A "completely defensible" gallbladder case the defense refused to settle became the second-largest verdict in Jefferson County in 222 years. Returning guest Victor Pribanic explains how he won $1.5 million in all non-economic damages for Sandra Whisman, a 47-year-old whose surgeon transected her common hepatic duct. With host Brendan Lupetin, Pribanic breaks down the tools behind the win: one voir dire question that surfaced jurors' expectations of a surgeon, custom surgical animations tied to the medical record, an opening that teaches rather than argues, a cross that trapped the defense expert, and a "man in black" closing on damages. Tune in for a masterclass in surgical malpractice trial strategy, from voir dire to verdict.

Learn More and Connect

☑️ Victor H. Pribanic | LinkedIn

☑️ Pribanic & Pribanic

☑️ Brendan Lupetin | LinkedIn

☑️ Lupetin & Unatin, LLC

☑️ Connect: Facebook | LinkedIn | YouTube

☑️ Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | YouTube

Episode Preview

The defense called this gallbladder case "completely defensible" and made no offer; Pribanic took it to trial in Jefferson County, where defendants were counting on the local trend of low verdicts.
Dr. Denny Tang, the surgeon, insisted he had only cut the cystic duct and blamed "aberrant anatomy" — even though the common hepatic duct was transected and the common bile duct clipped.
One voir dire question — what do you expect of your surgeon? — drew out a juror's "magical answer" that Pribanic turned into a resonating theme for the whole case.
Custom courtroom animations, edited 15 times and tied to the medical record, showed jurors the “critical view of safety” and exactly how the surgery should have been done.
Following David Ball’s approach, Pribanic structured an opening focused on teaching rather than arguing and put his "cross-proof" client on the stand as the very first witness.
On cross, Pribanic had Dr. Tang write three undisputed facts in his own hand — including dissecting at least an inch of cystic duct — making the surgeon's story impossible.
The defense expert, sequestered and unaware of Dr. Tang's testimony, contradicted the defendant on the stand; the jury returned $1.5 million, 11–1 in favor of the plaintiff.

Ready to refer or collaborate on med mal, medical negligence, and catastrophic injury cases? Visit our attorney referral page at PAMedMal.com/Refer. We handle cases in Pennsylvania and across the United States.

Learn More and Connect

Episode Preview

Produced and Powered by LawPods