Beating Goliath – Season 4, Episode 3 – Part 3: “An Emotional Ending”

Transcript

[00:00:04.36] - Marcy Mangan
From the Chicagoland law firm of Salvi, Schostok & Pritchard, this is Beating Goliath: A Plaintiff's Pursuit of Justice. Case #4, Part 3: Billy Fern vs. Central DuPage Emergency Physicians et al. In episode 2, the Fern family and their attorney, David Rasheed, continued to be met with frustration by things completely out of their control as their case progressed. After David accepted a position at Salvi, Schostok & Pritchard, one of the top law firms in Illinois, the team was able to ramp up the case and everyone could see the light at the end of the tunnel. After almost 9 years, the case finally went to trial in September of 2023. During trial, the jury became emotional when they heard what Billy had gone through since losing his foot. His parents' testimonies were particularly powerful moments. In this episode, you will hear what happens when Billy takes the stand and finally has the chance to share his truth with the jury.

[00:01:02.36] - David Rashid
Billy's testimony in this case was just such a fundamental and extraordinarily important component of the damages aspect of the case. And I got the pleasure of directing Billy's examination.

[00:01:14.37] - Patrick Salvi II
David put Billy on the stand and asked him questions, and, and they had a great rapport. They, of course, had known one another for a number of years at this point. And boy, did David do a great job, as did Billy.

[00:01:27.32] - Jennifer Cascio
He's a very quiet, introverted person, and the idea of getting up there and testifying is just, it's just horrible. But he did it. He did it. He said, okay, got to do it. I'm doing it.

[00:01:40.41] - Speaker 5
He did fine. I saw him working with David, and they, they developed a very good relationship where they communicated very well together. And I, I think that that might have really helped. David helped me out quite a bit with what would come up during it. So I felt like I, you know, I was quite nervous. I felt like I had a handle of how things would go.

[00:02:03.08] - Patrick Salvi II
Billy's personality, which, which I think resonated tremendously with the jury, was just very matter of fact. This is what happened. This is the history. This is what I said at that time. This is what I remember.

[00:02:16.52] - Speaker 6
There might have been a little bit of extra work to get Billy comfortable. I think it would have been a detriment to all of us to try to prep Billy as Billy Fern, the kid with Asperger's who lost his foot, instead of Billy Fern, a young, vibrant 20-year-old who had his life changed through his— this horrible tragedy that could have been prevented.

[00:02:40.03] - David Rashid
One thing that I wanted the jurors to hear and to understand is that Billy's accomplishments and what he— he's a college graduate. He had a job. He then worked for his father's manufacturing company. He was a, a certainly he was a competent young man who was able to, to get up and articulate his own thoughts and feelings so that he could tell these doctors what was wrong with him, what was going on with him.

[00:03:03.25] - Patrick Salvi II
I think there was an inherent credibility in Billy's testimony.

[00:03:08.37] - David Rashid
Probably the most important part of the damage expert is that he did a live demonstration of how he puts on his prosthetic and takes it off every day.

[00:03:19.17] - Speaker 5
I don't like showing people it, but I just did it because I had to. It was part of telling the story of what happened, show what happened to me. I just accepted that was just part of what needed to be done, so I just did it.

[00:03:30.11] - David Rashid
It's not slipping into a Skechers shoe or even slipping into a shoe that you, you have to tie up. It starts with, with cream and then sock and then a bandage and then another sock, and then you have to take the prosthetic and, like I said, get airtight and then you have to snap it up after 2 or 3 hours. He talked about how that causes a lot of pain and, right, so he has to sit down. You got to take the prosthetic off, then you got to take the sleeve off, then you got to take the bandage off, then you got to take the sock off, and then they're soaking wet. He explained all of that through a live demonstration. So that was all very effective.

[00:04:07.06] - Speaker 6
It was apparent within the first 5 minutes how difficult Billy's life is.

[00:04:11.44] - Patrick Salvi II
Jurors are human beings too, but most of the time, I think they hold back their emotion. But when Billy took off his prosthetic in the courtroom, I mean, that is a powerful moment. And this is certainly not the first time I've seen a juror become emotional, but we saw this gentleman become emotional. It was an emotional case.

[00:04:31.06] - David Rashid
We ended with a picture of Billy at his graduation from Elmhurst University before his amputation. And we put it up and asked him, you know, what that meant to him, what that— what he thought when he saw that picture. And he said, you know, I just wish I could go back to that day when I had my whole life in front of me. That was the last question. He's never going back to that day, right? He can't go back to that day.

[00:04:56.47] - Marcy Mangan
Once the plaintiff's lawyers put on their witnesses, it was the defense's turn to present their case and witnesses.

[00:05:02.45] - David Rashid
I think that in any med mal case, when you're going against skilled attorneys, you sit and you listen and you hear their argument, you hear the side, you hear the things that they're saying. And there are times when it makes you— you do sort of start— not, not that I think they're right, not that I think that what they're saying makes sense, but that the way that things can be presented do open the door for some, you know, those uncomfortable moments, especially when it gets to their case in chief.

[00:05:31.33] - Marcy Mangan
In this case, the plaintiffs felt the defense's vascular surgery expert was a strong point in their opponent's case.

[00:05:37.50] - David Rashid
He was very good, and listening to him give his testimony, which was essentially that, listen, by the time that anybody should have picked up on this, it was already too late to salvage Billy's foot. I think at that point, hearing him in that morning, and we were close to the end, you thought, boy, if they buy that, if they believe that, it would be devastating. It's so wrong and it's so full of so many holes. But peripherally, you could see how a jury might say, oh, that makes some sense. If they were looking to help and looking to get the defendants off, that would be— that was the avenue to do it. So I think after his direct examination, that was one, probably the only really point throughout the day, throughout the actual trial where I felt a little bit uneasy.

[00:06:19.02] - Patrick Salvi II
Frequently, malpractice defendants will win cases like that where they're saying, look, we were trying really hard and this was just a tough diagnosis to make and we ultimately made it., but it was just, uh, sadly too late.

[00:06:31.08] - Marcy Mangan
Another memorable moment from trial came during the defendant family medicine doctor's direct examination. During Patrick's initial examination of her during the plaintiff's witnesses, she became agitated when he showed evidence that she missed signs of an arterial clot. As he showed a flip chart demonstrating the multiple missed opportunities to treat Billy, she began to cry and Patrick paused his questioning so he didn't unnecessarily badger her. As the jury was walking back into the jury room for a break, she was mumbling how important her job was to her and how hard this was for her. It's important to note that witnesses and attorneys should never interact with the jury outside of formal courtroom proceedings.

[00:07:08.22] - Patrick Salvi II
And we were very upset about that because that is totally inappropriate. I don't think there was any recovering from that for that defendant.

[00:07:16.24] - Marcy Mangan
But he had another opportunity to question her when the defense attorneys presented her as a witness.

[00:07:21.23] - Patrick Salvi II
She went back on the stand about a week later and was on the stand for several hours explaining all the things she did. Her demeanor was completely different, much more confident. But I don't think it mattered. I think the damage was done. And so that was a key moment in the trial when the defendant, family medicine doctor, became upset and emotional and cried on the stand. And I think that from then on, we were going to get the benefit of the doubt from the jury.

[00:07:48.27] - David Rashid
She was defiant. You thought, well, she was so upset about this 4 days ago that it led her to cry and to make ex parte conversations with the jury, and now she's all defensive and defiant and all that stuff. It seemed sort of played up at that point, and I don't think that that played particularly well with the jury.

[00:08:05.17] - Marcy Mangan
Patrick's advice for dealing with a difficult or explosive witness is not to let it bother you.

[00:08:10.01] - Patrick Salvi II
If a defendant is lying or saying things that are just not credible, Don't get angry because then the jury will side with the witness and against you. Instead, be the disappointed parent. And so I did a lot of disappointed parent, not just the first time, but that second time around when she said things that were not credible. I really never take license to become angry or upset or loud or bullying with the defendant.

[00:08:37.08] - Marcy Mangan
After the defense finished presenting their witnesses and rested their case, it was time for closing arguments. At the time, the trial had been ongoing for nearly 3 weeks. Closing arguments offer the opportunity for both sides to summarize their case for the jury, poke any holes in their opponent's arguments, and tell the jury how much they believe Billy Fern should be compensated for his injury. Billy's attorneys knew they would be asking the jury for a very large amount of money. One way the team prepares the jury to hear such a large number is to introduce the idea of a large verdict early on.

[00:09:08.14] - Patrick Salvi II
When someone loses their foot, as Billy did, the non-economic damages are significant. The pain and suffering, the loss of a normal life, the emotional distress associated with that. And so we had made a decision as a trial team before jury selection that we were going to ask for an amount in excess of $40 million.

[00:09:30.26] - Marcy Mangan
The attorneys say it is important to get a feel for potential jurors' feelings towards awarding a large verdict.

[00:09:35.42] - David Rashid
Patrick does a phenomenal job of this. He's really so skilled at this. During jury selection, that's when it first comes up, right? In Illinois, there are no caps on what pain and suffering or non-economic damages. And so we want to know from a jury's perspective, like, I think there's a set amount of money that's just too much. I'll never be able to award that amount. If that's the case, we want to hear that right away.

[00:09:58.19] - Patrick Salvi II
Here's how you do it. You say, If the law and the evidence supported a verdict in excess of, pick a number that's appropriate for your case, could you sign such a verdict? I think it gives the jurors an idea of where you're coming from, what you're shooting at during the course of the trial, so to speak. And then if you prove your case, that number has some credibility.

[00:10:17.45] - Marcy Mangan
Patrick then has whichever lawyer is doing opening statements reinforce that number again.

[00:10:22.36] - Patrick Salvi II
Traditionally, what you'll do during opening is you'll finish, and you can finish kind of like this to reinforce what was said in Wadir. And that's why, ladies and gentlemen, my co-counsel will be coming back before you and asking for you to sign a verdict in excess of $40 million. And now you've reinforced it twice, and then you're off and running into the evidence. And now it's time to prove why the case is worth $40 million.

[00:10:45.43] - Marcy Mangan
In addition to prepping the jury to hear a large number, the team also gives their client a heads up so they don't react to the number in front of the jury.

[00:10:52.52] - Speaker 6
We had prepared the family. We are going to ask for a big number. And so you need to understand that it's because we think your case is worth it. So we had a lot of conversation with them, like, don't react when you are sitting in the courtroom and closing argument, because that's what you are owed.

[00:11:09.13] - Speaker 1
At the end of trial, Patrick delivered an outstanding closing argument that highlighted just how much Billy had lost as a result of his doctor's negligence and how he now lives with an increased risk of harm because of this preventable error.

[00:11:21.55] - Speaker 6
There was all these kind of increased risks that Billy was facing because of this amputation.

[00:11:28.06] - Jennifer Cascio
His future medically, it's totally uncertain because at any time a complication can occur and some of them can even be life-threatening, like sepsis.

[00:11:36.16] - Speaker 5
When the closing statement that Patrick made to the jury, we were in there at that time and he went ahead and he wrote out all the different financial categories that the jury should award money for. And it added up to be a pretty high number.

[00:11:51.16] - Patrick Salvi II
The human loss suffered by Billy was afforded value, significant value. These doctors did not listen to him, that they felt they knew his body better than, than he did, that when he said there was no trauma, they knew better. The issue that I didn't think the jury would be able to get over is the fact that the arterial clot as the cause of Billy's foot pain and other symptoms that he was reporting to the doctors needed to be ruled out, even if it's rare. They didn't find another cause, so why wouldn't you rule out— and all they had to do was pick up the phone and call a vascular surgeon, and this would have been diagnosed, treated, and there would not have been a lawsuit. Billy would have his foot. Whenever you can come up with a good rhyme, as Johnny Cochran taught us, you should do it. And here are two rhymes that really can apply to a lot of cases. One is When in doubt, rule it out. And so if there was any doubt that he had an arterial clot, they should rule it out. The other one was you can't wait till it's too late.

[00:12:55.44] - Patrick Salvi II
Uncommon things still need to be ruled out, particularly when the consequences are so devastating as they were here.

[00:13:03.07] - Speaker 1
The defense used their closing argument as an opportunity to again diminish his pain and suffering and make the argument that Billy was not a reliable historian when it came to his own health.

[00:13:12.20] - David Rashid
At one point they said that he's broken multiple prosthetics because he's so active. And I think the point that they were trying to make with that was that he can still do all these things, that it's causing his prosthetics to break. I think the bigger point is, is that you and I don't get a broken foot every time we try to go hiking. Every time he tries to do the things that he used to do, the things that he enjoys doing, the things that make him who he is, his foot breaks, his prosthetics break, and he's got to go back and redo it, and he's got to go back and get a new one. And that's not an easy process.

[00:13:43.22] - Speaker 6
They talked about Billy lives at home, Billy doesn't do a lot, and they tried to really diminish Billy's future damages by saying he just doesn't have a lot. He doesn't have a lot to offer. He doesn't have a lot that he misses out on because he just isn't like everyone else. And it was incredibly difficult to watch grown adults try to diminish what another human being is worth because they're a little bit different.

[00:14:17.21] - David Rashid
He was there because he had lost his foot. He's a perfectly funny guy. He's got a lot to offer. But the way that Billy is and the way that he thinks, this is how he— this is really what he enjoys, and this, this is how he chooses to live his life. And, and there's nothing— obviously there's nothing wrong with that.

[00:14:33.25] - Speaker 1
Once the jury has heard closing arguments from both sides, it's time for the jury to deliberate. For the first time in 3 weeks, they're able to discuss the facts of of the case amongst themselves and make a decision for Billy's future.

[00:14:44.47] - Speaker 5
After they, the judge released the jury, we all went back to the office.

[00:14:49.23] - David Rashid
There's nothing good about that period of time for a trial lawyer. I can't even express the angst that one feels, even if you think the case went in really good.

[00:15:00.28] - Patrick Salvi II
The time between the jury going out and the verdict coming back can be agonizing.

[00:15:05.55] - David Rashid
I remember being in my office, sitting in here with the lights off for 30 minutes or so just, just sitting in here. I think I pretended to check emails. I, I think I pretended to read some articles. The whole process is one of just gut-wrenching waiting for anything.

[00:15:24.47] - Speaker 1
Despite the anxiety they feel knowing their client's future is in the hands of 12 strangers, the attorneys rely heavily on their faith in the civil justice system to get them through the jury deliberations.

[00:15:34.45] - Speaker 6
I couldn't imagine a world where the system didn't work for Billy Farn.

[00:15:39.04] - Patrick Salvi II
I firmly believe that jurors, particularly if the plaintiff has proven his or her case, that jurors want to do the right thing. They'll stay as long as it takes. They'll do the work.

[00:15:52.04] - Speaker 1
In this case, closing arguments began on a Friday morning, and the jury began deliberating that afternoon around 1 PM.

[00:15:58.34] - Patrick Salvi II
Frequently, you're trying to get the case done by Friday to prevent the jurors from having to come back the following week.

[00:16:06.20] - David Rashid
A Friday jury makes you a little uncomfortable practically. The reality is, is that these— you trust that you have serious people who want to do the right thing for all parties involved, and that if they need to come back on a Monday, they'll come back on a Monday. And if they can get to full and fair justice on a Friday and they have to stay late to do it, they'll stay late to do it.

[00:16:31.13] - Speaker 5
Patrick would comment that, well, it's been an hour. We didn't heard anything. That's good, right? It was probably more nerve-wracking for them than it was for us, because at that point we had complete confidence in them and what they had prepared and done for us, and they were the experts.

[00:16:47.10] - Patrick Salvi II
There were significant discussions both between us and our client as well as with defense counsel, and those discussions, I think to put it bluntly, were designed to indicate to the defense that it would not take an exorbitant amount of money to settle this case, that we had a young man who needed to be protected, who needed to have resources to afford prosthetics and other basic care, and that he was going to be very, very reasonable. We tried to make that point. It was not heard. And so there was plenty of time for high anxiety levels. There was no settlement. There was no high-low. There was no guarantee that our client was going to get anything.

[00:17:29.29] - David Rashid
Then we got a call that there was a jury question, and the jury question was, can we have Harrison and Tintinelli, which are the two textbooks that were referenced throughout the trial? So when they announced that they wanted the textbooks, that was a really stressful part of the, of the whole process.

[00:17:49.18] - Speaker 1
In most jury trials, the judge or their clerk will call the attorneys from both sides when a verdict has been reached. In this case, the process was a little different.

[00:17:57.25] - David Rashid
We never actually got a call about the verdict. We were actually at the courthouse talking to Judge Sheehan. The family was at our office, and they had to be brought over.

[00:18:07.44] - Speaker 6
They were obviously really nervous, and they'd never been through something like this.

[00:18:12.26] - Speaker 5
We got a phone call that we should come down there because they think the jury has reached a verdict.

[00:18:18.26] - Marcy Mangan
The Fern family made their way back over to the courthouse around 8:00 PM. Friday night. After 8 long years of preparing this case and 3 long weeks in trial, it was time to find out if they would see justice or more heartbreak. As the jury filed back into their seats to read the verdict, the attorneys and the Ferns tried their very best to read the room and get a feel for what they were about to hear.

[00:18:38.47] - Jennifer Cascio
I was pretty worried going into that courtroom.

[00:18:42.14] - Speaker 5
I had no clue which way it was going to go.

[00:18:45.24] - Speaker 6
There's always jurors that are really hard to read. I don't think there's ever been a jury where I know exactly what they're all thinking.

[00:18:51.53] - Patrick Salvi II
The folks that comprised our jury, you know, they were in the little room, and they start to shuffle in and take their seats, the 12 of them, the 6 seats in the front and the 6 seats in the back of the jury box. Typically, if they look at you, that's good. And if they don't, that's bad. And they were looking at us, so that was good.

[00:19:15.20] - Speaker 6
We went to our counsel table, and Billy was sitting behind us. And I was, like, holding onto his arm, and he was really nervous.

[00:19:23.16] - David Rashid
The judge asked for the verdict form. She took the verdict form, and it was clear from the exchange of the verdict form to the deputy to the judge that it was verdict form A. It was clear that we had gotten a plaintiff's verdict. You could just see writing, and when there's writing, it means there's a plaintiff's verdict.

[00:19:43.38] - Patrick Salvi II
In that moment, There are no more beautiful words to hear than, "We the jury find for the plaintiff, Billy Fern, and against the defendants." And then the rest is a little blurry.

[00:20:00.09] - David Rashid
The foreperson actually at that point was crying and stopped. And the judge said, you know, "You have to continue on and read the rest of the verdict." So then he, you know, composed himself and said, We, the jury, assess Billy Fern's compensatory damages in the sum of $32,747,000. And I mean, that was just a fantastic moment for all of us in the courtroom.

[00:20:23.58] - Patrick Salvi II
The jury returned a verdict for Billy and against the defendants in the amount of $32,747,000.

[00:20:32.25] - Speaker 6
I think we all cried, honestly. The verdict form reflected what a wonderful jury they were, how closely they paid attention to things, and certainly how hard we had worked to get the evidence in.

[00:20:45.48] - Speaker 5
They read, read off the number. It was like shocking because it was almost as high as Patrick's number that he was thinking about at our house, you know, 2 months before. It was, it was unreal. Our entire family has been living for the last 8 years under a cloud. And so to have it turn out so dramatically over the the top, I got to say that. It was just like fantastic.

[00:21:06.20] - Jennifer Cascio
When we heard the verdict come out, it was like an out-of-body experience. The disbelief on Billy's face and me and my husband, like, it was just dumbfounding.

[00:21:19.16] - Speaker 5
Well, I was like shocked. That was beyond my wildest expectations.

[00:21:23.55] - Jennifer Cascio
And then you get to meet the jurors. I was overwhelmed at how they seemed so happy for for us, that they were able to do this for us. And with all the horrible things going on in the world and all the terrible things people do to each other, it like renewed my faith in like that there are good people out there.

[00:21:41.39] - Speaker 5
They were so selfless and they did such a fantastic job. They had to take 3 weeks out of their routine, their daily life, to listen to our case. And for me personally, it was just as important to have the jury back up my feeling that the medical people had done a poor job, and just to have it of record that they were in fact negligent in the standard of care that they provided for him. That was just as important as providing the award that they did so that he can take care of himself for the rest of his life.

[00:22:16.07] - Patrick Salvi II
The defendants can say what they want to say, and we can say what we want to say, but at the end of the day Verdict is a word that is derived from veridictum. Vera, the truth. Dictum, to tell. To tell the truth. For Billy, that was a, I think, a powerful moment in his life.

[00:22:32.10] - David Rashid
He was elated with the verdict. When that number came out at $32,747,000, yeah, I mean, it's just exhilarating for your client. It's like, oh man, you feel professionally like I've done a great job for my client in the professional world. And personally, you just feel so relieved and happy that this person who's your friend, who's a part of your work family, who's, who really is, is a part of your life, is now gonna be taken care of. And that's just a hugely rewarding feeling.

[00:23:06.40] - Patrick Salvi II
For Billy, especially given the fact that his, his whole life, including in this case, he has frequently been cast aside, not listened to. And that was part of this case. Part of the case was that these doctors did not listen to him, that they felt they knew his body better than, than he did, that when he said there was no trauma, they knew better. And so for him to win the case and to win it resoundingly at the figure that we won, the $32 million plus, it's going to take care of him for the rest of his life.

[00:23:43.46] - Jennifer Cascio
Since the trial, life has now taken on a sense of security and optimism, whereas before, the future was almost like a dead end. We were having a hard time even just picturing anything. Now it's like the possibilities are almost unlimited knowing that he's financially stable, and that, that just helps us so much. It brings us such a peace of mind. I mean, he'll always have the medical situation and yes, at any minute it could get worse, but at least he won't be homeless.

[00:24:13.39] - Speaker 5
There's no, no longer any limits to any future planning or ideas. I mean, you can dream way bigger knowing that you'll be able to do just about anything you can think of with resources like that available.

[00:24:28.15] - Patrick Salvi II
He will have peace of mind, security, and for someone like Billy, where he doesn't have a huge social network, his parents aren't going to be around forever. That is an incredibly important foundation for him to have.

[00:24:44.19] - David Rashid
What this is going to do for Billy is it's going to give him the chance to be independent in a way that he couldn't have ever expected to be without the, without the verdict. Importantly, but in ways that he should have been and would have been had he not been the victim of medical negligence.

[00:24:59.59] - Speaker 6
He can afford to live in an accessible home. Even though he may have people assisting him, he's not going to be at the point where he's 100% reliant on his parents.

[00:25:10.35] - Patrick Salvi II
He can't really go hiking. He can't walk his dog normally. He can't do so many of the things that he once enjoyed to the fullest extent. And so he will have the resources to fill those voids in different ways. It's hard to drive when you have a prosthetic on your right foot. You're driving with your left foot. So he can better afford having someone else drive him. If he wants to go on a trip or go to a ballgame, he can afford to do it in a way that's more convenient, more physically comfortable.

[00:25:44.28] - Jennifer Cascio
Billy is thinking of relocating. The warmer weather's good for his prosthetic. So it's actually hard having prosthetic in the winter, in the snow, and it's slippery. It's just the more temperate weather is easier if you have a prosthetic.

[00:25:59.59] - Speaker 5
I can move on with my life now. I was kind of stuck for like 10 years. I'm feeling a lot better than before. Like there was the whole weight of the legal thing has been relieved and I don't have any more, any more doubts really about my future. Very happy about that.

[00:26:18.17] - Speaker 1
Aside from giving the Ferns hope for Billy's future, the verdict was extra rewarding for another reason.

[00:26:24.06] - Patrick Salvi II
At the time the verdict was rendered, the verdict of $32,747,000 was the largest verdict for an individual that had lost a foot or a leg ever in Illinois. Despite Billy's very reasonable approach to compensation in this case, the defendants never got there, and that's why we took the verdict. So that makes the verdict all the more gratifying.

[00:26:52.02] - David Rashid
This case will always be a very important case to me. It was a case that I began working up as a very young-ish lawyer against very skilled opponents and in a very complicated matter. And I worked it up to the point where I was able to, to assist in bringing it to this record-setting result.

[00:27:13.22] - Speaker 1
While $32.7 million sounds like a lot of money to the everyday person, It's important to remember that large verdicts like this one are awarded for a reason. They don't automatically make all of the plaintiff's problems go away.

[00:27:25.58] - Patrick Salvi II
He still would prefer not to have a case and to have his foot.

[00:27:29.54] - Speaker 5
Life has a way of putting you in your place periodically. So even though Billy was awarded that large sum, he's also suffered most recently another medical episode where it nearly incapacitated him for like a whole month. So even though this terrific thing has happened for him, it's, it's just a reminder that that's the reason that it happened in the first place is because anything can happen and his, his medical future is unknown. So knowing that for a family that he'll be provided for or be able to care for himself for the rest of his life due to the generous award, he's still going to have to live that life and it won't always be good.

[00:28:09.59] - Marcy Mangan
It's very likely that there's going to be future complications as well.

[00:28:18.14] - Speaker 1
The Ferns feel very strongly that while the road was long and hard to get here, everything happened the way it was supposed to throughout the case.

[00:28:25.49] - Speaker 5
We feel as a family that it wouldn't have turned out this way if all those delays didn't come about. We wouldn't have been where we're at today. It was for the better.

[00:28:35.21] - Jennifer Cascio
We kept fighting despite all the different legal obstacles and COVID because we really believed in our case and we really believed we had really good lawyers. I would advise other people dealing with like a similar medical issues, just seek the best legal advice you can. Try and go to someone like David, Patrick, and Jen.

[00:28:58.38] - Speaker 5
You never realize how having a clever and competent representation like that can make such a difference. During the course of the trial, we saw the difference between the Salvi legal team and the other two firms that were involved, and it's like night and day. I would like to, um, thank all of them for what they've done for me and for believing in me.

[00:29:21.16] - Patrick Salvi II
All three of them were very thankful, and we appreciate that as their lawyers. I mean, at the end of the day, the thanks flows so much more in the other direction because It's, it's really the facts. We brought justice, so to speak, but this is, this was the right result. What happened here happened to him. It's his foot that he, that he lost, not us. We're just bringing the evidence to the jury and he can go. There's a lot of good lawyers out there and he can go to any one of 'em. And so he came to first to David, and then when David came to our firm, they stuck with him. If they ever listen to this, You know, I want them to know that the gratitude that we have is off the charts.

[00:30:04.01] - David Rashid
We are in the business of helping people who are down, people who are hurt, people who, you know, are overlooked. And because of that, I've developed or I maybe innately have always had, but people with disabilities, people with disorders, people with syndromes, they're the people that I've chosen to fight for. In my professional life. And so when somebody comes who has likely been overlooked all of his life and who, who in this case we believe was overlooked, not in part, not in a small part, maybe because of his Asperger's, and then ends up with a catastrophic physical injury on top of that, there's nobody I would rather fight for than somebody like that. And so in that sense, it, you know, it was sort of doubly personal and doubly important to get Billy the justice that he deserved.

[00:30:54.07] - Patrick Salvi II
Billy Fern will always hold a special place in my heart, not only because I'm immensely thankful to him for choosing David and ultimately our firm, and Dave— and thankful to David for bringing me on the team to try the case. But this was a special case where very literally we were giving a voice to someone whose voicelessness in society led to him losing his foot and having a catastrophic outcome.

[00:31:23.15] - Marcy Mangan
And this verdict doesn't just help Billy. It sends a strong message to doctors and healthcare providers.

[00:31:28.49] - Patrick Salvi II
I think this verdict stands for the proposition that first and foremost, doctors need to listen to their patients.

[00:31:35.38] - Jennifer Cascio
Our goal is to make medical care safer for patients, and so something something like this, what I would hope to see is kind of an automatic policy change. It would have taken a couple of minutes. It was the same machine. Flip a switch, turn it over, do the same thing up and down the leg that you did before. Billy would still have his foot. You wouldn't have defendants faced with $32.7 million, and, you know, the world would be a safer place. And so hopefully you see cases like this, and other doctors, whether they agree with the outcome or not, can look at the facts and say, you know what, next time someone comes through my doors, I'm probably just going to do both tests and just call it a day.

[00:32:18.41] - David Rashid
If there is somebody who's special, who has special needs, who has a disability, who's different, you better listen, right? Because if you don't listen, and if that person becomes the victim of medical negligence, and if that person gets in front of a jury, and then when you present the facts to that person, there's every reason to think that that individual is going to be viewed favorably from a jury and that a jury's gonna want to fully and fairly compensate that person.

[00:32:45.10] - Marcy Mangan
Billy's attorneys gave him the opportunity for a brighter future than he could have ever imagined back in 2014 when his initial amputation happened. He wants to share that optimism with anyone who may be feeling hopeless about a medical issue they're dealing with.

[00:32:58.47] - Speaker 5
Try to stay strong, keep moving. Forward, be confident that things will get better. The most important is not to give up.

[00:33:08.52] - Marcy Mangan
Thank you for listening to Beating Goliath: A Plaintiff's Pursuit of Justice. Special thanks to Billy Fern for allowing us to share his story. Beating Goliath was written and produced in-house at Salvi, Schostok & Pritchard, and editing by the talented team at Salvi Media. Special thanks to attorneys Patrick SAlvi II, David Rashid, and Jennifer Cascio for sharing their story as well. To learn more about this case or to listen to more episodes of Beating Goliath, head to salvilaw.com/podcast. Until next time, I'm your host, Marcy Mangan.