In his closing argument, Plaintiff’s attorney labeled defense arguments as a smokescreen and compared Greg Worden to the tap dancing defense attorney played by Richard Gere in Chicago. The jury, however, did not agree and returned a $4255 verdict that was only about a quarter of what Plaintiff was offered before trial to settle her claims regarding this rear end auto accident.

This case illustrates the impact of proper (or improper) evaluation on trial tactics and the final result. The Plaintiff’s attorney was so confident in his case that he ridiculed Defense evidence and arguments and asked for over $100,000 in damages. But the verdict showed that the Plaintiff’s evaluation was not correct and Plaintiff’s confidence was misplaced.

There were facts favoring Plaintiff’s case which lead to that confidence. The accident was strong enough the crumple the rear of Plaintiff’s car and total it. An orthopedic surgeon did opine that Plaintiff broke her ankle in the October 1998 accident.. Plaintiff had over $10,000 in medical bills. Plaintiff’s employer provided an estimate that she lost over $11,000 in wages and commissions. Plaintiff was still complaining of diffuse pain over four years later at trial. A chiropractor testified Plaintiff would need biweekly adjustments for the rest of her life.

The insurance carrier and Greg took those facts seriously. The carrier made a substantial offer and Greg thoroughly prepared for trial. That preparation revealed the case was studded with evidence Greg was able to present as "red flags" casting doubt on Plaintiff’s claims that she broke her ankle, suffered from continuing back pain, and lost substantial income.

For example, Plaintiff was walking around the scene without any pain and when she went for treatment two days later examination of her ankle revealed no swelling. She had been getting chiropractic off and on since the mid nineties, and she had been in a fall six weeks before the accident that gave her foot and back pain. She was getting chiropractic treatment for those complaints at the time of the car accident. She had filled out pain questionnaires showing she had far fewer complaints four months after the accident then she had one month before the accident. She was not working at the time of the accident and had not worked for the four previous months. Finally, her credibility was undermined when she testified at deposition that her treating chiropractor had proposed she sue him for malpractice and split the resulting proceeds.