Case Studies

PERSONAL INJURY

Mr. Gaines successfully represented a father and a 6-month-old infant in connection with a motor vehicle accident.  A truck owned and driven by an employee of a large local ranch crossed the center line on Hwy 83 striking the Plaintiffs’ vehicle head on.  The Defendant Ranch and Driver alleged that the driver suffered from an unforeseeable seizure which caused the driver to cross the center line and that as a result they should not be liable.  Mr. Gaines was able to prove that the Driver had a history of seizures, and that the driver should not have been driving under Arizona Law.

Mr. Gaines represented the father and the infant.  Another Lawyer represented the mother and the infant.  A settlement of 6 million dollars was obtained from the Defendants and their Insurer before trial.  Thereafter Mr. Gaines went to arbitration and recovered another $300,000 in an arbitration from the Plaintiff father’s insurer under the policy’s Under Insured Motorist coverage.

MEDICAL MALPRACTICE REPRESENTATION

Mr. Gaines successfully defended a Regional Hospital where liability was admitted by the hospital before trial.  The case arose out of a Nurse’s negligent  IV administration of a narcotic pain medication which cased the death of the patient. It was wrongful death case brought by the decedents 9 adult children.  The Plaintiffs lowest demand before trial was $2.1 million dollars.  Mr. Gaines’ Client offered $1.2 million dollars which was declined by the Plaintiffs.  After a lengthy trial the jury awarded all the Plaintiffs a total of $465,000 which was $735,000 less than Mr. Gaines’ Client had offered to settle the case prior to the trial.  Mr. Gaines saved his client $735,000.

REPRESENTATION BEFORE ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCIES

Mr. Gaines recently defended a Board-Certified Periodontist on a complaint filed against him with the Arizona Board of Dental Examiners. The patient filing the complaint alleged that the services and surgery performed and provided by Mr. Gaines’ client fell below the standard of care. The case had to do with the placement of 4 implants and a “snap on” full upper arch prosthesis (denture). The patient subsequently had of all of the work performed by Mr. Gaines’ client removed and replaced by an Oral surgeon and another Dentist. After a lengthy investigation the Board of Dental Examiners found there was no unprofessional conduct on the part of the Periodontist and dismissed the complaint.

REPRESENTATION OF HOMEOWNERS/WELL OWNERS

Recently Mr. Gaines was asked to represent one set of homeowners in connection with a well agreement.  The well agreement which dated back to 1967, was the most incomplete and short (less than 2 pages) well agreement Mr. Gaines has seen in his almost 40 years of practicing.  Notwithstanding opposition from some of the older well owners, Mr. Gaines by explaining the advantages of a new well agreement was able to persuade a majority of the well owners to draft a new well agreement. The new well agreement will serve to clarify various issues which had led to conflict between the well shareholders.  He assisted in drafting the new well agreement, thereby avoiding litigation which would have been costly to his clients and to all other members of the well agreement.  In addition, the well owners are now much less likely to have conflict with each other.