Español
Trial Attorneys, Medical Malpractice, Birth Injury, Cerebral Palsy, Brain Damage, Erb's Palsy Law firm in Puerto Rico ::Drug Manufacturers Liability
Sample judgments / Settlements for Plaintiff Clients
- Jury verdict of $2,500,000 plus interest and costs in a federal litigation against a stateside attorney that swindled two families victims of terror from collecting their full recovery from the Lybian government, Berganzo v. Ambush, Civil No. 10-1044(GAG). Jury verdict rendered in Federal Court, October 4, 2011.
- $1,300,000 confidential partial settlement participation in electrocution case in Federal Court, Puerto Rico. September 2011.
- $850,000 settlement participation at mediation for medical malpractice claim against Florida hospital, Estate of Carolina Díaz v. Homestead Hospital, et als, Case No. 11-1602 GD 03. September 2011.
- $955,000 confidential settlement in mild birth injury case in Federal Court, Puerto Rico. August 2011.
- $450,000 settlement in shoulder dystocia case which form participated in Arecibo, Puerto Rico state court. Nairym Candelaria v. Dr. Manuel Colón Rodríguez, et als., Civil No. CDP2009-0158(401). August 2011.
- $2,500,000 confidential settlement in brain damage case in Federal Court March, 2011.
- $2,320,000 confidential settlement in brain damage case in Federal Court January, 2011.
- $1,000,000 confidential settlement in hospital death case in Federal Court December 2010.
- $3,500,000 participated in confidential settlement in electrocution death case in Federal Court June, 2010.
- $2,500,000 confidential settlement in brain damage case in Federal Court, March 2009.
- $4,500,000 confidential settlement in brain damage case in Federal Court, May 2008.
The United States Court of Appeals recent published opinion, 373 F.3d 1; regarding attorney David Efron's advocacy:
•"...review makes it abundantly clear that the plaintiff's counsel gave no quarter. He took full advantage of the sympathetic nature of his case and, on occasion, he sailed close to the wind. We find no indication, however, that counsel crossed the thin line that separates vigorous advocacy from impermissible appeals to passion or prejudice....we find no indication that improper rhetoric influenced the outcome of the trial.. There is a critical difference between a lawyer that hits hard and a lawyer that hits below the belt.....The plaintiff's opening statement and closing argument in this case both were hard-hitting, but neither was manifestly improper. "