The Simon Law Firm P.C. | Punitive Damages

---

 With regard to The Simon Law Firm P.C. a plaintiff side personal injury law firm located in St. Louis, Missouri the subject of “Punitive Damages” and who gets the money is a volatile subject and one that The Simon Law Firm P.C. and other personal injury law firms “does not” want the jury to know the truth thereof when considering during deliberations as to whether or not punitive damages against the defendant should be imposed and for how much. 

To answer the question I will immediately expose who gets the money and then follow up with a more exhaustive treatment of the subject. 

1. The law firm gets the first 40% right off the top of a punitive damages award.
2. The State of Missouri gets 50% of the net award that is left after the attorney/law firm.
3. The Plaintiff injured party gets 50% of the net award that is left after the attorney/law firm and is in addition to the compensatory damages award. 

Therefore, if a jury imposes a punitive damages award against the defendant for one million dollars $1,000,000 the following bullet points indicate how much and to whom the money is distributed. (The same metrics can be used for any punitive damages award amount.)

1. The attorney/law firm receives - $400,000
2. The State of Missouri receives - $300,000
3. The plaintiff/injured party receives - $300,000

Now we have established motive. Motive as to why no recipient of a punitive damages award amount does not want the jury to know where the money is going. It is arguable that if the jury were to know how the punitive damages award amount is distributed it may prejudice the jury and may prohibit the imposition of punitive damages upon the defendant and or alter, modify a punitive damages amount. 

You can see from the example given above that the attorney/law firm takes the “lion's share” of the award and there are perhaps few seated on a jury who are motivated to enrich the attorney/law firm as much as 40% of a punitive award. Quite often the punitive award can be a multiple of 5x - 20x the compensatory damages amount. Below is an example.

1. Compensatory damages award to plaintiff/injured party. - $1,000,000
2. The attorney/law firm recovers 40% ($400,000) plus litigation expenses from a $1,000,000 award. Legal counsel has now been “paid in full”.
3. Jury proceeds to impose ten million dollars ($10,000,000) in punitive damages. The attorney/law firm collects another four million dollars (S4,000,000). Four million dollars of someone else’s money. Usually the defendant's insurer. Now we have established the motive.

During closing arguments when the plaintiff counsel begins to “play the violin” and ask the jury to “teach the defendant a lesson”. When they ask the jury to “send them a message”. When the attorney alleges that “we” want to deter others from engaging in this behavior, the attorney is employing two techniques for persuasion. Sophistry and Pathos. 

Their sophistry is the presentation of “half truths” or acts of omission. The pathos is to appeal to the righteous indignation of a juror and the jury panel to impose justice upon the defendant. It is a just motive of the juror or jury panel to impose a penalty when a defendant acted in wanton disregard for the safety of others or in malice. However, the “send them a message" argument is a fallacy.

 The mechanism available to impose a penalty upon a defendant and the industry is upon the “license” of the defendant. In medical malpractice claims and torts the State of Missouri provides that the defendant(s) physicians are subject to the regulations of the Missouri State Board of Registration of the Healing Arts to whom an injured party can file a complaint. 

The goal of the board is to “Protect the public and discipline the doctor (probation, suspension or revocation of license). Other professions have licensing boards to whom they are subject to. 

With the imposition of a punitive damages award the insurer, insurance industry absorbs the financial shock. However, the defendant physician and others who may engage in the same or similar conduct may continue their practice.

I would ask rhetorically, how many attorneys/law firms have proceeded in helping an injured client file a formal complaint with the licensing board of a defendant when there is no financial compensation if, if, their motive is truly altruistic and in the interest of the general public? 

 Before a jury proceeds to that portion of deliberations wherein they consider whether or not punitive damages are to be imposed upon a defendant and for how much, the jury has already deliberated upon how much should be awarded to the plaintiff for compensatory damages that is comprised of actual damages (economic), pain and suffering (non-economic)  etc. 

The idea of compensatory damages is to make the injured party whole To compensate them. However it is not intended to “overly enrich” an injured party and because of the abuse of tort law in this respect statutory caps have been codified to limit the recovery beyond what may be considered financially unreasonable. It is known in Missouri Common Law as “unjust enrichment”. 

Furthermore, there is the “comparative fault’ calculus that juries are required to consider and the comparative fault  doctrine is that once an award amount is agreed upon by the jurors they are to consider what percentage (if any) did the plaintiff contribute to their injuries. The gross jury award to the plaintiff is reduced by the percentage of fault ascribed to the plaintiff. And herein lies the problem with punitive damages and the plaintiff…

1. Punitive damages are not subject to a comparative fault calculus and reduction from the gross. The recipients, beneficiaries of the award receive 10%0 percent.
2. The plaintiff will receive 100% of the net award of the 50/50 split of 60% after the attorney/law firm deducts 40% from the gross award amount. This is known as a “windfall” and is the subject of debate. The argument that I present is that it supersedes and undermines the judgement of the jury when the jury was entrusted to make the determination has to how much an injured party was entitled to to make them whole after seeing the evidence and hearing the arguments. Punitive damages is an arbitrary number and both the attorney/law firm and the plaintiff are enriched beyond the intent of the jury. - The jury, the sworn venire panel members upon whom the courts deposit the outcome of the litigation and administration of justice, the entire legal machinery is designed to keep them ignorant. 

 What does the State of Missouri do with their portion of a punitive damages award? This, in my opinion is the least problematic and much less of an apprehension to award punitive damages whereas in theory the amount of money that the State of Missouri receives goes into a fund to compensate injured parties wherein the defendant is uncollectible or does not have the financial resources to make the injured party whole. In theory, whereas I have yet to do a deep dive investigation as to whether or not these funds are administered in the way it is intended. 

Furthermore, the question arises, what attorney/law firm is going to litigate a case, take it to trial, perhaps have to defend the verdict and award upon appeal when there was never any money to attach or collect in the first place? One of the first things an attorney/law firm is going to do after they determine that a plaintiff has a meritorious case is whether or not the money is available to collect. There are other issues with the dispensation of these funds and that as a percentage to workers compensation funds and also a percentage to legal services for low income people. That should raise a red flag. 

What the State of Missouri does with their share of the punitive damages award is complex and is not to be fully treated in this article. However, a defendant's motion for remittitur which is a post-trial remedy for relief from an aggressive jury award is disincentivized when the state has a stake in the upholding of the award.

 Everyone has their hands in the till and those who do, expect the juror, jury to remain ignorant of that fact while they are asked to dispense another party's money with curated caprice. 

What I find most offensive is that all of them, Sworn Officers of the Court, do not treat the sworn venire panel members with the respect of absolute candor. 

Should I proceed so far as to describe them as money changes and the unjust weights and measures they employ? Who have turned the courts into a house of merchandise? 

 One may ask, does not this apply to all personal injury law firms and yet, you name The Simon Law Firm specifically and in particular? And my answer would be yes. And with regard to naming The Simon Law Firm specifically and in particular is because I am a witness. I have first hand experience and primary knowledge of the conduct and modus operandi of The Simon Law Firm P.C. 

I retained The Simon Law Firm P.C. for representation in a medical malpractice complaint and was represented by The Simon Law firm and the associate attorneys for five years beginning in 2019 through 2024. The case was titled Pepper v. Gelfand M.D. case # 19SL-CC04680 that was tried in the 21st Judicial Circuit of St. Louis County, Missouri. 

Therefore, I have insight. As a plaintiff litigant whose own lead counsel Anthony R. Friedman Mo. Bar # 65531 suggested that we were perhaps looking at 10x - 20x punitive damages over compensatory damages. How that statutory caps on compensatory damages would not apply because the injury occurred before the statutory caps were codified and furthermore, that we in fact did proceed to a bifurcated trial that did realize an extremely nominal compensatory damages amount however, the threshold to proceed to the punitive damages phase of jury deliberations was not met to the satisfaction of the sworn venire panel members. 

I understood the theory, I saw the evidence, I heard the arguments and of the jury verdict. 

Furthermore, after the conclusion of the trial Pepper v. Gelfand I transitioned from a plaintiff litigant into a litigant pro se, consumer advocate, citizen journalist and enhanced my understanding of personal injury claims and torts through self study and also in consideration of case law and in particular various cases and case outcomes that were handled by The Simon Law Firm P.C. 

Yet further, the social media landscape is awash with commentary on the subject from The Simon Law Firm P.C. and the associate attorneys on various pod-casts such as “heels in the Court Room” , “The Jury is Out” . “Legal Talk Network” , etc. where they discuss in detail their case strategy, theories and jury dynamics.

With regard to jury dynamics I have captured pod-cast episodes where they make their boast of how they have circumvented the question as to where punitive damages awards go when the question is presented to them by jury members. 

I have captured their admissions. In one episode Timothy M Cronin Mo. Bar # 631255 is boasting about how John G. Simon Mo. Bar # 35231 Principal of The Simon Law FIrm P.C. answered the question “truthfully” in his opinion. However, it was a “half truth”. It was void of candor toward the jury member and the heart of the question for the satisfaction of the juror was deflected by the letter of the law never having been answered. That is the art and craft of the Sophist and the Juris Bamboozler. 

Opinion - Editorial

Albert B. Pepper Jr. - litigant pro se

consumer advocate - citizen journalist

Phoenix Rising Productions LLC

• RSMo § 537.675 (The Split-Recovery Statute): This is the core statute of your argument. It mandates that 50% of any final judgment for punitive damages (after attorney fees and expenses are deducted) must be paid to the State of Missouri for deposit into the Tort Victims' Compensation Fund.
• RSMo § 537.675.5 (The "Red Flag" Diversion): Explicitly requires that 26% of the money in the Tort Victims' Compensation Fund be transferred to the Basic Civil Legal Services Fund (funding for low-income legal aid), while the remainder stays in the Tort Victims' fund.

• RSMo § 510.261 (The High Bar): As of the 2020 tort reform, punitive damages can only be awarded if the plaintiff proves by "clear and convincing evidence" that the defendant intentionally harmed the plaintiff or acted with a "deliberate and flagrant disregard" for safety.
• RSMo § 510.263 (Bifurcated Trials): Provides the right to a bifurcated trial. This is the "two-stage" process you mentioned where the jury first decides liability and compensatory damages, and only moves to a second stage for the punitive amount if they find the defendant liable for punitives in the first.

• RSMo § 510.265 (Statutory Caps): Limits punitive damages to the greater of $500,000 or five times the net compensatory judgment.
  • Note on Case Law: Lewellen v. Franklin (2014). The Missouri Supreme Court ruled that these caps are unconstitutional when applied to common-law claims (like fraud) because they violate the right to a trial by jury.
• RSMo § 537.068 (Remittitur): Gives the judge the authority to enter a remittitur order, effectively "slashing" a jury's award if the judge finds it "excessive" compared to the injuries.

• RSMo § 538.210 (Health Care Provider Caps): Sets specific limits on noneconomic damages (pain and suffering) in medical malpractice cases.
• RSMo § 538.210.1 (Jury Ignorance): Explicitly states: "Such jury shall not be instructed by the court with respect to the limitation on an award of noneconomic damages." This codifies the "enforced ignorance" you described regarding compensatory caps.

• Fust v. Attorney General (1997): The Missouri Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the State taking 50% of punitive awards. The court argued that since punitive damages are meant to punish and not compensate, the plaintiff has no "vested property right" in the full amount.

Hoskins v. Business Men’s Assurance (2002): Reaffirmed the State’s lien on punitive awards, clarifying that the state’s 50% share attaches only after attorney’s fees and expenses are paid.