Jamie Moncus, III

Alabama Medical Malpractice Attorney

Hare, Wynn, Newell & Newton, LLP 2025 Third Ave., North, Ste. 800, Birmingham, AL 35203
Phone: 205-328-5330 Website: www.hwnn.com Email: Jamie@hwnn.com
BBLS Chapter: http://www.bluebooksociety.com/profiles/james-r-moncus-iii/

Hallmark v. Shipman
A Wrongful Death Medical Malpractice Lawsuit in Alabama
Verdict: $4 Million Dollars
Full Article
O n January 13, 2008 Terry Hallmark checked into the Walker Baptist Medical Center Emergency
Room in Jasper, Alabama complaining of chest pains, nausea and shortness of breathall
signs and symptoms of a heart condition. He was examined by the attending emergency room
doctorDr. Shipmanwho ordered an EKG for Terry. Despite highly abnormal results showing an
excessively fast heart rate, Dr. Shipman chose to disregard those results, failed to investigate or
consider any possibility of a life-threatening cardiac problem, focused solely on Terrys stomach
pains and diagnosed him with a viral, gastrointestinal issue before sending him home. For the next 33
hours Terry continued to be seriously ill and on the 15th, completely collapsed, clutching his chest in
pain. He was taken back to the emergency room by ambulance where he could not be revived and
was pronounced dead. At trial, one of the medical experts testified that if Terry had not been
misdiagnosed, he would have had a 90% chance of survival. In January 2010, Jamie Moncus and his
law firm, Hare Wynn, filed a wrongful death lawsuit against Dr. Shipman for Terrys death. As with
any medical malpractice lawsuit, the case centered on the standard of care and whether it had been
breached by the doctor failing to consider the possibility of a heart conditionand definitively rule it
outbefore discharging Terry and sending him home. On August 20, 2014after a trial lasting
approximately 2 weeks, an Alabama jury deliberated only 45 minutes before agreeing unanimously
to award Terrys widow Donna, $4 million in damages. It was the largest medical malpractice verdict
ever to be awarded in the history of Walker County.

Alabama Medical Malpractice Lawyer Jamie Moncus:

When Jamie Moncus first started practicing law in Birmingham, Alabama, he primarily handled
general personal injury lawsuitscases such as auto accidents, motorcycle accidents, and trucking
accidents. However, he began to see how very difficult it was for victims of medical malpractice to go
up against doctors, hospitals, the medical establishment, and big insurance companies and win
because they had all the power, money, and resources. Furthermore, those pursuing medical
malpractice lawsuits in Alabama faced a number of rather unique challengeschallenges which
unquestionably proved to be far greater than those found in the average personal injury lawsuits, or
those found in medical malpractice lawsuits in other states. It is very difficult to win a medical
malpractice lawsuit; on average, 80-90% of all medical malpractice verdicts go to the Defense.
Certainly there are numerous complex medical issues at play, but jurors have a tendency to feel that
the practice of medicine is extremely difficult, that doctors do the very best they can, that not all
patients have good or successful outcomes, and that a medical malpractice lawsuit against a doctor
doesnt mean the doctor was at fault. Simply put, jurors generally trust doctors and respect them and
this often translates into a natural and unmistakable sympathy for them in the courtroom; therefore,
jurors are inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt and rule in their favor. In Alabama however,
there are additionaland dauntingobstacles for medical malpractice wrongful death lawsuits. For
these types of malpractice cases a jury cannot find fornor award fornon-economic damages such
as pain and suffering, loss of consortium [company], or emotional distress. They cannot even find for
economic damages such as loss of incomepast and futuremedical bills, funeral costs, loss of
pension or benefits, etc. which most states allow for. They can only award punitive damages,
which means that amount of money necessary to punish the doctor. Generally speaking, in other
states throughout the country courts are fairly reluctant to award punitive damages for medical
malpractice lawsuits. Courts usually reserve punitive damages only for conduct that they deem to be
the most egregious, and/or conduct that rises to the level of what is known legally as willful and
wanton. A doctor may be subject to punitive damages if he alters medical records after the fact, fails
to admit a mistake, or perhaps intentionally fails to exercise due care. Juries are often reluctant
however, to find a doctor or healthcare professional guilty of negligence or malpractice, and they are
even much less inclined to punish him or her, so this adds to the difficulty of successfully
prosecuting medical malpractice wrongful death lawsuits in Alabama. Additionally, one third of the
states in the country only require a jury to reach a majority vote in a civil trial. However, in Alabama,
juries must arrive at a unanimous decision, and this can make the process of arriving at a verdict
considerably more arduous, intimidating, andusuallyinfinitely more time consuming. As a result
of these obstaclesand othersmany Alabama lawyers are reluctant to rise to the challenge and
pursue these very difficult cases. Furthermore, it takes quite an exceptional attorney who is able to
take on medical malpractice lawsuits in Alabamaand winfor there is much nuance, subtlety, and
complexity with regard to medicine and medical malpractice; if a lawyer just dabbles in medical
malpractice or is a novice, the case will suffer. Discovering if negligence or malpractice occurred
requires the review of medical recordsand the corresponding testimonyof a medical expert. An
evaluation is needed to determine whether or not the doctor or healthcare professional breached
what is known as the Standard of Care, and if so, how it was breached? Was it something the
doctor did, for instance, or something he failed to do? How did that failure or act cause the injury or
death? Finding credible, qualified medical experts however is no easy task. Doctors generally dont
like to testify against other doctors and when they doit comes with a price tag. Therefore, an
effective and successful medical malpractice lawyer in Alabama needs to have the necessary
connections to find the best medical experts, the financial resources to pursue a case, as well as
considerable emotional stamina because medical malpractice lawsuits are time consuming, they are
expensive, and they are heart-wrenching. Jamie is known for being one of these exceptional medical
malpractice attorneys. He recently achieved the highest medical malpractice verdict ever to be
awarded in the history of Walker County for a lawsuit against an emergency room doctor who
breached the Standard of Care by misdiagnosing a heart condition. This misdiagnosis resulted in the
wrongful death of his patient. This was a difficult, highly complex case and Jamie faced quite a
number of daunting obstaclesbut he prevailed anyway.

The Emergency Room Malpractice Lawsuit, Wrongful Death & the Standard of Care:
As is customary with all medical malpractice lawsuits, this case completely revolved around what is
legally referred to as the Standard of Care. Did negligence occur, and if so, how? In proving
medical malpracticeor negligencethere are 4 conditions that must be met in order for a plaintiff
to prevail in a lawsuit: 1. The doctor or healthcare provider had a duty of care for the patienta
responsibility to adhere to a certain accepted standard of conduct known as the Standard of Care.
Standard of Care refers to the level of skill, competence, quality of care, and expertise that another
doctor in the same field of medicine would provide under similar circumstances and with
comparable resources. 2. There was a breach or violation of that duty. 3. Harm, injury, or death was
the result of that breach. 4. There is a direct correlation between the breach of the duty and the
injuryreferred to as causation. Hallmark v. Shipman, however, was a lawsuit against an Emergency
Room doctor and emergency rooms are known to be chaotic, high-stress environments. For these
reasons, the position of an emergency room doctor is admittedly one of the most challenging in the
medical field. Because of this, they are sometimes afforded a bit more leniency than might be
afforded to other doctors who generally might have more time to diagnose and treat a patient. Such
leniency is still limited, and emergency room doctors are still held liable for violating the standard of
care and injuring, harming, or causing the wrongful death of a patient. In a recent study, it was found
that issues related to diagnosis are the main reasons that emergency room physicians are sued for
medical malpractice and is the leading cause of injuries suffered by patientsthe most common
being failure to diagnose, delayed diagnosis, misdiagnosis, or wrong diagnosis. Premature discharge
from an emergency room is also, however, included on the list of emergency room malpractice
lawsuits.

Challenges to Misdiagnose or Failure to Diagnose Lawsuits:

A lawyer bringing a failure to diagnose case must prove that the doctor failed to live up to the
standard of care in diagnosing the patient's condition, and that the doctor's failure to diagnose or his
misdiagnosis caused the injury or death. Whether the doctor lived up to the standard of care always
requires an expert medical opinion. One of the issues the expert will examine is how the defendant
doctor arrived at their diagnosis and how closely they followed what is known as the Differential
Diagnosis Method. When a doctor is trying to diagnose a patient, he or she will make a list of
possible diagnoses in order of most serious, and then one by one through a process of elimination try
to systematically rule each one outwith only one remaining. Therefore, a lawyer trying to prove
misdiagnosis would undoubtedly attempt to show that the doctor did not follow the Differential
Diagnostic method as a competent doctor would have done. However, Jamie was not just trying to
prove misdiagnosis, but ratherwrongful death, so the question facing the jury throughout the trial
was, Would Terry still be alive if his heart condition had been diagnosed properly? The answer to
that question would determine the outcome of the case.

The Trial
Main Contentions, Strategies & Challenges:
In order for Jamie to win this lawsuit, he had to prove that Dr. Shipman had misdiagnosed Terry, that
the misdiagnosis was the result of his failure to follow the Differential Diagnostic Method that all
doctors are taught in medical school, and that his subsequent failure to identify and treat Terrys
heart condition resulted in his wrongful and untimely death.

Heart Condition v. Stomach Virus: The Misdiagnosis

When Terry arrived at the Emergency Room, he was complaining of nausea, chest pains, stomach
pains, and shortness of breath. He was examined by Dr. Shipman who ordered an EKG for Terry,
which tests for heart problems by measuring and recording its electrical activity. An EKG determines
how long it takes for an electrical wave or current to pass through the heart, as well as the amount
of electrical activity passing through. A doctor then uses this data to determine if the heart is
overworked, enlarged, or experiencing blockage since heart problems change the electrical activity of
the heart in very distinct ways. More specifically, EKGs can help doctors diagnose heart attacks that
are in progress or those that have happened in the past and it can also show if there is a lack of blood
flow to the heart. An EKG can show that the heart isnt pumping strongly enoughwhich can result
in heart failure, and it can show that the heart is beating too fast, too slow, or is irregularknown as
arrhythmiawhich can lead to sudden cardiac death. A normal heart rate is usually between 60 and
100 beats per minute. Terrys EKG registered 164 beats per minutewhich was extremely high and
therefore suggestive of arrhythmia.
When the heart has been damaged, it releases very particular enzymes and proteins into the
bloodstream. One of these proteins is called Troponin. Raised or elevated Troponin levels in the
blood indicate that there has been injury or damage to the heartparticularly due in the event of a
heart attack. However, there are varying opinions throughout the medical industry as to whether
Troponin levels will be elevated due to the development of Acute Coronary Syndrome (ACS).
Generally speaking, ACS is a set of symptoms that arise from decreased blood flow in the coronary
arteries, which prohibits, inhibits or impedes the transportation of blood containing oxygen to the
heartinevitably altering heart functionresulting in the malfunction or in the death of the heart
muscle. ACS covers a range of disorders that include heart attacks, but an arrhythmia can also be the
result of ACS. The most common symptoms of ACS are chest pain, stomach pain, nausea, and
sweatingall symptoms which Terry had. The combination of thesealong with the high EKG
resultsshould have been an obvious red flag for Shipman, alerting him to a distinct possibility that
there was a serious issue with Terrys heart. Blood tests should have been ordered; however,
Shipman failed to order the tests and basically ignored the EKG. He turned his focus instead to the
stomach painscuriously identifying a gastrointestinal issue as the problem.

Jamie explains what happened next, What Shipman then decided to do was to load Terry up with
medications like lopressor, to artificially lower his heart rate so that he could get it down to 138 at
time of discharge. So, he succeeded in treating the symptom, because he was able to artificially lower
the heart rate, but he did not address the cause of the symptom and therefore he did not identify or
address or treat the disease. So what happens is that you have sent somebody home who is now
feeling good because you have given them morphine and lopressor and youve gotten their heart rate
down. When they get home however, the medication wears off, the heart rate goes back up and the
pain starts up againbut youve already told them that you have taken care of the problem and it
was just a stomach virus. That is what happened to Terry. Here was a 40 year old man, whose heart
rate got out of control again after he got home. This was a result of an arrhythmia or more specifically
tachycardia, which is an excessively fast or abnormally rapid heartbeat. Tachycardiawhen severe
enoughcan fatally impact the hearts ability to pump enough blood throughout the bodyleading
to complete cardiovascular collapse. This was Terrys cause of deathtwo days later on his way back
to the ER. He died in the ambulance and could not be revived.

Jamie goes on to say that this made the doctor look very bad because Terry had gone to the ER with
chest pain, and then he died two days later from a heart issue. The Defenses position regarding this
was that maybe Terry had said he had chest pain, but that he didnt really know and that the area he
had actually been pointing toas the source of the painwas the Epigastric areawhich was right
below the breastbone. So, right from the beginning the defense attorneys had to try and make the
case that Terrys illness was a gastrointestinal issue. Otherwise, Dr. Shipman would have clearly
misdiagnosed Terry and would therefore be liable for his death. Jamie and his law partners
countered this claim stating that most people are well able to distinguish between stomach pain and
chest pain. The obvious flaw in this defense point was that stomach pain is a symptom of a heart
attack as well as ACS; so by failing to acknowledge all the possible causes of the stomach pain
without considering the possibility of a heart issuethe doctor still was negligent. Jamie also pointed
out that Terry didnt get better when he went home. The doctor and the hospital sent him home and
he got worse. The Defense, of course, wanted to blame Terry for this and said if that had been the
case he should have gone back to the ER. However, he had just been there and they had told him they
had taken care of everything and that he would be fine. By the time he realized he was not fine, and
called again for an ambulanceit was too late.

The Coincidence:
An autopsy was performed by a cardiac pathologist on Terry after his death, which was critically
important in being able to establish the cause of death. In this case, it didnt prove to be as helpful as
Jamie was hoping, because it actually ruled out a heart attack. Jamie explains, When people talk
about a heart attack generally, it is a very loose term. Technically speaking, a heart attack is actually
what is called a myocardial infarction. This involves a death of some portion of the heart which can
lead to death. The autopsy did reveal that arrhythmia had been the cause of deathnot a heart
attackand Terrys arrhythmia had been caused by Triple Vessel Coronary Artery Disease which
meant that the 3 main arteries of Terrys heart were blocked75%, 60%, and 100%. However, even
though Terry had blockage, he had developed over the years something known as collateral
circulation. Collateral circulation is the re-routing of blood around a blocked vein or artery, by
nearby minor blood vessels. Therefore, there were other vessels that were feeding his heart despite
the blockage. This proved to be a big defense point because they were then able to say that even
though he had blockage, it didnt kill himit was the arrhythmiaand that can happen to any
person at any momentanywhere. In Jamies words, The Defense team wanted to get away from
the fact that Terry had been at the emergency room just two days before his death, and that he was on
his way back there again at time of death. But this just played into our hands, because if they were
going to take that position, we were going to force them to be very clear as to what that defense
meant. Our focus was, If this is going to be their defense, lets really dig in and make it crystal clear
to the jury what they are really saying, and what they were saying wasit was all just one very big
coincidence. Jamie explains that the defense lawyers strategy was to make the jury believe what had
happened to Terry was always going to happen no matter what, because Terry had had an
arrhythmia and that had absolutely nothing at all to do with his emergency room visitor his chest
pains. Jamie continues, So, we put the Defense in a position where their experts were forced to
admit they fully believed it was all a coincidence and that Terrys death was not related in any way to
his gastrointestinal problem at the ER. It just did not seem credible and the jury wasnt buying it
because it seemed so obvious to them that it was all part of the same problem.

The Issue of Science: The Troponin Test

One of the main contentions made by Jamie and his law partners at trial, was that Dr. Shipman didnt
order the right testsblood teststo rule out Acute Coronary Syndrome. They explained to the jury
that when the heart has been damaged, it releases very particular enzymes and proteins into the
bloodstream. One of these proteins is called Troponin. Raised or elevated Troponin levels in the
blood are indications that there has been injury or damage to the heartparticularly due to the
development of Acute Coronary Syndrome, or in the event of a heart attack. They stated that Dr.
Shipman had done the right thing by ordering the EKG, but he should have also ordered blood tests
that tested for cardiac enzymesspecifically the Troponin Test which is extremely sensitive
because if somebody is experiencing a strain on their heart, Troponin will be elevated.
Jamie explains, Everybody agrees that if someone has a heart attack, Troponin is released in the
bloodstream and it will be elevated. This is an undisputed fact of science; however, what is highly
debated is whether Troponin will be elevated if there is Acute Coronary Syndrome because ACS
causes a strain on the heart but not to the point of a heart attack. We were taking the position that it
would have been elevated. The Defense was taking the position that it would not have been, and that
is a question that science has not yet been able to definitively answer.

The Defense strategy therefore was to get the jury to believe that a blood test would not have shown
elevated levels of Troponinso therefore, it didnt matter whether that blood test had been ordered
or not. Their medical experts all testified that Dr. Shipman had acted appropriately, he had not
breached the standard of care, and a blood test would not have made any difference. One such expert
was an ER doctor who testified, Look, I treat patients like this all the time. It looks to me like this
was a stomach bug and Dr. Shipman acted appropriately.

A pivotal moment occurred however when Jamie cross-examined one of the Defenses expert
witnesses from Johns Hopkins, who was a cardiac pathologist. From the very beginning of the trial,
Jamie had stressed to the jury that there were points of science that would notor could notbe
answered definitively. He felt that it was integral to the process of building credibility that he always
be upfront and honest with them. This is, in fact, how he approaches all of his casesby being
forthright and honestso he made sure that he stressed that point to the jury by saying, Some of
these questions that you are going to hear about in this case are very tough questions that science just
doesnt have any definitive answers to right now. Jamie explains how this all played out in the
courtroom room during cross-examination, They brought in this cardiac pathologist from Johns
Hopkins to support their position that it didnt matter about the Troponin test because it would have
been negative anyway. Well, he based his entire testimony on one scientific journal article that was
published the year before this trial. And they werent honest about how they presented thatbut we
were. They talked about this article for 45 min and how this article was definitive proof that it
wouldnt have made any difference; of course, I knew about the article. I had read it. The study that
the article was based on was done using cardiac cells taken from mice and they didnt acknowledge
that at all to the jurythey talked about it for 45 min as if they were human cardiac cells and that this
was a really important study. So, in cross-examination I just stood up and said, Lets talk about this
article because I wondered why you didnt tell the jury what kind of heart cells these were. He just
looked at me as if he didnt know what I was talking about. And so I said, Lets talk about this
where did they get these heart cells? He sat there saying nothing and the suspense was building and
no doubt the jury was thinking, What is going on here? I finally had to drag it out of him by saying,
These were mice cells, which he reluctantly had to acknowledge. Im sure that really hurt their case
because it showed that they were trying to be deliberately deceptive and therefore they lost the trust
of the jury.

The Emergency Room Standard of Care & the Differential Diagnostic Method:
As is the case with all medical malpractice lawsuits, the heart of this case centered on the standard of
care and whether it had been breached, and this revolved around what is known as the Differential
Diagnostic Method, and whether it had been followed. Jamie needed to definitively prove that it
had not. The standard of care for an emergency room doctor is to adhere to the Differential
Diagnostic method that they learn in medical school. There are 4 steps to this method: 1. Listen to the
patient; 2. Organize in your mind all of the possible problems or issues that could be causing the
problem; 3. Organize those according to the worst firstthis is extremely critical; and 4. Step by step,
rule out or eliminate each problemaccording to the worst first. Jamie explains how this is done, You
rule out problemsstarting with the worst firstby doing tests. So, with regard to Terry and the
stomach ache, put that on the list. There are also chest pains and an abnormal EKG, so acute
coronary syndrome needs to go on the list, and whatever else might be considered possibilities. But
the job of the emergency room doctoraccording to the Diagnostic method and the standard of care,
is to organize everything in order and most importantly start by ruling out those that might kill the
patientand most quickly. Those must always be addressed first. An upset stomach comes lastit
doesnt come first. So you elevate acute coronary syndrome to the top of the list. You say, This is
known to kill people so Im going to put it on top, and then Im going to try to rule it out. Im going to
try to prove that he doesnt have that. If I cant prove that he doesnt have thatthrough testingIm
going to go ahead and treat him for it. That is the standard of care according to the Differential
Diagnostic Method. That is what Dr. Shipman did NOT do. He did not treat Terry for the worst, most
dangerous conditionnor did he try to rule it out through testinghe treated him for the most benign
condition which was the stomachache. At trial, Dr. Shipman testified that Acute Coronary
Syndrome or the heart issue was such an unlikely possibility that it didnt even warrant being placed
on the list. Jamie says that it was, however, virtually impossible for Shipman to get around the fact
that he didnt follow the Differential Diagnostic Method. In his words, This DDM makes sense. It is
what doctors are taught in medical school. All Dr. Shipman was able to say was that it had just
seemed obvious Terry only had a stomachache. If this was true, why then did he order the EKG
which was something he did when he first examined Terry? That absolutely was the right thing to do
but that kind of cut into his argument that it was only a stomach ache. You dont order an EKG unless
you think something might be wrong with the heart. And then it came back abnormal with a heart
rate of 164 and he didnt address that nor could he explain it awayand that was a problem for the
jury.

Closing Arguments:
One of Jamies great strengths as a trial lawyer is his honesty, his remarkable ability to clarify
complex issues and how he is able to put everything into simple perspective for a jury. In closing
arguments, Jamie tried to make sure that the jury focused on the heart-wrenching story of that three
day periodwhen Terry first went to the Emergency Room, what he went through when he was sent
back home, and the circumstances that ultimately led him to try to make his way back there again
just two days later. In Jamies words, I wanted them to get a very real sense of what had happened
to Terry during that time period. I really tried to get them to have that experience, because if I could
get them to relive that experiencewith us and with Terrys widowthen I felt they would see from
a common sense standpoint that the defense was wrong. It was not a coincidence. Terry had had an
arrhythmia two days after leaving the hospital, the chest pain he had been there for was
misdiagnosed and he died as a result. So, I just tried to make that story very truthful and real about
those two days, because if the jury could understand what was going on with Terry, they would
understand that this was all part of the same underlying illness. This was not a situation where he
had a stomach ache and he got better and then all of a sudden he had a heart problem. This was all
part of the same issue. I also made sure I told the jury in closing arguments, Lets talk about how the
Defense has come in here to defend this case and how weve come inand who has been honest with
you from the very beginningand who hasnt. The Defense knew very well that they were going to
bring down this mice study and they were just hoping that maybe I didnt read the article and know
that these were cells from miceand that you wouldnt find out. Jamie says that all in all, the
expert from Johns Hopkins put them in a really good position because of the mice study and the ill
conceived defense strategy of trying to pull the wool over the jurors eyes regarding that. In his
words, All I could think was, What a dumb decision on their part, and a critical error in judgment.

The Challenges for Medical Malpractice Lawyers:

Jury Biases & Punitive Damages in Wrongful Death Lawsuits in Alabama
Even though confronting the intricacies of the science and the medicine of the lawsuit was difficult,
Jamie felt that the two greatest challenges he faced were the same two greatest challenges he faces
with every medical malpractice lawsuit he pursuesjury biases in favor of doctors and overcoming
the obstacle of punitive damages in Alabama. First, people in general and jurors in particular, have
an extremely difficult time considering the possibility that a doctor can do something wrong.
Furthermore, if they consider the possibility that this particular doctor on trial, is guilty of
malpractice, they then have to acknowledge the possibility that they might one day be vulnerable to
malpractice themselves. It is much easier to just think that though the doctor might not be perfect,
nonetheless, they are going to find in favor of the doctor who just did the best that he could. In a
jurors mind, this rationale inexplicably protects or safeguards them against medical malpractice or
negligenceit is much easier to believe that medical malpractice does not occur and therefore, it will
not happen to them.

The second greatest challenge or hurdle is overcoming the issue of punitive damages. In Alabama,
the court instructs the jury that they need to arrive at a dollar amount that is fair but not with regard
to compensating the victim(s), but to punish the defendant for his wrongdoing. Jamie explains
further, The jury instruction actually uses the word punish, and I hate that word because the
lawsuit wasnt necessarily about punishing the defendant in terms of making them out to be a bad
personit wasnt ever about thatbut according to the law, the damages are simply to punish them
for the negligent act. We are not permitted to get into anything regarding financial history, medical
bills, economic damages, pain and sufferingwe cant even seek to recover a funeral billthe only
thing we are allowed to present is what the defendant did wrong. This is a completely different way
of looking at a case or lawsuit than the other 49 states. In a wrongful death lawsuitas Terrys was
it is automatically harder because first you have to overcome the jury bias in favor of the doctor, but
then you have to get the jury to return a verdict of punitive damages and punish the doctor. A lot
of people, no matter what the facts are, dont want to punish the doctor, and I dont want to punish
the doctor eitherI really dont. The doctor is not a bad person, but just someone who made a
mistake or was negligent maybe this one timehaving followed the rules their entire career most
likely, but they just didnt follow the rules for this one patient. The only way that I can get justice for
the family is if the jury punishes them. I dont think this is a fair law, but its all Ive got. However, I
really want to be the person in the courtroom who says, I dont really want you to punish this doctor.
I just want you to balance the scales out here because he didnt follow the rules and someone got
hurt.

The Verdict:
The trial lasted nearly 2 weeks, but the jury decided the case in just 45 minutes. They awarded Terrys
widow $4 million for the wrongful death of Terry, and it was the largest medical malpractice verdict
ever to be awarded in the history of Walker County. They concluded that the emergency room doctor
had violated the standard of care in his treatment of Terry, and was therefore liable for his wrongful
death.

Jamie says that usually when juries reach a decision so quicklyit is a defense verdict. Alabama has a
unanimous jury systemwhich most states dont haveand that means that it takes all 12 jurors
unanimously agreeing on damages, which can be quite another obstacleso it can be quite difficult
for a plaintiff to prevail. Jamie felt that the verdict in Terrys trial was so quickly arrived at because
the jurors paid very close attention during the trial, understood the issues quite clearly, didnt need
much time to discuss or debate and were unified in their verdict. One of the jurors who spoke out
afterward stated that Jamie and his law partners presented a considerable amount of evidence
showing that the doctor had failed to go far enough with his diagnosis, had released Terry too soon
from the ER, and he had died as a result. They therefore believed if blood tests had been done, they
would have shown that Terry had a life threatening heart problem, and his death could have been
prevented; in fact, one of the plaintiffs medical experts testified that Terry would have had a 90%
probability of survival had he been diagnosed correctly. Shay Samplesanother lawyer at Hare
Wynn who worked on the case with Jamiesaid that the Troponin test was clearly called for because
the EKG performed at the hospital showed Terrys heart beat to be abnormally high, which clearly
indicated there was an issue with Terrys heart. Furthermore, the standard of care is to testnot
guess. This was a key point at trial.

In Conclusion:
Jamie said that this was a very significant case as it set the standard for what ER doctors absolutely
must do before they send a sick patient home and that he hoped that this verdict would improve
treatment for emergency room patients everywhere. With regard to the defense lawyersand their
medical expertsclaims that Terrys death was due to a stomach virus and had nothing to do with
his heart, Jamie had this to say, Thats how they defend all of these cases; and very sadly, they can
usually find experts to spin the truth. But this jury had the common sense and the courage to speak
out and send the appropriate message. It endangers all of us when supposed experts come into court
and say that the medical textbooks written to train ER doctors nationwide dont really matter. Thats
the position the defense took in this case, and the jury saw right through it.

Medical Malpractice Lawsuits in Alabama

Jamie says that medical malpractice lawyers are extremely selective with regard to the medical
malpractice lawsuits they pursue, as they take a lot of time, energy, money, and therefore involve
considerable risk. He says when he is contacted regarding a medical malpractice case, the first thing
he looks at is how bad was the mistake made by the healthcare provider, and is it something that 12
jurors might be willing to give that healthcare provider a pass on; in other words, how excusable
might they view the mistake? However, if he feels the case is particularly compelling to the point of
motivating the jurors to say, Hey, we have to put a stop to this, he feels compelled to take it on. In
his words, I started out practicing law doing more routine personal injury, auto accident, and
general accident lawsuits. However, as I came to understand the unique challenges of medical
malpractice lawsuitsand therefore how very difficult they are to winI just felt compelled to get
involved and help people level the playing field, because certainly it is NOT a level playing field. The
doctors and the hospitals have all the resources and all the power; and I just wanted to use my skills
to help some of these people balance the systemto have a fighting chance. The system and the way
it is set up makes it very difficult to take on hospitals and medical healthcare providers and win;
however, I am committed to doing everything I can possibly doto change that.

While Hare, Wynn, Newell & Newton has offices in Alabama, Arkansas, and Kentucky, Jamie is
located in the Birmingham, Alabama office. He does, however, handle cases in Tuscaloosa,
Huntsville, Montgomery and throughout the state.