Wildwood v. B&W Land Co., LLC

Mar 30, 2010

OUTCOME: Judgment for Defendant/Client

Dispute over earnest money deposited for a large land transaction in Mobile County, Alabama. Buyer (Wildwood) terminated contract, demanded return of deposit. Seller (B&W) refused. Buyer sued seller ... for return of deposit. At trial B&W argued that notice of termination was inadequate and untimely (i.e. outside due diligence period). Wildwood argued, among other things, that notice was timely and even if inadequate, B&W had actual notice before end of due diligence period. After a bench trial (i.e. no jury), the court ruled for B&W.

Mosher v. Smith Homes, Inc. et al

Nov 18, 2009

OUTCOME: Directed Verdict for Client

This week, a trial court dismissed a real estate agency represented by Heidelberg, Steinberger, which had been sued for an alleged failure to disclose the location and impact of flood zones on real pro ... perty damaged as a result of Hurricane Katrina. In June 2004 the Plaintiffs purchased certain property in Jackson County, approximately 1 mile from the Gulf of Mexico. For that transaction, the agency-defendant acted as a dual agent for the Plaintiffs and the property sellers. The Plaintiffs allege in their Complaint the agent never told about the various flood zones and how they impacted the property and the type of home they could build upon it. After the plaintiffs purchased the property, they built a home which was heavily damaged in August 2005 by Hurricane Katrina's storm surge. After three days of trial, the Circuit Court of Jackson County granted the agency's motion for a directed verdict, finding the Plaintiffs failed to put forward sufficient evidence to show the agency had a duty (or breached any such duty) to disclose to the Plaintiffs the location of flood zones and how they impacted future construction on the property.

Wilde v. Smith, et al

Apr 30, 2008

OUTCOME: Jury Verdict for client

Led by Stephen Burrow, Heidelberg Steinberger won a jury trial in Biloxi for a neurosurgeon being sued by a brain-damaged child who claimed almost $12 million in damages. After eight days of trial and ... a over a dozen witnesses, the jury deliberated for almost nine hours before returning its verdict for the neurosurgeon. As in most medical negligence cases, the key issues addressed standard of care and whether our client's actions contributed to the child's neurological problems. The neurosurgeon saw the child after he arrived at the emergency room of a local hospital after a fall at home with intra-cranial bleeding. Allegations of child abuse by a caretaker quickly arose due to the nature of the child's injuries. After four days, the neurosurgeon had stabilized the child's condition and transferred him to a critical-care facility in New Orleans. The plaintiff, the child's mother, alleged the child should have been transferred to a pediatric intensive care facility immediately upon arrival at the local hospital, and the neurosurgeon improperly managed the child's decreasing cerebral perfusion pressure. This failure, according to the Plaintiffs, led to secondary and irreversible brain injury, which could have been avoided had the child been transferred to another facility. On the other hand, the defense showed that a transfer of the child upon arrival to the emergency room was not warranted under the circumstances of his presentation. Also, the defense presented compelling testimony that the child's injuries were caused solely by the trauma which brought him to the hospital in the first place. Because the claim arose prior to Mississippi enacting tort reform, there was no statutory cap on damages the jury could have awarded. Finally the damages claimed far exceeded the limits of the neurosurgeon's available insurance.

Hood ex rel. State Tobacco Litigation v. Governor Haley Barbour

Jun 14, 2007

OUTCOME: Supreme Court affirmed judgment for client

Please see opinion which is available at http://www.mssc.state.ms.us/Images/Opinions/CO41342.pdf

Scruggs, Millette, Bozeman & Dent, P.A. v. Merkel & Cocke, P.A.

Oct 14, 2005

OUTCOME: Chancery Court decision for Defendant affirmed

Figueroa v. Orleans et al.

N/A

OUTCOME: Jury Verdict for client

After a six-day trial in state court in Biloxi, Heidelberg Steinberger won a jury verdict for their client, a gastroenterologist being sued for serious injuries and a claim of permanent disability, all ... egedly resulting from an endoscopic procedure and follow up medical care. After presentation of plaintiffs’ and defendant's fact and expert witnesses, the jury deliberated only 16 minutes before returning its verdict for the physician. The key issues addressed were (1) the standard of care, specifically the physician's judgment in deciding to perform an ERCP procedure, and (2) whether the ERCP caused or contributed to the plaintiff's subsequent medical complications. The plaintiff asserted the reasons for his purported medical problems and permanent disability lay with the decision to perform an ERCP. At trial the plaintiff and his family members asserted the plaintiff had no medical problems prior to the ERCP, but thereafter became permanently disabled. However, other fact and expert witnesses called to testify proved their claims to be groundless. Heidelberg Steinberger aggressively defended this multimillion dollar claim from inception to its successful conclusion. Although a Motion for a New Trial has been filed, we believe the verdict will not be overturned. Jimmy Heidelberg served as Lead Counsel throughout the litigation, and was assisted at trial by partner, Stephen Burrow.