A verdict in favor of an injured plaintiff is rarely the end of any trial story, particularly where a large judgment is involved. More often than not, the losing party will argue that there were legal errors during trial or that something else requires a “do-over.” At that juncture, it can be wise to engage a lawyer who has the knowledge and experience to handle post-trial matters or defend verdicts on appeal.
Pfau Cochran Vertetis Amala PLLC post-trial and appellate practice attorneys are positioned to do just that. Often, they are called upon to help legal counsel who have exhausted their energy (and resources) to take on the defendant for “round two.” Their unique experience and know-how make a great difference in successful post-trial procedures, motions, and judgment collections. They excel at developing strategies and will aggressively and fearlessly take on large corporations and insurance giants in complex appeals. Because it matters to them that every plaintiff prevails, they settle for nothing less.
Proactive, Experienced, Skillful Representation
Having taken numerous cases to and through initial trial on behalf of injured persons, PCVA appellate attorneys can predict the various defense arguments in post-trial motions and appeals. But their talents and skillsets extend even further. When a verdict and judgment are awarded, they have the insight needed to successfully navigate the collection process post-trial. They offer proactive, creative, and – above all – robust efforts to put measures in place to protect a plaintiff’s ability to collect the awarded judgment and to set up a case for success on appeal, should it be needed.
PCVA appellate attorneys offer unparalleled experience in persuasive advocacy at the appellate level. With a team that includes attorneys who have clerked for 10 different Washington State appellate judges and researched and written hundreds of Washington appellate opinions, we have one of the deepest benches of “insider” appellate experience in Washington State. We know how appellate judges think and can write in their “voice,” which is critical because victory at the appellate level depends in part on approaching the issues as an appellate judge would, contextualizing their effect on the entire trial, and identifying procedural issues unique to appellate proceedings.
Our team is exceptionally good at seeing the whole picture of a case and meticulous in identifying mischaracterizations of the record. They know the errors defense counsel typically argue on appeal and, importantly, they are able to bring warmth into an otherwise cold appeals process, marshalling the tactics needed to effectively retell the plaintiff’s story to judges.
A Plaintiff-only Practice
Plaintiffs and their trial counsel can rest assured that PCVA would never take on any case for the defense. They are 100% committed to representing plaintiffs in post-trial and appellate proceedings – period. PCVA lawyers will never accept work that strives to overturn plaintiff verdicts or take on a case that would negatively impact the laws in place that protect plaintiff rights.
Whether the case involves traumatic brain injury, medical malpractice, products liability, sexual abuse, or any other personal injury, the PCVA post-trial and appellate group gets up to speed quickly. They take charge of the process and details, giving battle-weary trial lawyers a much-needed break. Communication and caring punctuate their work. When taking on an appeal or post-trial procedure for another lawyer, they respect their established attorney-client relationship and work hard to effectively represent them and maintain the good will of that relationship.
- Tisdale v. Apro LLC: In a post-trial procedure, PCVA successfully defended a $91 million verdict awarded to an individual who suffered a traumatic brain injury when he was hit with a bat during a convenience store robbery. The young man, a customer in the store, was left with an injury that gave him no viable path to recovery or ability to resume even a semi-normal life. He is now in need of 24/7 care for life. We began collections immediately and prevented the defendant from obtaining a stay intended to avoid paying the judgment or tying up the case in court, potentially for years.
- Evans v. Seattle Children’s Hosp: PCVA successfully defended a $13.95 million medical malpractice verdict in post-trial motions for a new trial or judgment notwithstanding the verdict. The client had suffered a catastrophic embolic stroke during an elective cardiac catheterization.
- Gutierrez v. Olympia Sch. Dist.: The PCVA team successfully defended a $1.425 million verdict for a sexually abused student and mother against the Olympia, Washington, school district in post-trial motions and appeal.
- West v. Ride the Ducks International, LLC: PCVA successfully defended on appeal a $4 million verdict for a survivor of the Aurora Bridge “Ride the Ducks” catastrophic crash against the tour operator and manufacturer of amphibious “Duck” vehicles.
- W.H. v. Olympia Sch. Dist.: The team successfully represented a childhood sexual abuse survivor before the Washington State Supreme Court in a case recognizing sexual abuse as gender-based discrimination under the Washington Law Against Discrimination’s public accommodation provisions and the school district’s strict liability for an employee’s sexual abuse of a student under the WLAD.
- Ralph v. State of Washington Department of Natural Resources (Ralph I): PCVA successfully represented clients who had suffered flooding and landslide property damage before the Washington State Supreme Court, overturning 100 years of outdated law and recognizing that the county in which the plaintiffs sued was an issue of venue, not jurisdiction.
- Forth v. State of Washington Department of Natural Resources: PCVA successfully represented clients who suffered flooding and landslide property damage before the Washington State Supreme Court, upholding the property owners’ choice of venue in property damage lawsuits.
- Steel v. Olympia Early Learning Ctr.: PCVA successfully represented on appeal six childhood sexual abuse survivors and their parents in a case recognizing that plaintiffs do not waive attorney-client privilege in seeking determination of reasonableness of covenant judgment settlements.