Similar personal injury attorneys in Cincinnati
Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Each case is unique and depends on its own facts.
About Nathan Sparks
Nathan T. Sparks is an attorney at Lawrence, Beirne & Lewis who began with the firm as a law clerk in 2021 and transitioned to attorney status after graduating from Salmon P. Chase College of Law cum laude in 2022. During law school he served as Lead Education Editor for the Northern Kentucky Law Review and mentored prospective students as a Chase Ambassador. He represents individuals and families who are physically and emotionally injured by the negligence of another, with a focus on personal injury and medical malpractice matters. A Cincinnati native, he resides in Green Township with his wife. He is licensed in Ohio and is seeking Kentucky bar admission.
Proven verdicts and settlements at Lawrence, Beirne & Lewis
These results are credited to Lawrence, Beirne & Lewis. A result appears under an attorney's own name only when a published source names them as counsel on the case.
A Montgomery County jury awarded the Stanziano family $30,953,181 in July 2009 after finding Miami Valley Hospital negligent in a birth injury case, reportedly the largest medical malpractice verdict in Ohio at the time. The parties then reached a confidential settlement before the punitive damages phase, so the amount actually paid was less than the verdict.
A Clermont County, Ohio jury found that an emergency room doctor was negligent for failing to instruct the parents of a nine-year-old boy on how to watch for a serious head injury after a fall, a lapse that let an epidural hematoma go undetected overnight and required emergency brain surgery. The jury awarded $2,412,899 in 2010, which the trial court reduced by a $500,000 credit for the family's earlier settlement with the hospital, leaving the doctor and his practice group liable for $1,912,899 plus prejudgment interest. The Twelfth District Court of Appeals affirmed the verdict in 2012, and the Ohio Supreme Court resolved a separate dispute over how the interest should be calculated in 2013, sending that narrow issue back to the trial court. The underlying negligence finding and damages figure were never disturbed.
Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Each case is unique and depends on its own facts.
