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
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,