I focus a good deal of my practice on medical malpractice cases which are unique and challenging both for the lawyer and for the client.  Our initial focus in these cases is to be very selective and be certain that if we undertake the case that we have all of our proof and evidence before we even file a law suit because these cases are very vigorously defended by the insurance companies for the doctors.  And they are challenges in front of a jury.

So the first direction that we take when we interview a client or a family is to determine and almost to assume that there was medical malpractice, but to determine what the damages are.  Because most cases focus on whether the deviation or the malpractice has made a difference in the health and welfare of the individual.  This is known - it’s a very tricky concept that’s constantly litigated in court, it’s known as proximate cause. 

We have to show that but for the malpractice this condition would not exist. Many cases involve people that have died in a hospital setting.  They have been admitted to the hospital with a condition in and of itself may be life threatening.  And now as a result of what we will argue is medical malpractice they have died.  So we have to learn the medicine, understand the medicine, get the updated medical literature and make sure that whatever that doctor did, whatever that deviation was, whatever that mistake was made a significant difference in the outcome of the treatment of this patient.

And so in a sense what we do is reverse our thinking, assume medical malpractice, look at the damages first if we have the damages, if we can show proximate cause we then consult with all kinds of different doctors.  OB-GYNs, Neurologists, Orthopedists to establish what the mistake was under those circumstances.

These are complex cases, they require a lot of attention but they are always interesting and always challenging and we look forward to them.