One of our H2H™ crew members, Chrissy Hagen, recently tried a medical malpractice case that resulted in a defense verdict.

After trial, she reached out with a great question:

Should we be spending MORE time addressing defense points during trial?

In this episode, we talk through:

👉🏽 The med mal case involving a delayed prostate cancer diagnosis
👉🏽 What Chrissy heard from jurors after the verdict
👉🏽 Why some jurors admitted they "flipped" during deliberations
👉🏽 The concept of defensive attribution and how it shows up in trials
👉🏽 And the bigger lesson: WHY framing matters more than time spent on defense points

As we dug into the case, something important emerged.

The real issue in this case wasn't just the delayed diagnosis.

It was agency.

A doctor making a decision for a patient instead of giving that patient the information needed to make the decision themselves.

And when you find the real piss-off point for jurors, everything about how you frame the case can change.

If you've ever walked out of a courtroom wondering what happened in that verdict room, this episode is for you. 

Tune in NOW! 🎧