Alan’s client, the plaintiff brought a motion after closing arguments to strike the jury. The plaintiff argued that the defendant’s comments in closing arguments that her claim was a “cash grab” was not directed to any evidence heard in the trial or rationality, was inflammatory, and prejudicial to the plaintiff because it implied that the plaintiff was being dishonest in order to get money. The defendant’s own expert agreed that the plaintiff suffered from chronic pain. Therefore, the comment by the defendants was prejudicial to the plaintiff. A correcting instruction was provided by the trial Judge but the jury was not struck.

Click here to read the decision