WHEN THINGS GO WRONG…
Mr. Clark has successfully handled cases from very diverse areas of the law, demonstrating flexibility in his approach to the unique variances of each case and showing also the ability to interact effectively with experts of all stripes who are so often critical to the success of litigation. A lawyer must be able to establish dialogue with the right experts in each case. Mr. Clark, in the context of his almost two decades of practice with cases that have taken him to all parts of the United States, has worked one-on-one with experts from virtually every field and specialty — police officers, ceramic engineers, neurosurgeons, electrical engineers, trucking experts, accident reconstructionists, family doctors, forensic pathologists, psychologists and psychiatrists … to name a few. In each case, Mr. Clark has carefully reviewed facts and information pertaining to the case, exploited all resources to find authoritative literature and documents, retained appropriate experts — and achieved compensation for very nearly every client — without exception — who has contacted him.
His cases routinely involve circumstances in which victims of negligence or intentional harm have experienced substantial trauma — or death. Mr. Clark has handled subjects as varied as: pediatric nursing negligence resulting in death of a disabled child; a USDA inspector crushed by a forklift on her way into work one morning; a head-on collision caused by the improper parking of an 18-wheeler; a collision between two big rigs passing through Arkansas, permanently disabling a 60-year-old man raising his grandchildren; misdiagnosis and undertreatment of a cancerous tumor in a little boy, with death resulting; overdosage of insulin; intentional abuse of a nursing home resident and father of a retired State Police commander; unnecessary cervical fusion; unnecessary and incompetent bariatric surgery on a former gastric bypass patient; defective firearms that discharge without a volitional trigger pull; negligence of a nursing home resident resulting in amputation of her limbs and finally causing her death; police brutality / excessive force… Mr. Clark has also worked closely with families to arrange private autopsies when wrongful conduct is believed to have caused a victim’s death, and has assisted formal investigations into abuse and neglect of the elderly. From initial investigation to the final steps of a lawsuit, Mr. Clark provides an individualized, prepared and aggressive program of action for each of his clients. Every client is personally served, with due regard for the circumstances and the issues in each case.
Shelton v. Becton MD, Arkansas Children’s Hospital et al. — This case involved a 3-year old twin boy who was diagnosed with a cancerous renal or kidney tumor known as a Wilms tumor, and was entered on a federally-governed clinical trial through the National Wilms’ Tumor Society, a coalition of investigators at various medical facilities across the United States who applied certain protocols or “standard recipes” of radiation and chemicals to purge the cancer. Because the little boy’s condition was misdiagnosed, he did not receive the full treatment required by the protocol for his particular stage of the tumor. After being treated in Arkansas, the little boy moved to Chicago with his single-parent mother and twin brother. The tumor quickly reappeared and the little boy died.
Mr. Clark represented the family of the little boy who was misdiagnosed and undertreated in the clinical trial. To do so, he worked with numerous pediatric hematologists-oncologists, including the Director of the National Wilms’ Tumor Society and member of the staff at Roswell Park Cancer Institute in New York, as well as leading pediatric doctors at the Oregon Health Sciences University and the University of Chicago Medical System. His efforts sparked a federal investigation by the Office of Human Research Protection, an agency in the Health & Human Services Division of the Federal government, and a renewed emphasis on the protection of those participating in such clinical trials at the hospitals involved in the undertreatment of the child’s tumor. The risks to patients from clinical trials were discussed in the Boston Globe (shown above), which carried the photograph shown of the little boy’s twin brother and mother. Mr. Clark’s clients obtained appropriate recovery through his efforts, and in addition achieved the release of an approximately $400,000 medical bill for the child’s treatment before he passed away. Defendants in the case consisted of several doctors and two hospitals.
Williams v. Rogers MD et al. — A medical malpractice case involving a young lady who had appeared at the hospital with stomach problems. She had undergone weight loss surgery (“bariatric surgery”) in the past. Her usual physician was on vacation, and a physician colleague stepped in and decided to do surgery, presumably to explore her bowels / abdomen for blockage that might be causing the stomach distress. Instead, the doctor — a bariatric or weight loss surgeon — performed an operation that involved the revision of the surgery for weight loss that had earlier been done. To make matters worse, the operation was performed without exercising the accepted standard of care. A connection between two pieces of intestine (known as anastomosis) began leaking. Mr. Clark’s client almost died. Although the doctor billed the insurance company for this surgery as an exploratory procedure, the insurance company determined that the doctor had actually operated on the earlier gastric bypass site and announced that it would not provide benefits for this procedure because it related to a “preexisting condition”.
After analyzing the case, Mr. Clark filed a lawsuit against both the doctor who performed the operation and the insurance company for denial of benefits. Mr. Clark located and retained the “father of bariatric surgery” as an expert in Ms. Williams’ case, a well-renowned doctor in Florida, as well as a surgeon from Oklahoma who had performed many such operations. His client recovered money damages appropriate to the case.
Gilder v. Vaught — On the morning of October 16, 2001, a veteran truck driver from Texas, “Harry”, was leaving a truckstop on I-40 East in Arkansas when he was violently impacted from behind by another truck driver from Texas who was running as an independent owner-operator. Harry was 61-years-old at the time, helping his wife to raise their three elementary-school aged grandchildren when he was not on the road. After the collision, it was found that Harry’s spine had been damaged at the cervical level (upper spine) and lumbar level (lower back). His millions of miles driven without an accident — and his career — came to an end just about the time many people were just waking up to start the day. He contacted Mr. Clark for help.
Mr. Clark began work to recover documents that would prove his client’s case, including log books that had to be carried and properly filled out by the truck driver who hit Harry. He contacted an accident reconstructionist to work out the speed of the 18-wheeler that had rammed Harry’s, as well as two trucking experts from Texas, to establish conclusively that the defendant driver had falsified his log books, and was traveling at the rate of approximately 85 miles per hour through Arkansas when he hit Harry. Mr. Clark also worked with orthopedic surgeons and pain management specialists to acquire the medical evidence needed to show Harry’s injuries and the permanent disability he suffered. After a long and bitter battle in which Mr. Clark assembled a powerful case and uncovered the perjury and lies of the defendant, he was contacted the day before trial with an offer of compensation for his client — and the case was resolved, with Harry recovering the money damages to which he was justly entitled. Mr. Clark also worked for months after the settlement to retire a worker’s compensation lien against the recovery and reduced the amount that the carrier claimed by approximately 50% through his negotiations.
Kuebler v. Remington Arms; Sanchez v. Remington; Nipp v. Remington — Can a shotgun fire while the safety is on? Unquestionably, according to experts and individuals who have suffered the spontaneous discharge (firing without a trigger pull) of Remington firearms that utilize what is known as the “common fire control” because it has been used “in common” by numerous models of long guns manufactured by Remington. In handling formal cases and claims against Remington Arms, Mr. Clark retained a registered engineer in Texas and firearms maker and expert from Idaho, as well as traveling the United States (New York, Mississippi, Georgia, Oklahoma) to locate and visit with witnesses who had suffered similar experiences, bringing many of them to trial in federal court to testify for his client. The basic proposition advanced by Mr. Clark and his experts was that the “safety” button on a Remington gun with a common fire control does nothing more than keep the gun from being fired if the trigger is pulled while the safety is on. It does not control or prevent the firing cycle of the gun, which is determined by two primary components known as “sear” and “hammer”. The sear and hammer are held together by small teeth that “mate” together. When the interface of the components is not secure, sear and hammer can separate from any bump or jar to the gun, the hammer will strike the firing pin — and the guns will fire, regardless of the position of the safety on the guns, according to well-respected experts with decades of experience in dealing with firearms.
Mr. Clark has handled cases independently and with attorneys in Florida, Texas and Missouri to obtain recoveries for clients in such cases involving the Remington common fire control firearms. His initial case involving such issues was presented to a jury for five days as Mr. Clark took testimony from approximately twenty witnesses for his client The matter was resolved by settlement in the middle of trial, and Mr. Clark’s client received appropriate compensation, as has been true in every case of this nature that Mr. Clark has handled. Mr. Clark was recently contacted and retained for his consultation and assistance in a matter that is presently under investigation involving the alleged murder of a woman that occurred when her husband’s common fire control gun discharged, shooting her in the chest and killing her. It is believed that the death is another example of the spontaneous discharge of a Remington common fire control firearm, and that the husband is innocent of the charges against him.
The foregoing representative cases are just that — representative, and not necessarily indicative of any outcome in your own case. No attorney can “guarantee” a specific outcome in any given case — and you should avoid anyone who tells you otherwise.