ATLA connective-tissue injury study under way.

An ATLA-sponsored study on jurors' perceptions of connective-tissue injury claims will give attorneys new strategies to overcome juror prejudice about these claims.

"The study has two basic purposes: to find out how to help jurors understand these injuries, and to determine how much jurors' preexisting prejudice against these injuries affects their views on related public policy issues," said Robert Peck, the senior director of ATLA's Legal Affairs Department.

The study's first two phases are complete, and the third and final one is expected to be finished by the end of this year.

Researchers are using data collected from focus groups in the first phase of the study and a nationwide telephone survey in the second phase to implement the final phase--a series of mock trials. These trials will enable researchers to pinpoint what strategies, evidence, or techniques are needed to overcome jurors' negative opinions of connective-tissue injuries.

Attorneys representing plaintiffs suffering from connective-tissue injury know the frustration of losing a case because jurors think their clients are exaggerating the injury. "The difficulty is proving to a jury that one has a connective-tissue injury," said Ed Lazarus, a research consultant working on the project. "We're going to find out what jurors would need to understand in order to properly value these claims."

"Some jurors come to court with the predisposition that most lawsuits are bogus or frivolous," said Valerie Hans, a psychologist and juror expert at the University of Delaware who is working on the study. "Plaintiffs with connective-tissue injuries, which don't show up on X-rays, have a tough time convincing these jurors that their injuries are real and deserve compensation. Our research project is exploring how people's general attitudes as well as their knowledge of and experience with connective-tissue injuries affect their views of plaintiffs' claims."

The study's first phase consisted of four focus groups, two in Denver and two in Louisville, Kentucky, where researchers collected a wide range of opinions. In each city, the focus groups were segregated by sex so that both men and women had a full opportunity to express their views.

To get a more precise reading on public opinion, the second phase of the study consisted of a telephone survey. Using information from the focus groups, researchers developed a series of questions designed to gauge opinion on factors involved in low-speed collision cases. Six hundred people were asked about their opinion on whether lawsuits are frivolous; their perception of injuries ranging from broken bones to cuts and bruises; and their attitudes toward doctors, insurance companies, lawyers, and physical therapists. Respondents were also questioned about several accident scenarios involving an injured man or woman to see if the injured person's gender would skew a respondent's view of the injury.

The Insurance Oversight Committee, established by former ATLA President Richard Hailey, and the State Affairs Committee suggested ATLA commission the study. Hailey created the Insurance Oversight Committee because he knew a majority of ATLA members handle vehicle collision cases but are hampered by the insurance industry's stonewalling and juror misunderstandings about connective-tissue injuries.

Honolulu attorney Janice Kim, a member of the committee, said the group recommended the study because "any data is helpful when you go to trial."

"The insurance industry has developed a viable defense that in certain low-speed crashes you can't get these injuries," said Jim Ronca, a Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, attorney who was cochair of the committee. "Jurors believe the argument because vehicles' exteriors are more crash resistant, the injuries can't be verified with an X-ray, and experts testify it's impossible to incur these types of neck and back injuries at low speeds. The study is important because it will provide ATLA members with a better understanding of people's attitudes toward these cases." Ronca and other attorneys have discussed their experiences in these cases with Hans.

She will use attorneys' experiences and the telephone survey findings to develop trial strategies, then test them on the mock juries to determine which strategies are successful. When the study is completed, Hans will publish the findings in TRIAL and other law journals.

The results will also provide the framework for a new program from ATLAs National College of Advocacy that builds on its award-winning "Overcoming Juror Bias" seminar.