In this medical malpractice case, plaintiff Jorgina Araujo claims defendant Tatiana Eisner was negligent in her medical treatment.
It can be difficult to effectively argue the value of circumstantial evidence to jurors accustomed to television courtroom dramas that contain "smoking-gun" direct evidence in a case. However, during closings of Araujo v. Eisner, Morgan & Morgan's John Dill uses a "rainy day" analogy to argue the strength of the circumstantial evidence at issue in his medical malpractice case.
Dill represented Jorgina Araujo, who claimed an embolism during her 2011 hysterectomy led to a stroke that left her partially blind. In the medical malpractice trial against the procedure's anesthesiology team, Dr. Tatiana Eisner and Heidi Aleman-Ortega, Dill presented circumstantial evidence of malpractice, which included Araujo's claims of partial blindness after the procedure and a single, arguably questionable entry on Araujo's surgical records. By contrast, defendants claimed that it was impossible for Araujo to have suffered a stroke during the procedure.
To read the full article, click here.