Legal Question in Personal Injury in California

The decision on what experts to call to testify at a trial rests with the attorney because it is a matter of trial strategy although he should have explained to you his decision not to call the primary treating physician. Primary treating physicians usually are good doctors but lousy witnesses in court and often also don't want to testify and are not cooperative. Expert medical witnesses now how to testify and are paid a lot for doing it so they are cooperative and take the time to prepare.

You would not be able to prove that you lost the case because the primary treating physician did not testify. That might have been one of the many things the jury considered but it would not be reasonable to decide the case against you just because of that. In fact, the testimony of the primary doctor could have made the chances of losing the case even greater.

Apparently there is nothing more to be done in your case. Your case was tried and unless there are legal grounds for appeal and the appeal is filed within the time required by law then the case is over.

Sorry to hear that you lost the case but losing a case does not necessarily mean that it was your lawyer's fault although I can understand why you feel that way and will probably always blame the lawyer for the bad result. Lawyers are used to being blamed for all the bad news and having the clients tell them how easy the case was when the case is won. All jury trials are a gamble. That is why most cases should be settled if possible, even if you don't get all you think you deserve.

I have had about 25 years experience as a defense counsel and 5 years as a plaintiff's personal injury attorney [mainly automobile accidents]. What Mr. Carballo says is true. Few of the jury trials I had came out the way I think an objective, knowledgeable attorney would image they would; in some my result was better than it should have been and in others it was worse. Going to trial, even a court trial, is a big, costly gamble; no more than 5% if the civil filings ever go to trial. Some jurors are very sharp, most allow their own biases to play a large part in their decision. Most smart jurors are removed by the attorneys during jury selection, as they are seeking people who will vote for their side.

For some time now, jurors have been giving very small awards to victims of rear-end accidents [and way too much for some other types of cases]. Treating physicians often do make poor witnesses and they are more likely to say than an expert the plaintiff's symptoms should not be as bad as reported, because 99% of their cases are relatively minor and people recover. I once cross-examined a defense expert witness who said on the stand that everyone should recover from an injury within two weeks; I asked him if that should include hamstring strains, etc.. Everyone in the legal community knew he never found anyone significantly injured; I thought he made a fool on the stand and would shock the jury when they hear how much he was being paid. They had no doubt his testify was correct.

I am sorry, but that is how the legal system operates. The attorney did not will you because if you did not win he got 33 or 40% of zero, plus had to pick up the thousands of dollars for the experts, court costs, etc.