Jared Mazzei and Jessica McBryant - $6.9M Verdict Beats Malingering Claim in Slip-and-Fall Case

A defense neuropsychologist claimed their client was faking a rare psychological condition for money. The jury's response? Nearly $7 million for the plaintiff. Jared Mazzei and Jessica McBryant secured this verdict on behalf of their client, who was injured after falling at a Kohl’s store. The case featured compelling surveillance video, late admission of liability from the defense, and a strategic division of physical and psychological injuries. Host Keith Fuicelli explores how the team from Ramos Law countered defense claims of malingering with powerful rebuttal testimony and compelling video evidence.

Learn More and Connect with Colorado Trial Lawyers

☑️ Jared Mazzei

☑️ Jessica McBryant | LinkedIn

☑️ Ramos Law | LinkedIn | Instagram | Facebook | X | YouTube

☑️ Keith Fuicelli | LinkedIn

☑️ Fuicelli & Lee Injury Lawyers Website

☑️ Fuicelli & Lee Injury Lawyers on X, Facebook, Instagram, YouTube, and LinkedIn

☑️ Subscribe Apple Podcasts | Spotify | YouTube

Episode Snapshot

• The slip-and-fall occurred when a Kohl's employee removed COVID decals using Goo Gone-type products but failed to properly clean the area or post caution signs.
• Compelling surveillance video captured the entire incident, showing the client's feet going out from under her and her head hitting both an end table and the tile floor.
• The client developed functional neurological symptom disorder, a rare psychological condition that caused involuntary movements, speech difficulties, and walking impairments.
• Strategic division of the case between physical injuries (handled by Jessica) and psychological injuries (handled by Jared) helped the jury conceptualize the complex medical conditions.
• The defense neuropsychologist accused the client of malingering, claiming she was faking her symptoms for financial gain.
• Jared's cross-examination strategy included purchasing the MMPI-3 manual and creating a PowerPoint showing how the neuropsychologist’s interpretations contradicted the official test manual.
• Powerful rebuttal testimony effectively dismantled the defense expert's malingering claims using the actual test manual standards.
• Videos of the client's symptoms in the hospital, including her relearning to walk and involuntary movements, proved devastating to the defense's malingering theory.
• The jury awarded $6,945,040 total: $1,000,040 in non-economic damages, $650,000 in economics, and $4,875,000 in physical