The year 2024 started off especially successful for Attorney Lisa Pierobon Mays with the settlement of a workers compensation injury that involved life-changing injuries to a Wisconsin worker who had a long work history with the same employer doing very strenuous work.  Client S.S. (“SS”) worked as a Diesel Mechanic for a small Wisconsin City Municipality for over 16 years when he was seriously hurt on the job due to heavy mower falling off its hoist while he was working under it.  The 500-pound mower fell off its lift, about 5 feet to the ground, landing on SS’s backside and pinning him. SS landed face down and was pinned to the ground at his hips and low back. SS was able to free himself and scream for Help. A co-worker heard him, called for 911 who kept him stable despite his dropping blood pressure until Med Flight arrived and flew him to the hospital.

SS’s injuries were severe. His urethra was torn from his bladder requiring a catheter. He also suffered a pelvic fracture and injury to his groin. SS’s rehabilitation progress was painful and lengthy.  Regaining mobility took months, pain was constant requiring strong pain medication, nerve blocks, and surgery was performed to repair his urological injuries. SS continues to suffer chronic symptoms and pain.  He is no longer able to work as a diesel mechanic, or any job suitable for his skills and mobility issues. He is deemed functionally permanently and totally disabled, meaning his injury is debilitating enough to deem him not marketable in a normal job setting with his skill set.   Even his time-of-injury employer of over 16 years claimed that they did not have accommodating work for him and dismissed/terminated him from their employment.

The Workers Compensation Insurance Carrier accepted responsibility and paid workers compensation benefits of lost time, medical treatment, medical mileage, and some permanent partial disability but then cut SS off additional workers compensation benefits claiming that he had hit a healing plateau with improvement.  The insurance carrier argued that while SS was no longer able to work as a diesel mechanic, he was not permanently totally disabled and that he was still able to work. With this, they offered SS a minimal settlement amount for the difference in his lower earning capacity now compared to what he made as a diesel mechanic. Confused and uncertain, SS and his family turned to Attorney Lisa Pierobon Mays of Mays Law Office. Attorney Pierobon met with SS and advised him that his claim was worth much more than what the workers compensation carrier was offering.

After hiring Mays Law Office, Attorney Pierobon Mays worked with SS’s medical specialists to complete paperwork supporting his injury as totally and permanently disabling. Attorney Pierobon Mays also hired a Vocational Rehabilitation Expert who met with SS to discuss his past education, work and wage-earning history, current medical condition, chronic pain symptoms, and physical restrictions to give an opinion on SS’s current occupational abilities.

In response, Opposing Counsel hired multiple medical experts to discredit SS’s total disability claim.  One expert even gave a preposterous opinion that the 500-pound mower that landed on SS only caused a contusion to his low back. Opposing Counsel was out for blood when he hired a private investigator to secretly surveil SS over several days, recording video of him with the family horses in a snowy paddock on his own property.  While SS’s mobility in the snow and presence around the horses was of some concern, Attorney Pierobon Mays believed that Opposing Counsel was hoping for more dramatic video footage of SS doing things that he once enjoyed, such as riding the horses, stock car racing, snowmobiling, actively coaching football and hockey, volunteer firefighting, and hunting. Attorney Pierobon Mays argued that the omission of such activities in SS’s life proved the seriousness of SS’s injury because a person would never truly give up all of these fulfilling things, once loved by SS, if he could still physically do them.

Settlement negotiations intensified days before the scheduled hearing in May 2024 where Attorney Lisa Pierobon Mays and Opposing Counsel argued back and forth the strengths and weaknesses of each other’s case. Ultimately, the workers compensation insurance carrier agreed to settle for more than five times the amount that they originally offered to SS before hiring Attorney Lisa Pierobon Mays!  In addition, Attorney Lisa Pierobon Mays helped coordinate that a large portion of the settlement monies be placed into an Annuity that would pay monthly benefits, guaranteed, until Summer 2044 and then monthly thereafter for SS’s lifetime.  This settlement would sustain SS comfortably during his lifetime and leave a legacy for his family should he pass before 2044.  SS was overcome with emotions and relief with the settlement terms as the litigation was weighing heavy on his mental health.

Attorney Lisa Pierobon Mays has been representing injured workers for almost three decades. She aggressively advocates for the Wisconsin injured worker. Attorney Pierobon Mays works directly with every single one of her clients. Her clients are never pushed off to a paralegal or legal secretary, she handles every single communication with them.  This kind of attention to detail has given Attorney Lisa Pierobon Mays the coveted 5 Star Google Rating based on true and honest reviews from her past client’s. Such an accomplishment is very hard to achieve because Google demands authenticity and refuses to delete unfavorable reviews.

Attorney Lisa Pierobon Mays is not intimidated to take on prominent business or their insurance companies when an injured Wisconsin worker has been treated unfairly in the denial of workers compensation benefits. A free consultation is offered at Mays Law Office so do not hesitate to call Mays Law Office at (608)302-6614.  Attorney Lisa Pierobon Mays is happy to answer your questions.

If you have been charged with operating while intoxicated (OWI) in Wisconsin, should you testify in court? Or, is it better to stay silent and rely on other means of defense? Just like requesting a jury trial—which we discussed in last month’s post—the short answer is, “It depends.”

Understanding Your Right to Testify in Wisconsin

First, let’s talk about your right to testify. When you are facing an OWI case in Wisconsin, you have the right to testify in your own defense. You have the right to take the stand, and you have the right to explain what happened from your point of view—with the goal of convincing the judge or jury that a “Guilty” verdict is not warranted.

Whether you take the stand is completely up to you. While you have the right to testify if you choose to do so, the prosecution cannot force you to face the judge or jury under oath. However, if you choose to testify, then the prosecution does get the right to conduct a cross-examination. You can assert your privilege against self-incrimination during cross-examination, but you cannot refuse to answer prosecutors’ questions entirely.

When Does It Make Sense to Testify in an OWI Case?

With this in mind, when might you want to testify? Testifying can make sense in various circumstances. For example, it may be worth testifying in your OWI case if:

• You Need to Set the Record Straight – If you made self-incriminating statements during your OWI arrest, taking the stand could provide an opportunity to set the record straight. Did the arresting officer ask confusing questions? Did you get flustered? Did you feel pressured to say something that you didn’t mean? If prosecutors are already planning to use your own words against you, then testifying could make sense.
• You Weren’t Driving Under the Influence – If you are absolutely certain that you weren’t driving under the influence, then you don’t have anything to hide. While you will still need to be thoroughly prepared to deal with the prosecution’s cross-examination, this could be a situation in which it makes sense to testify as well.
• The Prosecution’s Evidence is Limited – It could also be worth taking the stand if the prosecution’s evidence is limited. For example, if the prosecution’s case largely hinges on your arresting officer’s testimony, telling your side of the story could be enough to convince the judge or jury that the prosecution hasn’t proven your guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

It won’t always make sense to testify in these scenarios—and these aren’t the only scenarios in which it may make sense to testify on your own behalf. Rather, these are examples of situations in which it may make sense to take the stand in some cases. Due to the potential risks involved with taking the stand, you need to make an informed decision about whether to testify, and this means that you should discuss your case with an experienced OWI defense attorney.

Why Wouldn’t You Take the Stand in Your Own Defense?

Now that we’ve covered some of the scenarios in which it can make sense to testify, why wouldn’t you take the stand in your own defense? Simply put, taking the stand can be risky. As you evaluate your options, it will be important to consider factors such as:

• You Might Not Perform as Well as You Expect To – Almost everyone gets nervous on the witness stand. No matter how much you prepare, and no matter how confident you are in what you are planning to say, testifying under oath when you have a lot at stake can be overwhelming. If you say the wrong thing, or if you come across as being scared or nervous, this could have adverse consequences for your defense.
• You Will Need the Judge or Jury to Believe You – While some forms of evidence are undeniable, testimony is not. No matter how honest you are on the stand, there is a chance that the judge or jury simply won’t believe you. If this happens, testifying could have the opposite of its intended effect.
• Testifying Means Submitting to Cross-Examination – As we mentioned above, if you choose to testify, you will be subject to cross-examination. Many prosecutors are very good at what they do, and they know how to get defendants to contradict themselves and say things that make them appear untrustworthy.

Taking the stand can entail other risks as well. Understanding the specific risks in your case requires a careful look at the facts involved. Once again, an experienced OWI defense attorney can help, and we strongly recommend speaking with an attorney before you make any decisions about how to approach your case.

What Are Your Options if You Don’t Testify?

Let’s say you choose not to testify. If you don’t take the stand, what can you do to fight your OWI? While the options you have available depend on the facts of your case, some examples of potential options include:

• Seeking to have the prosecution’s evidence excluded from trial based on a lack of reasonable suspicion or probable cause.
• Challenging the reliability of your field sobriety test (FST) results or your blood alcohol concentration (BAC) reading.
• Showing that the prosecution’s evidence is insufficient to prove all elements of your OWI charge beyond a reasonable doubt.
• Negotiating a plea bargain that reduces your OWI to a reckless driving charge (commonly referred to as a “wet reckless”).

Discuss Your Case with an OWI Defense Lawyer at Mays Law Office in Madison, WI

Do you have questions about testifying in your Wisconsin OWI case? If so, we invite you to contact us for a free and confidential consultation. To discuss your case with an experienced OWI defense lawyer in Madison, give us a call at 608-305-4518 or tell us how we can reach you online today.

ATTORNEY STEVE MAYS WINS FOR HIS CLIENT CHALLENGING THE VALIDITY OF FIELD SOBRIETY TESTING (SFST)

Attorney Steve Mays got the OWI charge (operating while under the influence) dropped for his Client M.E. when he challenged the lawfulness of the police officer’s Field Sobriety Testing performed on the scene of arrest.

ME was pulled over due to his vehicle registration being expired. In his report of the incident, the arresting officer indicated that he detected an odor of intoxicants and noticed ME had bloodshot eyes. He further suggested that ME initially handing him a credit card when he was asked to provide his driver license was a sign of possible alcohol impairment. When asked to provide proof of insurance, ME “grabbed a bunch of papers but fumbled through them.” The officer further viewed this as evidence of impairment. When asked if he had been drinking, ME responded that he had consumed one beer approximately four hours prior. Based on these observations, the officer asked ME to exit his vehicle to perform standardized field sobriety testing (SFST).

Standardized Field Sobriety Testing is comprised of a battery of three (3) standardized tests: the Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus (HGN), the Walk-and-Turn (WAT), and the One-Leg Stand (OLS). These tests are designed to evaluate a person’s balance, coordination, and cognitive function—skills often impaired by alcohol consumption. This battery of three tests was developed after many, many national studies by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA).

1. Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus (HGN): The HGN test involves observing the involuntary jerking of the eyes as they gaze to the side. Alcohol consumption exaggerates this jerking, making it more pronounced at lower angles. Officers assess the smoothness of eye movement, tracking ability, and onset of nystagmus, providing insights into the level of intoxication.

2. Walk-and-Turn (WAT): In the WAT test, individuals are instructed to take nine heel-to-toe steps along a straight line, turn on one foot, and return in the same manner. Officers look for indicators such as the ability (or inability) to maintain balance, follow instructions, and perform the task accurately, all of which can be compromised by alcohol impairment.

3. One-Leg Stand (OLS): During the OLS test, drivers are asked to stand on one leg while keeping the other foot approximately six inches off the ground. Officers monitor the individual’s ability to maintain balance and count seconds as a measure of impairment.
While SFST’s are a widely accepted tool, they are not without criticisms and limitations. Critics argue that factors such as age, weight, physical condition, and nervousness can affect test performance, leading to false positives. Additionally, certain medical conditions, environmental factors, and even footwear can influence results, casting doubt on the tests’ reliability.

Furthermore, concerns about subjectivity in interpretation exist. Officers undergo training to administer and evaluate SFST’s, but human judgment remains a factor. Bias, unconscious or otherwise, could potentially influence the outcome of tests, raising questions about fairness and accuracy.

In this particular case, an environmental factor, as mentioned above, played a pivotal role in the success of ME’s defense. One such environmental factor which can interfere with the HGN in particular is flashing lights. Nystagmus is an “involuntary jerking of the eyes.” It is always present to some degree but is exacerbated by alcohol consumption. This manifests as what is known as “gaze nystagmus.” However, there are numerous other causes of nystagmus ranging from neurological disorders to vitamin deficiencies. The particular cause at play in this case was flashing lights, which can cause “optokinetic nystagmus,” something that law enforcement officers are not trained or qualified to distinguish from gaze nystagmus.

When the officer began the first test, the HGN, pursuant to his training, he deactivated his front facing flashing squad lights so as to not be a source for a potential false positive. However, before the test commenced, a second officer arrived on scene. He did not deactivate any of his flashing squad lights. Video evidence revealed that throughout the entire HGN test there were flashing lights directly in ME’s line of vision. ME’s performance on the other two standardized field sobriety tests revealed little, if any, indications of impairment. Nevertheless, the arresting officer requested that ME submit to a handheld preliminary breath test (PBT). Based on the HGN test and the PBT result, ME was placed under arrest for Operating While under the Influence of an Intoxicant as a third offense and taken into custody to perform an evidentiary chemical test of his breath, which unlike the PBT, is admissible in court.

Based on the video evidence Attorney Stephen Mays filed a motion to suppress ME’s arrest. Suppression is a remedy for a violation of one’s constitutional rights, in this case a violation of ME’s Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches or seizures. Two issues were raised in this case. The larger issue was whether ME’s arrest was supported by evidence of impaired driving sufficient to rise to the level of probable cause. However within that issue is the secondary question of whether the evidence leading up to the PBT request met the lesser standard of “probable cause to believe” that ME was impaired, which is the standard of proof required by statute and case law before an officer is permitted to request a PBT (see: County of Jefferson v. Renz, 231 Wis. 2d 293, 316, 603 N.W.2d 541 (1999), which was also handled and argued by Attorney Mays in the Wisconsin Supreme Court).

In practice, what this means is that if the evidence prior to the PBT request was sufficient to make the request and the result is over the legal limit, in most cases this means that the arrest itself will be deemed supported by probable cause, and therefore, lawful. If not and the PBT result is suppressed, then it is axiomatic that the arrest itself was not supported by probable cause and everything that occurred after that point becomes inadmissible in court, most importantly the evidentiary chemical breath test.

When the motion was heard by the Court, Attorney Mays mercilessly cross-examined the arresting officer regarding the impropriety of administering an HGN test in the presence of flashing lights – which he claimed did not happen, until he was proven wrong when viewing the video in court – thereby introducing the possibility that what he observed may not have been gaze nystagmus at all. Ultimately, the officer was forced to admit that he did not administer the HGN in a manner consistent with his training and as required by NHTSA, and that the validity of that test was compromised as a result. Following briefing of the legal issues, as requested by the Court, the Court ruled that the arrest of ME was not supported by probable cause in violation of ME’s Fourth Amendment rights. As a result, the evidentiary chemical breath test was suppressed for use at trial. Deprived of its most significant piece of evidence, the State had no choice but to move to dismiss the case.

Attorney Steve Mays is an aggressive advocate for his client’s. He has more than two decades of experience winning for his client’s. He has a 5 Star Google review from his previous client’s. Charged with a crime? Do not hesitate to call Mays Law Office and talk to Attorney Steve Mays for a free consultation.

When you get charged with operating while intoxicated (OWI) in Wisconsin, the decisions you make early in your case can impact your life for years to come. This includes your decision regarding whether to request a jury trial. Unlike some states, Wisconsin affords the right to a jury trial to all OWI offenders. So, should you request a jury trial? The answer to this question depends on the circumstances of your case.

Understanding Your Right to a Jury Trial in a Wisconsin OWI Case

While you have the right to a jury trial in your OWI case, it is up to you to request a jury. If you don’t, a judge will hear the facts of your case instead. A judge will preside over your case either way; but, if you elect a jury trial, the judge’s role will be more limited (though the judge could still ultimately decide the outcome of your case, as we discuss below). When a judge hears the facts of your case, this is referred to as a bench trial.

In Wisconsin OWI cases, the jury has six members. Importantly, however, the six jurors do not need to reach a unanimous verdict to find you guilty. This is because an OWI is classified as a traffic violation instead of a crime. In OWI cases, it is enough if five of the six jurors agree that the prosecution has met its burden of proof.

Even though OWI isn’t a crime in Wisconsin, the prosecution’s burden of proof is still “beyond a reasonable doubt.” This means that at least five of the six jurors must be thoroughly convinced that you broke the law. Under Wisconsin’s OWI statute, this could mean that either: (i) you were driving under the influence; or, (ii) your blood alcohol concentration (BAC) was over the legal limit.

Why Should (or Shouldn’t) You Request a Jury Trial?

As we mentioned above, whether you should request a jury trial depends on the circumstances of your OWI case. To see why, we can look at some of the benefits of jury trials and the contrasting benefits of bench trials. Some of the benefits of having a jury hear your OWI case include:

• You get to play a role in the jury selection process
• If five or more jurors cannot agree that you are guilty, you won’t be convicted
• Jurors may be more sympathetic to your personal circumstances than a judge
• Before the jury deliberates, you can ask the judge to acquit you based on a lack of evidence (and, if the judge denies your motion, you still get the benefit of having a jury)
• Having a jury hear your case can provide additional grounds for appeal if you get convicted

In contrast, some of the benefits of having a judge decide the outcome of your Wisconsin OWI case include:

• If you have technical defenses that are not based on innocence, a judge may be better able to understand these defenses and render a just verdict
• If you are not a sympathetic defendant (i.e., if you are being accused of causing a serious accident while driving drunk), a judge may be more likely to render an unbiased decision
• Compared to jury trials, bench trials are relatively quick and inexpensive

Just because we’ve listed fewer benefits for bench trials, this doesn’t necessarily mean that a jury trial is always the best option—it isn’t. When deciding whether to request a jury trial, you need to make an informed decision based on what is likely to give you the best chance of a favorable outcome in light of all of the facts at hand.

3 Ways to Resolve Your OWI Case Without Going to Trial

While choosing to request a jury trial (or choosing not to request a jury trial) is an extremely important decision, it is important to keep in mind that going to trial isn’t necessarily your only option. Regardless of whether you exercise your right to a trial by jury, you may be able to achieve a favorable outcome without relying on a judge or jury to conclude that the prosecution hasn’t met its burden of proof.

How? Before your case goes to trial, you may be able to achieve a favorable outcome by:

1. Negotiating a Plea Bargain

While you generally shouldn’t accept a plea bargain if you have strong trial defenses available, if you don’t have strong trial defenses available, negotiating a plea can help to mitigate the consequences of your arrest.

2. Getting the Judge to Dismiss Your OWI Charge

Finally, in some cases, it will be possible to secure a dismissal before trial. If the prosecution’s evidence is inadmissible because the police violated your constitutional rights, or if some other facts or circumstances mean you don’t deserve to stand trial, an experienced OWI defense lawyer may be able to help end your trial before it begins.

Discuss Your Options with an OWI Defense Lawyer in Madison, WI

Are you wondering whether you should request a jury trial in your Wisconsin OWI case? If so, our lawyers can help you make an informed decision, and we can assert all available defenses on your behalf. To learn more in a free and confidential consultation, give us a call at 608-302-6614 or request an appointment online today.

WORKERS COMPENSATION ATTORNEY LISA PIEROBON MAYS RECOVERS MONEY FOR PARENTS DUE TO THE DEATH OF THEIR ADULT SON

The New Year started up with a bang for Mays Law Office with a significant settlement for parents, Mr. & Mrs. T, who received a sizable amount due to the death of their 29-year-old son.

Son died in 2022 in a fiery crash while traveling to a worksite.  In Wisconsin, when a death occurs at work, the workers compensation carrier for the employer must pay a death benefit equal to four times the employee’s average annual earning, subject to a maximum amount.  This money is paid to the Dependent(s) of the injured employee who died.  The law is clear, according to Wis. Stat. sec. 102.51(2)(a):

No person shall be considered a dependent unless that person is a spouse, a domestic partner [under Wis. Stat. ch. 77], a divorced spouse who has not remarried, or a lineal descendant, lineal ancestor, brother, sister, or other member of the family, whether by blood or by adoption, of the deceased employee

If Total Dependency cannot be established (often the case seen for parents of adult children), the surviving parent(s), if not estranged from the deceased employee, are automatically entitled to a benefit of at least $6500 Wis. Stat. sec. 102.48(1).  In addition, if the deceased employee contributed at least $500 in support to the parents in the 52 weeks before the death then they also may claim further benefits through either Total or Partial Dependency.

In the matter of Mr. and Mrs. T, their 29-year-old Son passed away at the age of 29 without a wife or child.  At the time of his death, he lived with his parents sleeping in his childhood bedroom to help his parents with the house and Wisconsin family farm.  Son’s help was greatly needed because his father, Mr. T, is an amputee with other ailments and Mrs. T was recovering from cancer.

Son’s contributions to the house and farm were significant.  While he never directly contributed monies to his parents, he contributed by providing machinery, labor, and goods to the house and farm business.  Son was more skilled than most farm laborers, in his ability to weld, farm equipment maintenance, concrete pouring, car maintenance, etc.  His contributions were significant, but never recorded, or itemized with documentation in writing, such as receipts, payments proven by bank account deposits, journaled, or memorialized making their credibility difficult to prove beyond verbal assertions.  However, it was clear that there was some level of dependency Mr. & Mrs. T had on their son in the 52 weeks leading up to his death.

Testimony from several witnesses would have been offered to establish son’s support and efforts in shoveling snow, pressure washing, farm labor, home chores, improvement projects, lawn and field care, and vehicle maintenance.   Son’s contributions to the house and farm were unique and invaluable.  He was literally second hand to Mr. T on the farm, which included skilled tasks, such as concrete pouring, machinery repair, welding, and electrical.  Around the house, he did all the car maintenance, landscaping, Spring and Fall clean-up.  Son also contributed to purchasing tools, equipment, machinery, and a truck to be used on the farm business.  But again, no written documentation could actually prove it, such as in a Leasing Agreement.  The only proof was testimony and receipts of son’s purchases, however the hours that such machinery was used/borrowed by the farm was no more than a best guess estimate so the valuation of such was dubious at best.

Regardless of such proof problems, the workers compensation carrier was still required to pay 4x of the son’s annual earnings, but the money would be held by the Wisconsin Injury Supplemental Benefit Fund (WISBF) until the issue and extent of partial dependency was established.  So, Attorney Lisa Pierobon Mays filed for Hearing naming the State of Wisconsin Department of Justice as Respondent as they were charged with defending the Fund’s disbursement, holding, and use of the money.  WISBF is a fierce zealot in protecting its money, so in response, WISBF/DOJ asserted that the son provided no more than what a grown son would be expected to do for his parents.  An insulting defense and one where Attorney Pierobon Mays retorted back that adult children have their own busy lives to lead with family, job, and social commitments of their own to take care of.  While an adult child generally does help with some basic household chores, Mr. and Mrs. T’s son’s contributions, for the 52 weeks preceding his death, went above and beyond what an adult child would reasonably be expected to do.  This son was an exceptional human being according to all that knew him.

The WISBF also defended that Mr. and Mrs. T’s claim was excessive in the amount they demanded considering no documentation was available to prove all of son’s contributions.  The WISBF claimed that the death benefit money is better disbursed to widows and orphans of deceased workers, rather than Mr. & Mrs. T.  Attorney Lisa Pierobon Mays pointed out that Wis. Stat. sec. 102.48(2) does not give priority, under a partial dependency claim, to unrelated widows and orphan children where partial dependency is alleged.

At Mediation, the WISBF/DOJ relented and conceded that partial dependency of son to Mr. and Mrs. T did exist, and a sizable offer was made to settle the claim shy of a Hearing.

Now, Attorney Pierobon Mays did not stop advocating for Mr. and Mrs. T because she had also filed a Penalty claim against the employer’s workers compensation insurance carrier for failing to properly handle the file right after their son’s death.  Think back to the beginning of this article when you read that if no Total Dependency by wife or child is found, then a portion of the death benefit (4x average annual earnings) goes to the non-estranged parent(s) of the deceased employee.  Non-estranged parents are automatically entitled to a benefit of at least $6500 under Wis. Stat. sec. 102.48(1).  The significant word is “automatically.”

Despite demands by Attorney Lisa Pierobon Mays to the workers compensation carrier to make an automatic payment of $6500 to Mr. and Mrs. T, the carrier and their attorney ignored and refused to do so.  In response, Attorney Lisa Pierobon Mays filed a penalty claim against them forcing their hand to make payment.  However, the damage had been done in not doing so sooner.

At Mediation, this Penalty was also pursued and payment in the amount of $3000 (almost ½ of the =$6500) was offered to resolve the claim shy of a Hearing. Attorney Pierobon Mays and her clients agreed that this was enough of a stinging slap on the wrist so that this type of misconduct would hopefully not happen in the future to other grieving parents.