Welcome to Trial Lawyer Talk. In this episode, we speak with trial attorney Eric Ratinoff from Sacramento. He discusses a case he handled that greatly impacted him.
Transcript for Trial Lawyer Talk, Episode 7, with Eric Ratinoff
Scott Glovsky: Welcome to Trial Lawyer Talk. I’m Scott Glovsky and I’m your host for this podcast. We’re going to talk to some of the best trial lawyers in the United States. We’re going to talk to civil lawyers, criminal lawyers, jury consultants, and others that are going to have some interesting stories, that are both entertaining and insightful.
My goal here, is to give you a view inside the hearts and minds, and the souls of great trial lawyers. We’re not going to talk about the law, but I will guarantee, you will learn a lot about trial through the stories you are going to hear from our guests. So I hope you enjoy the podcast, let’s get started.
We are so fortunate today, to have with us a phenomenal trial lawyer from Sacramento, who is one of the most caring and giving people I know, let alone lawyers I know, who has a wonderful practice, and does all kinds of personal injury work, as well as teaching lawyers around the country about how to try cases, Eric Ratinoff. Eric, thank you so much for being with us.
Eric Ratinoff: Thanks for having me, Scott. This is great.
Scott Glovsky: Eric, can you tell me about a case that profoundly impact on you, either personally or professionally?
Eric Ratinoff: Yeah. I have a number of cases that I think about over the years that have really affected me. But one that really stands out is a medical malpractice case I had many years ago now, it was in federal court. It was long before we know nearly as much about AIDS as we do right now. But I represented the wife and the son of a man who was an AIDS patient. But he wasn’t diagnosed with AIDS until autopsy.
The case was all about the failure of the medical system, and his doctor in particular, and identifying what was going on with him, diagnosing him, and getting the treatment that even back then was available to at least give him more time, if not save his life.
Scott Glovsky: So tell us more about that.
Eric Ratinoff: Sure. He was a relatively young guy. He was one of these guys that did odd jobs. His background, and how he probably ended up contracting the disease was years earlier, he had done some intravenous drugs. Back then it wasn’t completely uncommon for people to get it through dental work, so that was one way that he could have gotten it. But probably it was because of some drug activity he had.
Along the way, he got married, and he had a little boy, and he started feeling ill. He was living in one of the foothill community’s north of Sacramento. He kept going back to the doctor, and he had strange blood work. The doctor, the best he was able to come up with for diagnosis, believe it or not, was severe depression, crazy diagnosis.
Well eventually, my client’s husband and client’s father, this man, ends up in the hospital, and he dies, because of his very serious illness. Again, it wasn’t until he was diagnosed on autopsy that anyone even knew he had AIDS.
Scott Glovsky: So how did you approach working on this case?
Eric Ratinoff: Well, at the time it was actually a little bit scary. Because this was now, close to 20 years ago. So there was plenty that was known about AIDS, but we’ve come a long way since then. It was really a matter of trying to understand what it was like, not only to be an AIDS patient back then, but to understand what it meant to be in the medical profession. And what was being offered, and how to approach it, and to try and come to some understanding as to what the medical profession had to offer, and to find the experts that were out there.
The experts who were out there, fortunately living in Sacramento, we’re not that far from San Francisco. San Francisco was really ground zero of the AIDS epidemic in the US. It was certainly ground zero for the leadership in the medical thinking for AIDS and the treatment of AIDS. So I found a wonderful expert in San Francisco who really took me under his wing and gave me an opportunity to learn as much as I could about the disease and the epidemiology of why it was that thing got missed as badly as it did.
Scott Glovsky: Tell me more about what you did to understand both what it was like for a patient with AIDS back at that time, as well as for the physicians that were taking care of him.
Eric Ratinoff: At the time, I was… I turn 50 this year, so I was just in my early 30’s at the time that I had this case. It was a strange feeling, but I was actually a little bit afraid of the case, because it was so foreign and so strange. So I had to go through sort of a transformation of myself to be able to deal with the issues, and to understand my own thoughts and feeling about it.
Something at the time… I mean I didn’t know anyone in my life who had been an intravenous drug user. I grew up in this community down here in Claremont. I was surrounded by people whose lives were far from that as you could imagine. So going up through school, and then suddenly I have this case that I’m dealing with, it was in federal court, it was foreign and it was scary.
I was dealing with my own thoughts and feeling about it, and whether or not I was up to the task, and how to learn about all this stuff, and how do I make people care about an AIDS patient at a time when there wasn’t… In general, there wasn’t a lot of caring, so much as there was fear.
Scott Glovsky: Tell me about your fears and the transformation you had to undergo.
Eric Ratinoff: The fears were really just ignorance-based. What I discovered, and I, in myself, had to go through these same transformations, that ultimately as if the case was tried. It wasn’t tried, ultimately we were able to get the case resolved through actually quite a bit of money.
Had I tried it, I would have had to bring the jury along through the same journey that I went through, and that was really to overcome ignorance. It was the same ignorance that this doctor had, who missed it. It was the ignorance of what is AIDS, what does it mean to be an AIDS patient, and what is the dignity that everybody deserves, regardless of whatever stigma may be out there associated with any particular disease.
As a lawyer for this family, I had to go through all of that. Because when I started out in the case I didn’t know any of it. I didn’t even realize how biased I was. I didn’t realize how scared I was. I really have to thank the great doctors that work with me on the case to bring my level of understanding of the disease to the forefront. Which then allow me to approach the entire case, and caring about this family, in a way that came from a knowledge base not a fear base based on ignorance.
Scott Glovsky: Tell us about your fears.
Eric Ratinoff: Well my fears were that this was a guy who had made certain life choices, that made him ultimately responsible for the disease that ravished his body and took him away from his wife and kid. The reality is that, while to a degree there may be some truth to that, because he did make some bad life choices…The real truth of it was, that this was a guy who had changed as a person. He was a wonderful loving father to this little boy, and he was responsibly working. He moved on with his life, and he was responsibly seeking medical care, and he was trying to get better and the system failed him. The medical system failed him completely.
Scott Glovsky: Where did you find the courage and the strength to not only recognize in yourself the bias that you had, and frankly our culture had back in the late ’80s, but also to be able to acknowledge that and deal with it and overcome it so that you could help this family?
Eric Ratinoff: I think you’re giving me too much credit by asking me where I found the courage and strength, because I didn’t. What I did do was, I became educated about what was involved. And I really became ashamed of how wrong I was, in terms of how I was viewing this man and viewing the choices he made, and viewing what that meant in terms of what his life was all about. Why his life had value and meaning.
I don’t think anything I did in the case ever came from a place of courage or strength. It really came from me coming to a greater understanding of who he was as a person, and a greater understanding of what the disease was, and dealing with my own shame at being a biased jerk.
What I realized along the way, was that I was no different. When I was having those feelings, I was no different than the doctors and the medical system, and all the people he had dealt with, that he sought help from. That I think is what ultimately turned the tide for me in the case, that allowed me to really shift my thinking on it, and to approach the case from the standpoint, really of love and caring, not from the position of being just an ignorant, biased jerk.
Scott Glovsky: Tell me more about that, how you approached the case from the standpoint of love and caring.
Eric Ratinoff: Well, what I did was, once I… I did a tremendous amount of reading. I read all about communities of AIDS patients. I read all about where the disease takes hold in various communities throughout the US. And I studied the epidemiology, and I studied what was happening in terms of the development of treatment protocols.
At that point, AZT was just really starting to come up as a major possible hope for people. There were battles that were being waged politically and economically, in terms of who was going to be able to avail themselves of the treatment, was it going to be covered by insurance, and who was going to have the hope of being able to extend their life.
So in the midst of all of this, I just became a more educated person. It’s amazing how you educate yourself, compassion doesn’t come far behind.
Scott Glovsky: I know for many great lawyers, there’s got to be some connection between the lawyer in the case emotionally to be able to throw yourself into it head over heels and take it on physically, emotionally, and tell the story. Was there something in that case that resonated with you?
Eric Ratinoff: Yeah, that was easy. He has a beautiful little boy who lost his dad. So for me to emotionally connect to a case and my client, I didn’t have to look any further than this child. His mom was a terrific woman. By now, somewhere along the line, perhaps she remarried, maybe he did ultimately end up with a dad. Cases involving kids who have lost their parents always eat me alive, they really do. So any case I have that involves a child that’s lost a parent, is very, very close to my heart.
Scott Glovsky: Can I ask about your connection to this issue?
Eric Ratinoff: I didn’t lose my parents, personally, until fairly recently. I don’t know where that comes from. Well I know where it comes from now, because I have two kids. So the fear of my kids losing either me or my wife at a young age, is pretty palpable. But back then, I didn’t have kids. But it was something that’s always struck a chord with me in my practice is, kids who lose their parents, are clients that I very much take to heart.
Scott Glovsky: You talk about approaching a case with love and caring. What role does love and caring have in the courtroom?
Eric Ratinoff: I don’t really think that we can do our jobs as lawyers without getting the jury to feel love in that courtroom. If we’re going to be successful in what we do, there are a couple emotions that are huge and they compete with each other. But they’re not antagonistic toward each other, they’re very complementary, and that’s anger and love.
I know in my own life experience, nobody has ever made me as angry as, somebody who hurts somebody that I love. There is nobody, for whom I’m willing to forgive and forget about my anger than on behalf of somebody I love. Anger and love are very powerful emotions. So whenever I have a case, I look for where those two emotions can come alive.
When I try a case, I try to find a place where those two emotions can come alive in the courtroom. A jury has to be able to experience the love that I have for my client, and the jury has to be able to experience its own love.
Scott Glovsky: How do you do that?
Eric Ratinoff: You do it by telling your client’s story in a genuine honest way that tells a story of loving relationships and the way those relationships have been affected, either by the denial of the insurance policy, or the injuries that have occurred, or the fraud that’s taken place, whatever it is. Whatever subsequently your case may be about, ultimately every case is a human story, and human stories are guided by core emotions.
Every case that we do, we have to be able to find our core emotional story that allows the jury to feel anger, and allows the jury to feel love. In every case that we do, we have to be able to bring those emotions to life through the telling of a story of trust and betrayal.
Scott Glovsky: So how do you do that?
Eric Ratinoff: Well the way you do it is, you go through a process of working with your clients to discover their story, and discover what it is that happened with them. In a medical malpractice case, if you’re talking about a wrongful death case… I’ll talk actually about a case, I’m coming up for trial, that we’re set for April 26th, this year.
It’s a young woman who fell into some bushes. She was taken to the emergency department. She had some blood trickling out of her ear, and the doctor just discharged her, didn’t do any imaging. A few days later, she’s found with a massive intracranial bleed, and she has a brain injury. So in that case, the story we have to tell is a story of trust and betrayal. Because there was a very trusted relationship of doctor and patient that was betrayed.
We all trust our doctors to just do their job. Their job is to meet the standard of care. In this situation, for whatever reason…
Scott Glovsky: Tell us what the standard of care is.
Eric Ratinoff: The standard of care is just the rules that doctors need to follow to do their job right. It’s what is the minimum that we expect doctors to do to get their job done right. The standard of care is defined as what the reasonable physician in similar circumstances would do. But really what it is, it’s what are the minimum expectations for you to do your job, and if you don’t meet those then you haven’t done your job if you’re the doctor. It’s not really that hard to do.
But for whatever reason, this guy just didn’t care, and he chose not to do his job. We’re never really going to know why, but he chose not to. Because of that, a young woman in her 30s now has a brain injury. Fortunately, she’s recovered tremendously from where she was at her worst. But she’s going to continue to have problems for the rest of her life. So as we tell the story of a trusted relationship, that’s really intentionally broken for an improper purpose, that’s betrayal.
So we figure out what in her story, and what in the story of this medical visit at the emergency department, helps us tell that story of the trusted relationship that’s intentionally broken for an improper purpose. She then heads out the door, and she frankly is never going to be the woman to live up to the potential that she had, and she had tremendous potential.
But now, she is a different version of herself, she’s a new version of herself. She’s still going to go on in life and do some great things, I have no doubt, but her life has really been changed.
Scott Glovsky: So how do you get your client to open up to you about her relationships and her loves, and her fears, and essentially to trust you with her deep emotions that she probably doesn’t want to tell anybody about?
Eric Ratinoff: It’s really funny, how do you do it? You just talk, and more importantly you listen, and you don’t pretend to listen you really truly listen to people. Scott, you know as well as anyone from the Trial Lawyer’s College, we learn all about how to listen. Do a much better job about listening, and truly listening to what’s going on inside the person, that they may not be sharing. And you help them along in that process, you can role reverse, and you can double.
But most importantly, how do you do it? You sit down with your client. You go have a meal with them, and you go to their home. You spend as much time as you can with them, and you just talk, and you talk about life, and you talk about yourself. Sometimes clients are a little uncomfortable with that, because a lot of people aren’t honest with them about who they are, and what their feelings are.
When I sit down and talk to my clients, I tell them everything. I answer all their questions, and I volunteer a lot of information about myself, and I volunteer about my own fears, and my own issues, and my own problems.
Scott Glovsky: What do you tell your clients about your own fears, and your own issues, or problems?
Eric Ratinoff: Whatever happens to be true at the moment. That’s one thing about our fears and our problems, they tend to shift and they change over time. So if I’ve got a client who’s dealing with a marital issue, because of her injury, I often talk to clients about my own fears and anxieties in my own marriage, or being a father, maybe not living up to my potential as a husband or a father.
None of it is contrived, it’s whatever feels true for me at the moment, because first and foremost this person I’m dealing with isn’t a client, it’s another human being, it’s a person, who’s going through life’s struggles. The struggles that that person has today may not be not be the struggles they have a week from now, and they may be. I don’t know.
But when you’re with somebody, you can very quickly end up on the same wave length talking to somebody about what’s going on with them. If you have open, honest communication with your client, just like if you have it with your husband or wife, or your child. If you’re having open honest communication, you figure out what’s making them tick. You figure out what’s really going on inside them.
So you can talk to them on a human level. You’re going to talk to them about what their fears are, what their hopes are, what their dreams are, and they’re going to tell you. If you’re listening, if you’re really listening, you’re going to learn so much about who they are as people. Then if you know truly who your client is as a person, and what makes them tick.
Then you have an immense power in the court room, to be able to bring that story alive, in way that their injury, or whatever event it is that you’re dealing with in your case has affected and changed the fabric of their life, and what it means for them as people trying to live their lives. You’re able to bring it out.
Scott Glovsky: When you have a case, when you’re a month away from trial, this may be one example. Where you’ve been living your client’s story, learning your client’s story, preparing, working for the last couple of years normally, what are you feeling at this point, you’ve got a trial a month away?
Eric Ratinoff: Scared. I’ve never had a case where I didn’t feel like I could have done more, or I can know my client better, or I don’t feel like I’m missing something. It’s just part of my personality, if everything is going right, and everything is lining up completely in our favor, well then I’m still neurotic that I’m missing something. There’s something that I haven’t discovered yet. Then you get through trial and you keep waiting for the other shoe to drop and it never does.
So the last 30 days before trial I have tremendous anxiety. I work really hard to make sure that I have all my ducks in a row, so that I can represent the case as well as humanly possible.
Scott Glovsky: That sounds, in some ways, exhausting.
Eric Ratinoff: Yes, it is exhausting, but it’s fun.
Scott Glovsky: How do you deal with it? Obviously, it’s stressful.
Eric Ratinoff: Yeah.
Scott Glovsky: How do you deal with the stress?
Eric Ratinoff: The only way that I’ve been able to figure out to deal with the stress, is literally working every waking moment. So if I know that I’m doing everything that I can possibly be doing, it just happens to be stressful for me. I feel stress in those moments where I’m not working, which may not be the healthiest way to live, but that’s when I feel stress. When I’m actually doing the work, accomplishing it, and getting it done, to me that’s not stressful.
Scott Glovsky: Earlier to you talked about the case where you represented the family of this young man with AIDS. How did that have a profound impact on you?
Eric Ratinoff: I think the biggest impact on me in that case, and why I often think about it, it’s was just a case I learned a lot about myself and my own vulnerabilities as a person, and my own biases and prejudices. And my own fears as a lawyer, in terms of whether or not I was up to the task. And learning about setting aside my own ignorance and my own bias, educating myself, and really drilling down to the core emotional truth in the story, and keeping my focus there.
So then not only did the way in which I handled that case changed, I changed as a person. After handling that case, I’ve never been the same person, and I’ve never been the same lawyer.
Scott Glovsky: How so?
Eric Ratinoff: Well for the things that we were talking about earlier. I forced myself to confront my own ignorance, my own bias, and my own fear. It was fear based in ignorance and bias. Once I got through that experience, I realized it wasn’t a case about a guy who had made life choices that were perhaps poor, who ended up with a disease that a lot of people would blame him for getting because of his poor life choices.
It was a case about a beautiful little boy, who was going to grow up without a dad, because his doctor didn’t do his job. That was a huge shift, and it was a shift I went through as a person, and it’s a shift that I carry with me, and probably will for the rest of my career.
Scott Glovsky: Now, have you ever heard from that family over the last 20 years, after you handled the case?
Eric Ratinoff: I haven’t, I have not, but that’s okay. I trust and I believe that that little boy is grown up into a terrific young man, who’s moving forward in his life, who I know for a fact had his college paid for if he went up through the ranks of school, and got accepted to college.
Scott Glovsky: How does that make you feel, to know that you have worked on a case, where it’s obvious to me how much you love this little boy, and that you had an impact on him and his future?
Eric Ratinoff: I love it, it’s the best part of our job knowing that we can take a tragedy, and at least turn it into some form of economic help for people. It’s not just the economics, it’s what the economics represent, money is just the representation of value. The value is all those great things in people’s lives that they have some degree of economic freedom to take advantage of. And it’s great know that this little child got to grow up and become educated, because of my hard work. I love it.
Scott Glovsky: You mentioned the best part of your job. What’s the worst part of our job?
Eric Ratinoff: The worst part of our job, I would say it’s probably the level of dishonesty that I deal with, with people. I’ve never gotten used to being lied to. It always hurts me. I am one of those people who tends to give others the benefit of the doubt, and I learn that lesson the hard way over and over again. But I can’t break myself of that, it’s too much of a part of who I am, I get along with people very well, and I love people.
But to me, the most disappointing thing about what we do is the degree of which people lie. Whether it’s opposing counsel, or parties, or the people involved in cases, there is a disease in our country that involves a lack of integrity, that has become very acceptable to large groups of people.
Now, the good news is, the vast majority of people don’t fall into that category. Most people I deal with are honest. Most people do have integrity. But there are certainly some bad apples out there. You asked what was the worst part, I think that’s the worst part.
Scott Glovsky: What are three words that your best friend would use to describe you?
Eric Ratinoff: Probably caring, loving, and loyal.
Scott Glovsky: What are three words that the most obnoxious, contentious, lawyer on another side of a case would use to describe you?
Eric Ratinoff: Probably prepared, fearless, and creative.
Scott Glovsky: What does creative mean?
Eric Ratinoff: I think a lot of times that they don’t see it coming, what I’m intending to do.
Scott Glovsky: You mean your story that you’re going to tell?
Eric Ratinoff: The story that’s going to be told, the way it’s going to be told.
Scott Glovsky: What was your proudest moment as a trial lawyer?
Eric Ratinoff: The proudest moment of a trial lawyer was probably… I don’t really have one. But I tried a case a few years back with co-counsel, it was a medical malpractice case. A big issue in the case was the comparative fault of this young girl’s parents. Without going into all the details of the case, there was probably the…
Once we got over breach of the standard of care, the next biggest issue in the case was overcoming the notion. That ultimately what happened to this young person was the parents’ fault for not bringing their child back to the doctor over the course of the years. Despite many referrals to the doctor, there was a failure of follow-up. I did a soft cross of the key defense witness, that the defense just never saw coming.
Scott Glovsky: Can you share with us what a soft cross is?
Eric Ratinoff: So a soft cross is, rather than attacking the witness, it was using the witness to this defense, retained neurologist. Rather than talking about the neurology, I just led him through a cross that absolved the child’s parents of almost all blameworthiness, for not bringing her back to the doctor.
We never talked about neurology for even a moment during the cross. The cross was over before they knew it. The defense lawyer got up and literally stuttered, didn’t know what his first question was going to be. Did a couple of little questions and then sat back down, and then he was done, and the jury came back and they did hit the parents with a small percentage of fault. But it was that cross examination that completely opened up the case to what ended up being a really wonderful verdict.
Scott Glovsky: Why was that your proudest moment?
Eric Ratinoff: Because it was a moment where, rather than having a focus be on yet another lawyer just taking on another witness, and trying to win the battle of that witness…Just setting all of that aside, and really focusing on the story, and what the role of that witness could potentially be in the story. Not as a doctor, who was taking a position, but ultimately he ended up as a neurologist, while hired by the defense to do the defense’s dirty work.
He was really on the witness stand as a parent, who could fully understand why the parent’s failed reasonably to do their job as parents, when it came to seeking medical care. And to give life to why a parent might do that, and that would be okay.
Scott Glovsky: I also have the sense there was something going on in you about the message that you were conveying to the parents through that cross examination. Does that fit at all?
Eric Ratinoff: That was hugely important to me. Just being able to give that gift to those parents. Even though we had never actually had the conversation, where I would tell them outright, it’s not your fault, it’s not your fault. You can say it I guess, but if you’re a parent you’re not going to believe it.
Because as a parent, you’re looking from this end of the equation instead of the front end, and to know that the damage has already occurred. Your beautiful child is going to have a horrible time for many years to come, and as a parent there’s no way to question it. You don’t question what you did, and you don’t question your decisions.
So there was nothing I could say as a lawyer that would make that better for them. The ability for them to sit in the courtroom and watch that unfold, and even have this higher defense gun tell it the way that it was, and to be able to say from the witness stand that he completely understands why they did what they did, was huge. And the ability for that to have happened in that way, so that they could genuinely hear it, feel it, and know it, and to have the jury come back and say they heard it too, was huge.
Scott Glovsky: Can you tell us what that story was, or give us little picture of how that story played out?
Eric Ratinoff: Sure. In terms of what actually happened?
Scott Glovsky: In the cross examination with that witness.
Eric Ratinoff: It was a child who, when she was 13 years old, was diagnosed with Guillain–Barré. It’s a neuromuscular condition that they believe it gets triggered by viral illness, and it’s horrible. Anyway, when she was 13 years old, she temporarily lost the ability to walk. She went to a local medical center where she was diagnosed, and they did some imaging.
The case really ended up being about them missing something on that imaging. While there they got her back walking, and she was discharged with very strict instructions to bring her back for follow-up evaluation and care with the Chief of Pediatric Neurology, for the entire system, who had taken this child under his wing. Well the parents never brought her back. They did take her to the pediatrician though.
The pediatrician wrote another thing for the child to go back for follow up with this preeminent pediatric neurologist, and they still didn’t take her back. Well when she was 18, that thing that showed up in the imaging reared its ugly head, and she ended up paralyzed.
A lot of the defense case was that, if the parents just brought her back for follow-up care over the years, the way they were supposed to, that there no doubt would have been further imaging along the way. Because the trial continued to have difficulties, serious difficulties.
There was a big belief on the defense side of the case, that the jury ultimately was just going to blame the parents. The cross examination of this doctor, which probably only lasted a couple of minutes, I just walked him through that time period, that five years, through the parent’s eyes.
I asked him to imagine that he was there, and imagine that the parents were discharged with their little child with a diagnosis of Guillain–Barré. Then she goes on, and she goes to a pediatrician who then tells the parents that she has Guillain–Barré.
The pediatrician and the medical facility all wanted her to follow up for Guillain–Barré. And as the years rolled on by, she needed assistance in school getting from class to class, because of her diagnosis of Guillain–Barré. So doctor, can you understand why it is, that for five years, the parents believed wholeheartedly that what their daughter had was Guillain–Barré? His answer of course, was yes.
It was a really simple cross examination, that just walked through that entire period of care. I left everything else in the case alone.
Scott Glovsky: And ultimately, she was diagnosed with something other than Guillain–Barré?
Eric Ratinoff: Yeah, ultimately she was diagnosed with, she had an arterial venous malformation that was in her spine, that ultimately ruptured, and paralyzed her.
Scott Glovsky: Wow. Well, what amazing work. I’m very thankful Eric, that you took the time to chat with us today, and share your great insights about how you approach cases, how you care about clients, and how you fight for people that don’t have anyone to fight for them. So thank you very much for spending time with us, and thanks for fighting for your clients. Your clients are very, very lucky to have you as their lawyer.
Eric Ratinoff: Thanks, Scott.
Scott Glovsky: Thank you for joining us today for Trial Lawyer Talk. If you like the show, I’d really appreciate if you could give us a good review on iTunes, and I’d love to get your feedback. You can reach me at www.scottglovsky.com. That’s S-C-O-T-T-G-L-O-V-S-K-Y. com, and I’d love to hear your feedback.
You can also check out the book that I published called Fighting Health Insurance Denials: A Primer for Lawyers, that’s on Amazon. I put the book together based on 20 years of suing health insurance companies for denying medical care to people. It provides a general outline of how to fight health insurance denials. Have a great week and we’ll talk to you in the next episode.
[End of Audio – 00:48:08]