Honors and Awards:

• Highest (AV) rating for Professional Competence and Ethics (5 out of 5 rating), Martindale-Hubbell
• For groundbreaking elder abuse verdict regarding denial of proper pain management to a terminally ill patient, Litigator of the Month June 2001, National Law Journal , 2001

Bar/Professional Activity:

• Consumer Attorneys of California
• Trial Lawyers for Public Justice
• American Association for Justice
• American Board of Trial Advocates (The Pre-Eminent Association of Trial Lawyers in the United States)
• Sonoma County Bar Association
• American Bar Association

Verdicts and Settlements:

• In Kuhlmann v. Sprayway the firm negotiated settlements totaling $6,405,000. The case alleged product liability as a result of the plaintiff's use of an aerosol spray product.  When the plaintiff used the moisture-proofing product as it was intended to be used, she suffered severe pulmonary injury involving prolonged hospitalization and permanent lung damage.  The manufacturer of the product was sued as well as distributors of the product and the manufacturer of components used to make the product.The firm is supporting research and efforts to have the harmful component of the product, a fluoropolymer, banned, as these compounds present severe danger of injury if used in an aerosolized form.
• The firm represented a man in his fifties who underwent a laparoscopic hernia repair.  In the course of surgery, a trochar pierced several blood vessels, leading to a Code Blue and emergency surgery.  The plaintiff was in an induced coma for over a week and endured a long hospitalization and ultimately lost a kidney.The case settled for a sum which cannot be disclosed.
• James Geagan represented an unmarried man in his early forties who was prescribed the medication Trazadone for insomnia.  The physician did not warn the patient of the possibility of priapism in men who take the medication.  The patient did develop the condition, but had no idea what it was caused from or what to do about it.  He suffered permanent erectile dysfunction.The case settled against the physician for a sum which cannot be disclosed.
• James Geagan represented four former employees of a large wine production facility in Napa County.  The employees were classified by the Company as salaried employees not eligible for overtime.  The employees stated that they were performing mainly production line duties and should have been paid overtime for their many hours of overtime work and should be compensated for missed breaks and lunches.After a three week trial, the Napa County jury found for the employees on all counts, awarding them back overtime pay, penalties for missed breaks and lunches, other penalties, interest and reimbursement of their attorneys fees.
• In a follow-up to the Bergman verdict (See above) the firm represented the surviving spouse and daughter of an 85 year-old man dying of mesothelioma, a form of lung cancer which is incurable.  Despite the severe pain associated with this disease, none of the decedent’s caregivers made a serious attempt to manage his pain.  Suit was brought under the Elder Abuse statutes against an acute care hospital where the gentleman was hospitalized, against the physician charged with his care there, against a nursing home to which he was subsequently transferred, and against the nursing home physician who was responsible for caring for him in his last days.  The family argued that none of these caregivers responded to the dying man’s pain with the kind of around-the-clock consistent pain management which should be available to all dying patients.  Unfortunately, the gentleman died in severe and unnecessary pain.All of the defendants settled in amounts which are the subject of a confidentiality clause.  One of the physicians was ultimately censured by the California Medical Board, the first such discipline as a result of poor pain management known to have occurred in California.
• The firm represented the family of a 59 year old man who was struck by a protruding component of a locomotive at a train station in Millbrae, California. The case settled for an amount which is confidential but included a guarantee of monthly payments for the support of the surviving spouse for her lifetime.
• In Lowe v. Coalthard, the plaintiff was a 16 year old boy whose father had died when his automobile was struck in a collision with a large farm machinery vehicle on a public highway.  The plaintiff did not live with his father, but saw him several times a week.The Napa County jury awarded him $792,500.
• Kinura v. Regents of the University of California was a case in which a 45 year old pharmacist underwent surgery at the University of California Medical Center in San Francisco for a large benign tumor in her thigh.  It was alleged that the surgeon performed an improper surgery and that a different surgical technique should have been used.  The result of the surgery was that the plaintiff had a permanent partial loss of function in her lower leg.  She was required to wear a brace daily to assist her in walking.The jury awarded the plaintiff $3,600,000.
• In Bergman v. Chin, the plaintiffs received a jury verdict of $1,500,000 based on a claim of elder abuse of their then-deceased father during the last 8 days of his life.  It was alleged that the defendant doctor committed elder abuse by failing to prescribe adequate pain medication to William Bergman while he was hospitalized at Eden Hospital for probable terminal cancer.The verdict has been characterized by several commentators as a landmark case for a number of reasons.  First, it is believed to represent the first verdict against a physician under the Elder Abuse statutes in California.  Secondly, the verdict is the first in California to establish that a failure to provide adequate pain management may constitute elder abuse.The verdict has attracted widespread attention in the medical community and has resulted in both heightened awareness in health care providers of the need to make pain management a high priority and in legislation requiring physicians to have regular training in pain management.
• In an action brought against a Trustee of a Trust, the attorney who advised the Trustee and set up various legal vehicles for the trustee's use and the brokerage firm which held the trust assets, the firm negotiated a substantial settlement on behalf of the Trust. The allegations were that the brokerage and the attorney both knew or had reason to know that the Trustee was raiding the Trust for his own benefit, but failed to notify the Trust of that information and, in the case of the attorney, enabled the Trustee in that conduct by creating certain legal vehicles that facilitated that conduct. The identities of the parties and the amount of the settlement were made confidential as a condition of settlement by the defendants.

Educational Background:

• University of Notre Dame (Bachelor of Arts), 1969
• University of San Francisco (JD) (Mac Auliffe Law Honor Society), 1976