Recent Entries

  • Text Size: A A
Greedy Trial Lawyer

A "Jackpot" Malpractice Verdict? Hardly

October 04, 2006

By Greedy Trial Lawyer

Comments (3)

TrackBack (0)

Category: In Your Face

A $217 Million medical malpractice verdict (including punitive damages) is highlighted on Kevin, M.D.

Jackpot! A malpractice verdict fires up a plaintiff lawyer

Some choice quotes from the plaintiff lawyer:

Family attorney Steve Yerrid said he'll pursue damages from the insurance company, which is now claiming in a lawsuit that it has no duty to defend Austin because the doctor breached his contract.

"We're coming after them next," vowed Yerrid, who was part of a team of lawyers that brought Florida's landmark suit against tobacco companies and has won numerous other multimillion dollar verdicts.

"For all those people who believe in tort reform, they better find a new day job," Yerrid said. "We're here to stay."

Thank you, Steve Yerrid, for seeking justice for your client and for saying what needs to be said.

As for you, Kevin, take a closer look at how the insurance company declined an opportunity to settle within the policy limits, at why an unlicensed person examined the patient and at why an obvious stroke patient was sent home from the hospital to worsen without care. The word Jackpot! should be replaced with Stupidity!

The Birmingham News highlights just two of the monumentally stupid events in this tragic case.

ProAssurance's subsidiary, ProNational Insurance Co., was the malpractice insurer for a doctor's group running a Tampa area hospital emergency room where patient Allan Navarro's stroke was misdiagnosed by an unlicensed physician's assistant as a headache and sinus infection.

Yerrid told the Tampa newspaper he tried to get the insurance company to settle for the maximum allowed under the policy - $1 million for the doctor and $1 million for the physicians' group. Instead, he said, the insurance company wanted to settle for $300, offering $100 for Navarro, $100 for his wife and $100 for his 10-year-old son.

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:


The defense probably failed to seek trial bifurcation and to exclude the plaintiff from the court, his appearance being highly prejudicial.

Posted by: Supremacy Claus at October 8, 2006 12:22 AM

Doctors should refuse you care. To deter.

Posted by: Supremacy Claus at October 10, 2006 01:55 AM

Dear Supremacy,

So doctors should refuse to treat me because I represent the victims of their profession's incompetence. And, in turn, I should do my best to deny any doctor with these feelings access to the legal profession. Maybe we could call this mutual assured deterrence. In about 45 years we should be able to deal with each other again.

Posted by: GTL at October 10, 2006 06:59 AM

Post a comment

Remember Me?

Email Article