In Trial Work, Edwards Left a Trademark
By ADAM LIPTAKand MICHAEL MOSS
n 1985, a 31-year-old North Carolina lawyer named John Edwards stood before a jury and channeled the words of an unborn baby girl.
Referring to an hour-by-hour record of a fetal heartbeat monitor, Mr.
Edwards told the jury: "She said at 3, `I'm fine.' She said at 4, `I'm
having a little trouble, but I'm doing O.K.' Five, she said, `I'm
having problems.' At 5:30, she said, `I need out.' "
But the obstetrician, he argued in an artful blend of science and
passion, failed to heed the call. By waiting 90 more minutes to perform
a breech delivery, rather than immediately performing a Caesarean
section, Mr. Edwards said, the doctor permanently damaged the girl's
brain.
"She speaks to you through me," the lawyer went on in his closing
argument. "And I have to tell you right now — I didn't plan to talk
about this — right now I feel her. I feel her presence. She's inside
me, and she's talking to you."
The jury came back with a $6.5 million verdict in the cerebral palsy
case, and Mr. Edwards established his reputation as the state's most
feared plaintiff's lawyer.
In the decade that followed, Mr. Edwards filed at least 20 similar
lawsuits against doctors and hospitals in deliveries gone wrong,
winning verdicts and settlements of more than $60 million, typically
keeping about a third. As a politician he has spoken of these lawsuits
with pride.
"I was more than just their lawyer," Mr. Edwards said of his clients in
a recent essay in Newsweek. "I cared about them. Their cause was my
cause."
The effect of his work has reached beyond those cases, and beyond his
own income. Other lawyers have filed countless similar cases; just this
week, a jury on Long Island returned a $112 million award. And doctors
have responded by changing the way they deliver babies, often seeing a
relatively minor anomaly on a fetal heart monitor as justification for
an immediate Caesarean.
On the other side, insurance companies, business groups that support
what they call tort reform and conservative commentators have accused
Mr. Edwards of relying on questionable science in his trial work.
Indeed, there is a growing medical debate over whether the changes have
done more harm than good. Studies have found that the electronic fetal
monitors now widely used during delivery often incorrectly signal
distress, prompting many needless Caesarean deliveries, which carry the
risks of major surgery.
The rise in such deliveries, to about 26 percent today from 6 percent
in 1970, has failed to decrease the rate of cerebral palsy, scientists
say. Studies indicate that in most cases, the disorder is caused by
fetal brain injury long before labor begins.
An examination of Mr. Edwards's legal career also opens a window onto
the world of personal injury litigation. In building his career, Mr.
Edwards underbid other lawyers to win promising clients, sifted through
several dozen expert witnesses to find one who would attest to his
claims, and opposed state legislation that would have helped all
families with brain-damaged children and not just those few who win big
malpractice awards.
In an interview on yesterday, Mr. Edwards did not dispute the
contention that the use of fetal heart rate monitors leads to many
unneeded Caesarean deliveries or that few cases of cerebral palsy are
caused by mishandled deliveries. But he said his cases, selected from
hundreds of potential clients with the disorder, were exceptions.
"I took very seriously our responsibility to determine if our cases
were merited," Mr. Edwards said. "Before I ever accepted a
brain-injured child case, we would spend months investigating it."
As for the unneeded Caesareans, he said, "The question is, would you
rather have cases where that happens instead of having cases where you
don't intervene and a child either becomes disabled for life or dies in
utero?"
A Talent for Trials
Lawyers in North Carolina agree that Mr. Edwards was an exceptionally
talented lawyer, endowed with a prodigious work ethic, native
self-confidence, good looks, charisma and an ability to talk about
complicated subjects in accessible language.
|