The Verdict (2016) Timeline Explained – Every Event in Order

Galvin refuses the $210,000 settlement after meeting Deborah Ann Kaye and witnessing the devastating impact her coma has on her family. The settlement would provide some financial security but would not hold the hospital accountable for what Galvin believes is clear negligence. He decides to take the case to trial instead, viewing it as an opportunity to prove himself professionally and seek true justice for the family.

Foreshadowing: The settlement rejection early in the film establishes Galvin's character as someone willing to take enormous personal risks for what he believes is right.

• frank galvin
• settlement
• medical malpractice
• deborah kay

Judge Hoyle appears hostile because Galvin publicly accuses him of being a "defendant's judge" and a "Bag Man" for the local political machine during an in-chambers confrontation. This fiery exchange escalates tensions significantly, with Hoyle threatening disbarment and hinting at professional consequences. The hostility stems from Galvin's reckless verbal attack on the judge's integrity and reputation.

Foreshadowing: The judge's initial rulings already favor the defense, suggesting a preexisting bias that Galvin's outburst only intensifies.

• judge hoyle
• frank galvin
• courtroom
• bias

Morrissey discovers a check in Laura's handbag that proves she is acting as a spy for Ed Concannon, the hospital's attorney. This revelation occurs in New York where Laura had arranged to meet Galvin. The check confirms she was planted to gather information about Galvin's strategy and potentially sabotage his case from within.

Foreshadowing: Laura's sudden trip to New York to meet Galvin seems oddly convenient given the timing of the case developments.

• laura fischer
• ed concannon
• spy
• betrayal

Costello testifies that she wrote on the admitting form that Deborah Kaye had eaten a full meal shortly before arriving at the hospital, which should have prevented general anesthesia. She reveals that her superiors coerced her to change the "1" to a "9" on the timing document to falsify the record. Costello kept a photocopy of the original form, providing crucial evidence that the hospital knew about the food intake and either ignored or concealed it.

Foreshadowing: Galvin's decision to travel to New York specifically to find Costello becomes the turning point that unlocks the case's central evidence.

• kaitlin costello
• admitting form
• anesthesia
• medical negligence

Despite Costello's compelling testimony about the coerced changes to the admitting form, Judge Hoyle ultimately sustains Concannon's objection and has her testimony stricken from the record. The defense argued that the original document should prevail over her verbal account of coercion. This devastating ruling appears to undermine Galvin's case, as the key evidence is removed from the jury's consideration.

Foreshadowing: The bishop's uncomfortable silence when asked if he believed Costello hints at the institutional cover-up extending beyond just the hospital staff.

• costello testimony
• struck record
• objection
• judge hoyle

Galvin wins by delivering a passionate and persuasive closing argument that resonates with the jurors emotionally and ethically. Even though Costello's crucial testimony was stricken from the record, Galvin's closing argument apparently convinced the jury that the hospital's negligence caused Deborah Kaye's coma. The jury returns a verdict in favor of the plaintiffs and is even allowed to award more than the amount sought, indicating their strong conviction.

Foreshadowing: The buildup of evidence throughout the trial, combined with Galvin's personal conviction despite professional and personal attacks, creates the foundation for his compelling closing.

• verdict
• jury
• closing argument
• galvin win

Laura calls Galvin's office number late at night in what appears to be a moment of doubt and temptation, possibly seeking reconciliation after her betrayal was exposed. Galvin is present in his office but remains still and does not answer the phone. This ambiguous moment suggests unresolved tension between them - Laura may regret her actions, or she may be testing whether Galvin will engage with her again. The unanswered call leaves their relationship's future uncertain.

Foreshadowing: Earlier glimpses of Laura watching Galvin from a distance in the courtroom suggest her conflicted feelings never fully dissipated.

• laura fischer
• phone call
• ending
• reconciliation

According to Costello's testimony, the anesthesiologist later confessed that he had missed the admitting notes documenting Deborah Kaye's recent meal intake. This critical oversight led him to administer general anesthesia to a patient who had eaten too recently, a dangerous combination that likely caused her to aspirate and fall into a coma. The confession suggests gross negligence rather than a deliberate act.

Foreshadowing: The hospital's systematic failure to ensure proper communication between admitting staff and medical personnel becomes a key element of Galvin's negligence argument.

• anesthesiologist
• coma
• anesthesia
• medical error

After Morrissey warns Galvin about Laura's spying and they confront her in a New York bar (resulting in Galvin punching her), Morrissey argues for a mistrial due to the ethics violation of having a defense spy so close to the case. However, Galvin decides to press on despite the personal betrayal. His decision likely stems from his commitment to the Kaye family, his desire for professional redemption, and perhaps a stubborn refusal to let Concannon's tactics defeat him.

Foreshadowing: Galvin's pattern of persistence despite overwhelming obstacles, established when he rejected the settlement, carries through to this moment.

• mistrial
• betrayal
• press on
• strategy

After Concannon successfully has Costello's testimony stricken, a diocese lawyer commendably tells the bishop that Concannon's performance was excellent. The bishop then asks, "Did you believe her?" - referring to Costello's account of the coerced document changes. The awkward silence that follows suggests even the church representatives doubt their own defense's morality. This moment hints at institutional awareness of wrongdoing and the moral compromise involved in covering it up.

Foreshadowing: The bishop's question foreshadows the ethical ambiguity that lingers even after the legal victory.

• bishop
• costello
• belief
• diocese
• cover-up

The defense argues that the original admitting document should take precedence over Costello's verbal testimony about coercion. Concannon contends that since the original form shows a different time (the altered "9" instead of "1"), that must be considered the accurate record. This legal technicality becomes the basis for his successful objection to have Costello's testimony struck, effectively trying to hide the evidence of coercion by clinging to the falsified document's validity.

Foreshadowing: The defense's rigid adherence to the document rather than the truth sets up the moral question that haunts even the bishop.

• original document
• objection
• evidence
• altered record