict forms incorrectly. And we knew the plaintiff won in that case, but the jury was informed to go back and with some direction, like you must have nine jurors total on each of these verdict forms.

And there was confusion. And rightfully so. And we were reading that case to avoid the confusion that they experienced.

Mary Simon:

Right. And I think that … Yeah. And I think it made sense for this case given the amount of time that was spent on those particular issues with the jury instructions. And another fun part about this case was going into court. There was a court holiday during this trial and it was nice. We had an opportunity to go meet with the judge to go over instructions on the day that the court was closed. And so we went in and it was just so funny seeing our office and other council in jeans and a sweatshirt or whatever, because the judge said- Oh,

Erika Slater:

The judge made us a pot of coffee.

Mary Simon:

She made us a pot of coffee.

Erika Slater:

She had candy out for

Mary Simon:

Us. Muffins. She offered us muffins and city. She did.

Erika Slater:

And she had these beautiful clay mugs that must be her coffee set in her chambers. And I was just like- This is great. Wow, the hospitality on a court holiday is just amazing. Yes.

Mary Simon:

And it was also to our opposing counsel. I mean, they were just great to work with. They were. And it was a great case to be able to kind of do an exemplar and an example of civility being able to turn it on when you’re advocating and walk out of the courtroom laughing about us all getting home at an ungodly hour.

Erika Slater:

And I think the good thing that by and large, especially the bar that handles medical malpractice cases in St. Louis, I mean, I think we’re really lucky in St. Louis and for the most part in Missouri. And hopefully it’s more regional than just our state. But I’ve talked to attorneys from other states and they don’t speak to each … The civility is poor. The atmosphere is poor. They all hate each other and think it’s terrible. And sure, that happens once in a while. But it is really nice to take that element out of the case as far as that personal tension with the counsel on the other side. So I agree with you, Mary. It was a great group to work with. It really was. The judge was great to work with. And I understand that not everybody in the courtroom was happy about the verdict, but it was a great trial experience all around.

Mary Simon:

And everybody respected it.

Erika Slater:

Yes. Yes. Yeah.

Elizabeth McNulty:

Did you guys get the opportunity to talk to any jurors? I know sometimes they’ll stick around and talk to counsel, but sometimes they want to get the heck out of there, especially after a week and a half. Yeah.

Mary Simon:

Yeah,

Elizabeth McNulty:

Actually-

Erika Slater:

We were trying to get out of there and the jurors were looking for

Mary Simon:

Us. Yeah. When we were walking out, a couple of the jurors were standing in the hallway and they came in and they wanted to meet our client.

Erika Slater:

So- They wanted to talk to her directly.

Mary Simon:

They wanted to say- It was very cool. They were able to tell her that they played a big role in advocating for her in the deliberation room. So they were happy to let her know that they saw her, they heard her, and they wanted what’s best for her.

Erika Slater:

Yeah, they were wishing her the best. They were literally saying, “We hope with … ” I mean, because the future medical care, I mean, this isn’t going away. This is a permanent condition. And they wanted to tell her, “We wish you the best. We hope this helps.” And I think it’s just, I mean, that was very meaningful for our client,

Elizabeth McNulty:

But

Erika Slater:

I think just as important for the jurors, because I mean, they have no ability to interact. They just have to observe until they get to speak with a couple pieces of paper and then to be able to say, “We did this for you. We want to know that you know we saw you. “

Mary Simon:

I don’t

Erika Slater:

Know. It was one of the coolest moments in a trial and ever seen.

Mary Simon:

And then the fact that they just wanted to tell her, “We see you and we heard you. ” I don’t know what else you could ask for from a juror feedback to your client. It was pretty nice.

Elizabeth Lenivy:

I mean, I sat for John’s close. So that’s all I heard about the case was just the closing, which obviously you’re trying to distill so much information into 45 minutes or however long the judge may give you. It

Mary Simon:

Was so good, his close.

Elizabeth Lenivy:

It was an excellent close, just like again, I think how the lawyering we do at this firm is we try to make sure that our client is the focus of every case. Their story is the focus of every case, but most importantly that I’ve seen in closing arguments is when you empower the jury and you let them know this is your way to advocate for people, this is your way to not only advocate for this particular person, but to fight for your community. It is a direct sort of boots on the ground opportunity you have to improve things in your community and say, “We’re not going to accept this kind of behavior. We’re not going to accept whatever level of care you say that we should accept. We have rights and we have the ability to fight.” And so I always walk out of closing hoping that the jury feels like, “Okay, this is our chance to actually really make a difference.” And it’s obvious that this jury you had here took that message to heart and delivered.

Elizabeth McNulty:

Yeah.

Elizabeth Lenivy:

So my last question, Mary, what an incredible outcome, especially how young you are. I mean, that’s nuts. And

Erika Slater:

Trying a case with your dad.

Elizabeth Lenivy:

Trying a case with your dad, but I want to know what is the … I know you learned a lot of lessons, but what do you think is the biggest lesson you’ve learned from this trial experience?

Mary Simon:

I’d say one of the biggest things that I’ve learned is there’s always going to be some additional issue that you didn’t … It’s not that you didn’t prepare for it, it’s that it’s ongoing. The issues that are presented, legal issues, evidentiary issues, they’re never done. In all of my preparedness, type A mentality of having everything organized and everything ready to go, there was never a day of trial or even the days leading up to trial that there wasn’t a new research issue or motion to be handled or it’s always go, go, go on your feet thinking all the time. And the other thing that I have learned big time is that every single thing matters, every single part of your case and how you say it, and how you present it, and when you present it, and who is presenting it, and how it’s said, and where you’re standing, and your presence with the jury, every single thing matters.

And I appreciate so much working with attorneys like my dad and Erika who wholeheartedly take on that task, that the work ethic of our whole trial team was … There wasn’t any detail that we didn’t think about or consider. And just going forward, it’s just everything. Going forward, it really makes me think that from the admissions that you get in a deposition or the exhibits you use or the discovery, you want to get every single piece of that matters and will matter when it goes to the jury.

Elizabeth Lenivy:

Well, ladies, congratulations again. We’re so incredibly proud of you. I mean, again, what an amazing, amazing outcome for a great trial team, for a great client, and I think for our community and for St. Louis County. You guys made the area better. I want to thank all of our listeners for joining us on this episode. Remember, new episodes drop every other Wednesday, and if you want to reach out to us in the meantime, you can do so at [email protected]. Thanks so much, guys. Bye.

Announcer:

Thanks for listening to Heals in the Courtroom. At the Simon Law Firm, we know that trial success isn’t just about experience, it’s about strategy, resources, and the power of collaboration. That’s why attorneys across the country partner with us to strengthen their cases and deliver justice for their clients. If you’re interested in working with our team of seasoned trial lawyers, call 314-241-2929. And if you enjoyed the podcast, be sure to subscribe and send us your thoughts at heelsinthecourtroom.Law.

Continue Reading