Court Case Part 3: Closing Arguments

Closing Arguments

So we resume our coverage of Carissa’s Court Case. When we left off, we’d just heard testimony from Dr. DuVall. Now, it is time for closing arguments. dun Dun DUN!!!!

The Plaintiff’s Closing Argument

So as I’ve alluded to throughout our coverage of this breaking story, there were actually 2 plaintiffs AND two skuzzy attorneys involved in this trial. So, they had 2 closing arguments which went over roughly the same points, so I will condense them here.

The Plaintiffs’ attorneys came up with an ingenious structure for their closing. They said that there are basically two ways to look at the world. You can look for the beauty in the world or you can look at the ugly in the world. The beauty, of course, was that his poor, helpless clients were hurt and they were just trying to get what was due to them. The ugly, equally compelling, was me assuming that they were liars and that the chiropractor is a crook. By refusing to pay for their treatment for their beautiful injuries, I am focusing on the ugly fact that this is all a scam and I, myself, am becoming ugly (well I NEVER!)!

They pointed out that their clients clearly weren’t abusing the system, since they only received treatment for 2 months and since have not sought any treatment. The ugly in the world says everyone is playing the system. That’s what Ms. Lucyk seems to think.

All in all, the plaintiffs asked for $9,000 to cover their chiropractor and emergency room visits and then $18,000 in pain and suffering. Bringing the grand total to $27,000!

My Attorney’s Closing Argument (or, “Oh no he DIDN’T call my client UGLY”)

Patrick Schomaker, bless his heart , followed this somewhat convincing closing (I haven’t done it justice, it was a little convincing). But Patrick, too, had a few tricks up his sleeve. He started out by acknowledging that this trial is ugly. You see the best and the worst when you come to court. What we are saying may be ugly, but it’s the ugly truth. And we can’t just ignore the truth based on the convincing tactics of the defense. The truth of the matter is that on June 10, 2006, Carissa Lucyk and the Plaintiffs were involved in a minor car accident in which no injuries were reported. Then, the plaintiffs proceeded to visit a chiropractor 64 times combined over the next 2 months.

What Patrick also pointed out at this point (and what hadn’t come out before) was that the two plaintiffs, whose distinct and severe injuries had been discussed at length, received the exact same treatment. Each time they visited the doctor, each of them received the same 5 treatments, and if you hold their bills up next two each other, they are identical. Now, how is it that two people with different medical histories and different ages just happen to need the exact same treatment by a chiropractor. Sure, there are certain standard treatments, but wouldn’t you expect some variation in their specific needs?

Patrick also pointed out that the two plaintiffs were less than forthcoming on the stand with regard to their previous testimony. They had very little credibility in the eyes of the jury based on this, but I think it helped to drive this point home.

Patrick closed by saying that the ugly truth of this trial is that I was being asked to pay for injuries that were not incurred by the plaintiffs, but that they nonetheless sought extensive treatment for. He reminded the jury how the plaintiff had described her treatment with the chiropractor and asked if I should be responsible for paying for the plaintiff’s wonderful massages in the amount of $27,000? No, that would be ugly.