Actual cause asks: Did the defendant’s actions directly cause the injury?

Proximate cause asks: Was the injury a foreseeable result of the defendant’s actions?

Plaintiffs must prove both types of causation to win their case.

Medical and expert evidence often play a crucial role in establishing causation.

Actual cause: Direct link — the injury wouldn’t have happened without the defendant’s actions.

Proximate cause: Legal limit — the injury was a foreseeable outcome of the behavior.

Both are required to establish legal responsibility.

Unforeseeable or highly unusual events may break the chain of proximate cause.

Medical experts can testify that the injury is consistent with the accident.

Accident reconstruction specialists may show how the incident unfolded.

Plaintiffs may need to disprove alternative causes raised by the defense.

Causation must be proven by a preponderance of the evidence—more likely than not.

Intervening events may cut off liability if they are unforeseeable.

Preexisting conditions don’t break causation but may affect damages.

Acts of third parties may or may not relieve the defendant, depending on foreseeability.

“Eggshell plaintiff” rule: Defendants take plaintiffs as they find them—even if injuries are worse than expected.

Multiply your daily or hourly wage by the days missed due to injury.

Include tips, bonuses, and commissions if they were part of your regular income.

Provide employer verification confirming dates missed and your pay structure.

Medical documentation must support your inability to work during the time period.

Use tax returns, profit/loss statements, and invoices to show earnings trends.

Document canceled gigs, contracts, or clients due to your injury.

You can claim lost future opportunities, not just missed workdays.

Expert testimony may be needed to validate fluctuating income or growth potential.

Lost future wages cover diminished earning capacity, not just time missed.

Requires vocational or economic expert testimony to estimate career impact.

Considers education, skills, age, and career trajectory pre-injury.

Can involve life-care planners if lifelong disability affects earnings.

Lost wages = past income you didn’t receive due to time off.

Lost earning capacity = future income lost due to reduced work ability.

Lost wages are easier to document, often using pay stubs and time sheets.

Lost earning capacity often needs expert analysis or testimony.

References a master complaint that outlines common allegations.

Used in MDLs and mass tort cases where many plaintiffs allege similar harms.

Plaintiffs fill in personal details, such as injury type, usage dates, and damages.

Speeds up filing while ensuring consistency across hundreds of lawsuits.

Personal information (name, address, etc.)

Product or drug used, including dates and dosage if applicable

Injury or diagnosis claimed

Specific counts adopted from the master complaint (e.g., negligence, failure to warn)

Jurisdictional information relevant to venue or transfer

Easier and faster to file, especially for firms handling many plaintiffs.

Reduces legal fees and administrative time for each client.

Creates consistency in claims, which helps with judicial efficiency.

Still allows for individualized case development down the line.

Does not waive your right to pursue damages or go to trial.

You can still present individual evidence, such as medical records or testimony.

Court may later require additional documentation beyond the complaint.

Filing a short form properly preserves your claim under applicable laws.

Cases are consolidated only for pretrial purposes, not trial.

Each plaintiff maintains an individual claim and right to compensation.

One judge oversees coordinated discovery and rulings, improving consistency.

Cases may resolve through global settlements, bellwether trials, or remand.

Defective drugs or medical devices (e.g., opioids, hernia mesh, IVC filters)

Toxic torts (e.g., Roundup, PFAS “forever chemicals”)

Consumer product defects (e.g., faulty appliances, auto recalls)

Mass data breaches affecting millions of users

Lower legal costs due to shared discovery and expert witnesses.

Faster resolutions compared to handling thousands of separate cases.

Increased negotiating power when plaintiffs act as a group.

More consistency in rulings and evidence handling across similar cases.

MDL = separate cases combined for pretrial, but individualized outcomes.

Class action = one unified case, with all plaintiffs treated as one.

MDLs allow for personalized compensation and evidence presentation.

Class actions require court approval to certify the class, MDLs do not.

Applies to scientific, technical, or specialized expert testimony.

Judges evaluate reliability, not just the expert’s credentials.

Factors include peer review, error rate, testing, and general acceptance.

Used in federal courts and many state courts that have adopted Daubert.

Lack of peer-reviewed support for the expert’s conclusions.

Use of novel or untested methodologies not generally accepted in the field.

Over-reliance on subjective judgment without objective validation.

Inadequate qualifications or prior exclusions in other courts.

Excluding a medical expert may prevent a plaintiff from proving causation.

Financial or life-care experts must base opinions on accepted methods.

Defense experts can also be excluded if their analysis is unreliable.

Courts may hold Daubert hearings to decide admissibility before trial.

Choose experts with published, peer-reviewed work in the relevant field.

Ensure methodology is testable, validated, and widely accepted.

Prepare experts for deposition and cross-examination on methodology.

Review past Daubert rulings involving the expert, if any.

Plaintiff must prove negligence, causation, and damages initially.

If a prima facie case is made, the burden may shift to the defendant to respond.

Common in summary judgment motions, where each side must meet its burden at different stages.

Applies in some strict liability or res ipsa loquitur cases, where fault is inferred unless rebutted.

Slip and fall: Customer shows unsafe floor; store must prove reasonable maintenance.

Product liability: Plaintiff proves defect and injury; manufacturer may need to show no negligence.

Medical malpractice: If a surgical tool is left inside a patient, the hospital may have to prove how it wasn’t negligent.

Res ipsa loquitur cases shift burden when negligence is presumed based on the nature of the event.

Burden of proof is the overarching responsibility to prove your claim or defense.

Burden shifting is a procedural move triggered by evidence or legal standards.

Shifting occurs after the plaintiff presents enough evidence to support a claim.

The final burden of proof usually returns to the plaintiff, especially in civil cases.

Gives plaintiffs leverage when direct evidence is limited.

Forces defendants to explain or rebut obvious negligence.

Used in situations involving exclusive control (e.g., surgical errors, malfunctioning equipment).

Helps balance access to evidence, especially in institutional or corporate cases.

Unreasonable denial of valid claims, with little or no explanation.

Delaying claim investigations or payments without justification.

Misrepresenting policy terms to avoid paying.

Failing to conduct a proper investigation before denying a claim.

You may sue for more than the original claim amount if bad faith is proven.

States have different standards for proving bad faith—some require clear evidence, others apply a “reasonableness” test.

Bad faith can involve delay, denial, or deception.

Document all communication with the insurer to support your case.

Legitimate denials are based on clear policy exclusions or lack of coverage.

Bad faith denials are unreasonable, unsupported, or deceptive.

Failure to explain a denial can be a warning sign of bad faith.

A pattern of lowball offers or delay tactics may indicate bad faith behavior.

Collect all correspondence, including letters, emails, and phone logs.

Request the claim file from the insurer through discovery.

Consult experts or attorneys to interpret policy language and conduct.

State laws set specific standards for proving bad faith—some stricter than others.

Covers legal advice only, not general business or personal discussions.

Applies to confidential communications, not public or shared information.

Belongs to the client, who alone can waive it.

Can be lost if the client shares privileged info with others (known as “waiver”).

Crime-fraud exception: No privilege if the advice helps commit a crime or fraud.

Third-party involvement: Privilege is waived if unrelated parties are included.

Non-legal services: Discussions outside the scope of legal advice aren’t protected.

Future vs. past crimes: Privilege may still apply to advice about past misconduct, but not to planning future illegal acts.

Covers conversations about medical records, liability, and settlement strategy.

Extends to law firm staff like paralegals and legal assistants.

Does not protect statements made to insurance companies unless your lawyer is present and the communication is privileged.

Avoid discussing your case publicly, as it may waive privilege protections.

Only the client can waive privilege, not the attorney.

Waiver can be accidental, like copying a third party on an email.

Partial waivers may lead to broader disclosure, depending on the court.

Discuss any potential disclosures with your lawyer before sharing sensitive info.

Lack of clear written agreement or failure to explain fee structure upfront.

Disagreements over contingency fees, especially when results differ from expectations.

Surprise costs like court fees, expert witnesses, or administrative expenses.

Perceived overbilling or unclear hourly charges in non-contingency cases.

Fee arbitration programs are available through local or state bar associations.

Mediation may be used to find a mutually acceptable compromise.

Small claims court may be an option for lower-value disputes.

Formal legal complaints can be filed if the attorney acted unethically.

Fee type and rate (e.g., 33% contingency or $250/hour)

Scope of representation and what services are included

Responsibility for expenses, both during and after the case

Client rights to dispute fees and available resolution options

You can always change lawyers, even mid-case.

The original attorney may file a lien on your settlement for unpaid fees.

Successor counsel can help negotiate or resolve prior fee issues.

Communication and documentation are key to a clean transition.

It provides early expert validation of the plaintiff’s claim.

Common in medical malpractice lawsuits, but may apply to other professional negligence cases (like legal or engineering malpractice).

Helps courts filter out baseless claims before the costly discovery phase.

Deadlines to submit vary by state, and extensions may be limited.

Name and qualifications of the expert witness

Statement of review, confirming that the expert has reviewed the relevant facts or records

Opinion that the case has merit, and that the standard of care was likely breached

Signature under oath, often notarized

Common in states like NJ, PA, IL, TX, and CA

Rules vary—some require submission with the complaint, others within 60–120 days

Some states allow dismissal without prejudice, giving the plaintiff a chance to refile

A few states offer pre-lawsuit panels as an alternative

Case may be dismissed immediately for failure to meet procedural requirements

Dismissal with prejudice means no second chance to refile

Extensions may be granted in rare cases, such as difficulty finding an expert

Consulting an attorney early can prevent costly procedural missteps