Jury's punitive verdict brings damages in boys' wrongful death lawsuit to nearly $200 million
A jury in Los Angeles awarded $22.17 million in punitive damages on top of $176 million in compensatory for the deaths of two boys killed by a speeding SUV driver in 2020.
A jury in Los Angles on Wednesday said a woman who hit and killed two young brothers in a crosswalk while speeding and impaired in 2020 must pay $21 million in punitive damages, in addition to $176 million in compensatory damages awarded last week.
The verdict against Rebecca Grossman also requires her former boyfriend, retired Major League Baseball pitcher Scott Erickson, to pay an additional $1.17 million in punitive damages. He is equally liable for the $176 million awarded on June 2.
The total damages award of $198.17 million comes nearly six years after Grossman struck 11-year-old Mark Iskander and 8-year-old Jacob Iskander in a crosswalk in Westlake Village in west Los Angeles County while speeding in a 2018 Mercedes-Benz AMG. Erickson was speeding near her in a 2014 Mercedes-Benz AMG, and witnesses testified they appeared to be racing.
Grossman, 62, is serving 15 years to life in prison after a jury in February 2024 convicted her of two counts of second-degree murder, two counts of vehicular manslaughter with gross negligence and one count of hit-and-run driving resulting in death or serious injury.
An appellate panel affirmed her convictions in a 143-page opinion published on March 17. The California Supreme Court rejected her review petition on Wednesday.
The damages award is $1.17 million more than the $21 million the Iskanders’ lawyer Brian Panish suggested in is closing argument on Tuesday. Panish suggested $20 million against Grossman and $1 million against Erickson. Erickson’s lawyer Deborah Tropp said Erickson is worth “approximately $1.2 million” and suggested jurors award only minimal or nomimal damages.
The compensatory damages awarded on June 2 include $8 million in past damages and $51 million in future damages to parents Karim and Nancy Iskander for Mark’s death, $6 million in past and $42 million in future for Jacob’s death, $10 million to Nancy for past emotional distress and $25 million for future, and $6 million for past emotional distress and $28 million for future to younger brother Zachary Iskander.
Polling then indicated two jurors believed Nancy deserved more than $35 million: Juror 10 said no to both past and future and juror 8 said no to future. They said yes to all other damages, which indicates they don’t believe the amounts are excessive.
One juror — juror two — said no when Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Huey P. Cotton Jr. asked if he agreed with the punitive awards on Wednesday. It’s unclear why he disagreed.
Grossman’s husband, plastic surgeon Peter Grossman, was a defendant because his wife’s SUV was registered in his name. He was a key witness in the punitive damages phase because the Iskanders’ lawyers at Panish | Shea | Ravipudi LLP said he was conspiring with his wife to shield her assets while taking money from his brother’s trust with the help of Sherman Oaks-based attorney Aaron Bregman, who is his close friend. The assets include their mansion in Hidden Hills that sold for $13 million.
Panish said in a statement:
This case was about choices—dangerous, reckless, and selfish choices that cost two young boys their lives. The evidence showed exactly what happened: excessive speed, disregard for the rules of the road, and a complete failure to protect human life. The jury held both defendants accountable for the devastating consequences of those choices.
Mark and Jacob were doing everything right. They were in a crosswalk, with their family. They should have made it home safely that night. This verdict sends a clear message that everyone must be held accountable when their selfish actions put innocent lives at risk.
The facts of this case are as heartbreaking as they are clear.
Erickson’s lawyer Jeff Braun said in statement:
First and foremost, we want the Iskander family to know that our hearts are broken for them and the unimaginable loss they have suffered. As parents ourselves, we cannot begin to comprehend the pain of losing two children. No amount of money can ever compensate for such a profound loss, and our thoughts remain with the family as they continue to navigate this tragedy.”
On behalf of our client, we respect the jury’s verdict and the process that led to it. While we are disappointed with certain aspects of the outcome, we are grateful for the opportunity to have the case heard and decided by a jury. The right to present a case to one’s peers is a cornerstone of our justice system, and we respect the jury’s service and careful consideration of the evidence.
In the coming days, we will review the verdict with our client and discuss the appropriate path forward. Today, however, our focus is on acknowledging the extraordinary loss the Iskander family has endured. We extend our sincere condolences to them and continue to keep them in our thoughts.
The Grossmans’ lawyer Esther Holm had not replied to an email seeking comment as of late Wednesday.
Nancy and Karim Iskander said in a statement:
To all of you who have loved us, Mark, and Jacob, and who have stood by our family from the very beginning — we are deeply grateful.
Today we thank you, and we thank the jury for delivering the punitive damages verdict today and , along with the previous wrongful death verdict.
We are especially thankful that the jury saw the truth and delivered justice with clarity and courage, guided by the outstanding work of the wonderful Brian Panish.
As you might imagine, our hearts remain broken and no verdict can ease the pain of losing our two sweet boys. It is a profoundly sad day when a jury is forced to place a dollar value on the lives of our children.
We understand this verdict will be appealed and that it may be years before any money is ever collected, if at all. What matters most to us now is that the perpetrators are finally beginning to show signs of accepting accountability, and that through this trial, many more people have had the chance to meet Mark and Jacob — to learn who they truly were and the light they brought into this world.
Sleep tight Mark and Jacob. We love you.
Erickson testified in the liability phase and in the punitive damages phase. He said he accelerated to 55 miles per hour when he saw the boys in the road so he could pass them and avoid them. He said he didn’t see Nancy and Zachry, and he knew when he saw Grossman’s vehicle alter that she’d hit something.
“And you thought right then, it was the boys she hit, didn’t you?” Panish asked.
“I didn’t know what she hit,” Erickson answered.
“The only thing that you could reason in your mind, in your heart of hearts was, it was Rebecca Grossman that hit the boys that you avoided, right?” Panish asked.
“I had to assume that,” Erickson answered.
“Did Rebecca Grossman ever tell you was his her car that hit the two boys and killed them?” Panish asked.
“No. She did not tell me,” Erickson answered.
“So Rebecca Grossman never, ever told you that she struck and killed the two boys. Correct?” Panish asked.
“I don’t recall that,” Erickson answered.
Erickson disputed his former MLB competitor and friend Royce Clayton’s testimony about a phone call they had shortly after Grossman struck the boys.
Clayton was with Erickson and Grossman at a restaurant before the crash and planned to meet them at Grossman’s home to eat tacos and watch the U.S. presidential debate. He spoke to Erickson on the phone after the crash, and he testified that Erickson told him they were “f***ing flying” and Grossman had struck the boys. Clayton also said he urged Erickson to contact police.
Erickson testified he never told Clayton any of that.
“You saw Rebecca Grossman hit the boys. That’s what Royce Clayton testified that you told him. Isn’t that true, sir?” Panish asked.
“I never said that,” Erickson answered.
“Well, because if you do say that, then you’re liable, aren’t you?” Panish asked.
Judge Cotton overruled objections that the question was argumentative and called for a legal conclusion, and Erickson answered, “I don’t know.”
Panish asked if Erickson has “ill will” toward Clayton.
“Yes. I’m not happy with Royce,” Erickson answered.
Panish asked Erickson about his testimony that he spoke to Grossman on the phone briefly after the crash and before he went to the scene and watched police and Grossman for hours.
“Rebecca Grossman called you and said, ‘There’s been something terrible that’s happened.’ You said, ‘Did you see the boys?’ She said, ‘Oh, the boys,’ and she hung up, right?” Panish asked.
“Yes,” Erickson answered.
Panish asked if Erickson told Grossman not to tell anyone they were drinking or racing.
Erickson answered “no” and “we were not racing.”
“Could you answer the question? Did you tell her, ‘Don’t say we were racing?’” Panish asked.
“No,” Erickson answered.
Erickson also testified he knew he was wrong to present a different vehicle as the one he was driving when Grossman struck the boys. Jurors heard earlier in trial that Erickson owned two Mercedes-Benz SUVs but used one registration for both, a practice law enforcement officers call cold plating.
Erickson presented the wrong vehicle for inspection to experts hired by the Iskanders’ lawyers and “during that inspection, you never once told anyone that this was a fake vehicle and it was not involved in the incident, did you?” Panish asked.
“Correct,” Erickson answered.
“You knew that the victims were spending money hiring expert witnesses to inspect a vehicle that you lied and knew wasn't in any accident, didn’t you?” Panish asked.
“Yes,” Erickson answered.
“And you didn’t care about the victims or anyone at that time, did you?” Panish asked.
“I did care,” Erickson answered.
“You did care. Well, my experience is people that care are honest. Would you agree with that?” Panish asked.
“Yes,” Erickson answered.
“So you said you care, but you were dishonest, allowing their experts not to inspect your vehicle because you told them this other vehicle was in the accident, just like you told the sheriff’s department, right?” Panish asked.
"Yes,” Erickson answered.
He acknowledged deleting texts with Grossman and said he did so because of limited phone storage.
“You knew if somebody got a hold of those messages, they could be damaging to you and Rebecca Grossman on your accountability?” Panish asked.
“I did not know that,” Erickson answered.
“In fact, sir, as you sit here today, you deny any responsibility or accountability whatsoever for the death of Mark and Jacob Iskander, correct?” Panish asked.
Erickson paused for about 10 seconds before he said, “Yes.”
“It took you a long time. Isn’t it true, sir, that you really do know that you’re responsible and you should be accountable, and that’s why it’s hard for you to say that?” Panish asked.
Judge Cotton overruled an argumentative objection.
“Well, you know, sir, don’t you, that if you're racing someone and that other person — not you — kill someone, you can be held responsible. You understand that, right?” Panish asked.
“I was never racing,” Erickson answered.
Erickson testified in the punitive damages phase that he feels “really terrible about what’s happened” and believes if he had “somehow been able to stop” he “probably” could’ve saved the boys’ lives.
“I feel really bad about my actions and some of the terrible behavior I did, and not being very honest,” Erickson said during questioning from Braun.
“I truly believe that now that if I would have somehow been able to stop, I probably could have possibly save their lives. That’s a hard thing to live with,” Erickson said.
Panish followed up by asking Erickson, “In the six years that you felt terrible, how do you think the family was feeling?”
Judge Cotton overruled Braun’s argumentative objection and Erickson answered, “It’s heartbreaking and devastating, I’m sure, and obviously a loss that could never be fixed.”
Liability phase witnesses
My May 4 article has details on the first 16 witnesses.
The other witnesses were:
Michael Kelley, a deputy with the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department who testified Grossman’s eyes were drooping and watery and he smelled the ‘light odor” of an alcoholic beverage when he first approached her. Jurors saw videos of Grossman’s three field sobriety tests.
Michael Takacs, a Los Angeles County sheriff’s detective who analyzed Grossman’s blood test results while with the District Attorney Office’s Major Crimes Unit. He testified Kelley perfectly conducted Grossman’s field sobriety tests, and that her blood results show she was impaired when her SUV hit Mark and Jacob. He also said the Valium and Diazepam (benzodiazepine or benzos) in her system would increase impairment.
Kari DeClues, a forensic scientist with the Orange County Crime Lab who tested one of two blood samples provided by Grossman and concluded the alcohol level was .073. Another scientist tested the other sample and concluded the alcohol level was .074. Jurors heard about the results earlier in trial from Ariana Adeva, the crime lab’s assistant director. Grossman’s blood samples were tested in both Orange County and Los Angeles County because vehicular homicide cases require two tests and the counties agree to test each other’s samples.
Robert Snook, an expert witness hired by the Grossmans’ lawyers at Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP. Jurors saw video of his Dec. 18, 2025, deposition in which he testified Grossman was speeding at 73 mph when she struck Mark and Jacob. He also said he doesn’t believe Erickson hit the boys. The Iskanders’ lawyers played the video in their case-in-chief on May 4.
Mark Hair, a longtime friend of Grossman who was drinking alcohol with his wife, Cindie Hair, and Grossman at their Westlake Village home the day of the crash. Grossman went from the Hairs’ home to Julio’s Agave Grill, where she drank a margarita before speeding down Triunfo Canyon Road and striking Mark and Jacob in the crosswalk at Saddle Mountain Drive. Hair testified in a video deposition on July 25, 2025, that he saw Grossman drink half of the margarita he mixed for her “and that was the last time I made note of her consumption.”
Dale Dunlap, a civil engineer with Expert Engineering Sciences, Inc. who analyzes roadway design in California and testified as an expert witness about the intersection where Grossman struck Mark and Jacob. He said the intersection does not have defects in its design that contributed to Grossman striking the boys, and a motorist traveling the 45 mph speed limit has time to see people in the crosswalk and react.
Jennifer Nagel, a dentist in Thousand Oaks who met the Iskanders during an Easter service at church. Her son Conner was friends with Mark, and jurors saw photos of the boys at church and school, and one at Dodger Stadium. Nagel visited the family at their home the day after the crash, and she testified about their devastating grief and their lives since then.
Grehtel Bartraza, a Los Angeles County sheriff’s sergeant who was a deputy when she responded to the crash scene. She testified about what she saw and did at the scene, including her observations of Grossman’s daughter, Alexis Grossman, and witnessing Grossman’s blood draw.
David Raymond, a mechanical engineering professor at California State University - Los Angeles who analyzed the damage on Grossman’s SUV and the boys’ fatal injuries.
Sergio Lopez, who was working in the Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office Auto Insurance Fraud Unit when he was assigned to investigate Erickson’s vehicles and license plates. He detailed Erickson’s illegal “cold-plating” scheme that used the same registration for his two Mercedes-Benz SUVs. Erickson’s lawyers emphasized in cross-exam that the scheme had nothing to do with the crash.
Vanessa Meneses, a forensic scientist at the Orange County Crime Lab who analyzed Grossman’s blood sample lab results to determine her alcohol level at the time of the crash. She testified it was .11 to .13. at the time of the 7:10 p.m. crash on Sept. 29, 2020.
Richard Curry, an investigator with the Orange County District Attorney’s Office who analyzed the event data recorder on Grossman’s vehicle. His confirmed earlier testimony from Michael Hale, an investigator with the Orange County District Attorney’s Office who said Grossman reached 81 mph three seconds before the crash, and she applied her brakes 1.5 seconds before but not at the moment of impact. Curry and Hale said her SUV was traveling 73 mph when it struck the boys.
Robert Leffler, a California Highway Patrol officer warned Rebecca Grossman in 2013 that driving at speeds up to 90 mph endangered her life and the lives of others. Jurors saw his deposition videotaped on July 3, 2025, in which he testified he saw news coverage of the crash and remembered pulling her over on the 101 freeway near Westlake Village seven years earlier. He said he clocked Grossman at 92 mph in a 65 mph zone but gave her a break by writing the ticket for 80 mph. He described her speeding car as similar to a “sore thumb sticking out, the fastest car moving through the traffic.” He said she was apologetic.
Jeffrey Muttart, who directs research and training at the Driver Research Institute in Connecticut. He testified as an expert witness about Grossman’s and Erickson’s speed and movements as well as the layout and safety signs at the intersection where Grossman struck Mark and Jacob. He said Grossman’s actions “are consistent with impairment” and said her speed “made avoidance near zero, when a 45 mile an hour speed would yield near 100% avoidance.”
David Huelsen, retired Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department who investigated the crash with Detective Scott Shean. Jurors saw videos of his deposition testimony from June 8, 2025, and Nov. 26, 2025. He testified about responding to the intersection after the crash and interviewing Grossman. He said she told him she’d had one margarita.
Chamie Delkeskamp, a teacher and associate pastor at Ascension Lutheran Church and School in Thousand Oaks. Jacob was a student there and so was Mark before he moved to Oaks Christian School. She said she “came to know the Iskander family very, very, very well” and said the family “very, very, very, very tight knit.” She described Mark as “motivated, responsible, trustworthy” and “really, really smart in particular in math.” Jacob “had so much Scripture memorized” and “knew Hebrews XII by heart.” She said she “as a pastor for 27 years do not have that memorized, and so the pastoral staff would be like, ‘Oh my goodness. We cannot believe this kid knows all of this.’ It was amazing.”
Sherif Iskander, who is Karim Iskander’s younger brother. He testified about seeing his brother start a family and become a great father who was “extremely attentive” and “put his family as priority.” He said Mark “was like a role model for Jacob.” “Mark would teach him everything he knows. Jacob would tell me that Mark is so smart he’s going to become a brain surgeon.” He said Jacob was “very bubbly and “very outgoing.” He also testified about learning of the boys’ death and how Karim and Nancy have struggled since then.
Karim Iskander, who testified for two hours about his family and what happened the night Jacob and Mark were killed. Iskander grew up in Egypt and earned a doctorate in biomedical sciences from Baylor College of Medicine in Houston, where he met Nancy, who also is from Egypt. He moved to Westlake Village when he was working for a company that was acquired by the biotechnology Amgen Inc., which is based in nearby Thousand Oaks.
Jason McGee, a former Los Angeles County sheriff’s deputy who is a state trooper in Colorado. He testified in a deposition on Nov. 11, 2025, about responding to the intersection after Grossman struck Mark and Jacob. He drove her to Los Robles Regional Medical Center and saw a nurse draw blood from her that was tested for alcohol and drugs. He said Grossman “saw the news, realized it was the incident she was involved in and made statements about seeing the kids in the street.” “She also made statements about how she couldn't live with herself if it was true, and her reaction just didn’t seem genuine, but she was very distraught, and obviously dealing with a lot.”
Rene Castaneda, crash reconstructionist who owns Castaneda Engineering Inc. in Clovis, California, who analyzed the crash and Grossman’s and Erickson’s speeds and movements. A surveillance camera recorded Erickson’s vehicle traveling by “quite faster” than other vehicles; Castaneda estimated his speed at 71.5 miles per hour. Grossman’s vehicle entered the video 2.89 seconds after Erickson’s at 50.3 miles per hour, then increased in speed to 73 miles per hour five seconds before Mark and Jacob were hit. Grossman hit 75 mph then “three seconds before she arrives at the area of impact, she’s still applying full throttle, traveling at 78 miles per hour.”
Nancy Iskander, who testifeid for two hours and 10 minutes about her family, what happened the night Mark and Jacob were killed and her ongoing grief. She said she “had unlimited dreams” for Mark as her first-born child and now feels “the sense of loss that you don’t go get over.” “It’s a sense of loss that you have to … face every day, every single day.” She remembered grabbing her son Zach and rushing out of the way when she heard and then saw two vehicles approaching that “looked to me like they were playing or racing.” “It wasn’t two regular cars, you know, driving towards an intersection, and it was extremely fast.”
Dean G. Kilpatrick, a professor of clinical psychology at the Medical University of South Carolina who evaluated Nancy and Karim Iskander. He described Nancy as “a very strong, resilient, impressive woman and human being.” “I’m impressed with the fact that things could be a lot worse if she didn’t have these positive resiliency factors.”
Pamela Curry, who was walking in the area when she heard revving engines and saw a “jovial” woman speeding in a white SUV who “looked like she was having fun.” “It just really sickened me.” Curry testified in Grossman’s criminal trial in 2024, and she testified again on July 22, 2025, in a video deposition that was entered as evidence in the civil trial. “She looked like she was having fun and looking back over her shoulder, and I was disappointed that I would see a grown woman not even looking forwards as she’s driving fast.”
Defense witnesses:
Rose Wiltshire, who testified in a video deposition that Grossman is a “business associate” she’s known for 20 years. She estified about a text message she received from Gross that said, “I do take accountability that I turned my head to the right, probably one or two seconds longer than I should have, when I saw a woman crashing on rollerblades on the right side of the road. I did not know it that night, but it was the mom. This grabbed my attention, and it probably would anyone else’s.”
Theodore Corwin, a retired plastic surgeon in Westlake Village who testified via video under a subpoena. He answered quesitons about complaints he heard about the intersection of Triunfo Canyon Road and Saddle Mountain Drive, where Grossman it the boys, through his role with a homeowners association. “The complaints related to traffic speed at that location, and people feeling unsafe crossing at that location. … It was different people expressing their experience, but I have no specific problem that I recall.” Holm had trouble in the exam because some of her questions called for answers that would involve hearsay and Judge Cotton sustained objections.
Mark Wessel, a retired traffic engineer who worked for the city of Westlake Village for 33 years. Holm tried to question him about complaints the city received about the intersection, and possible changes to the intersection rejeceted by the City Council. One change was to install signs with flashing lights. He testified in cross-examination that he doesn’t believe the changes would have made the intersection more safe.
Rob de Geus, the city manager of Westlake Village who also answered questions about safety complaints and improvement suggestions for the intersection. As she did with the other witnesses, Holm had trouble eliciting the testimony she wanted because so many of her questions called for answers that contained hearsay, and Judge Cotton sustained objections from the Iskanders’ lawyer Andrew Owen.
Raymond Taylor, who retired in 2018 after 25 years as Westlake Village’s city manager. He also answered questions about complaints regarding the intersection. “My recollection is the public safety committee had evaluated this very carefully and concluded that ... there was no pedestrian accident history there, and that they relied on the traffic engineer for the ... objective standards for the placement of that crosswalk, and felt that a any changes were not needed.”
Andrew Kwasniak, an engineering consultant and crash reconstructionist with Tatum Group in California. He testified the intersection’s “stopping sight distance doesn’t conform with known and accepted engineering standard as existed at the time of the collision.”
Cory Gaudet, a Los Angeles County sheriff's deputy who investigated Erickson for reckless driving. He testified Erickson’s friend Royce Clayton, a retired Major League Baseball shortstop, never told him that Erickson said he and Grossman were racing as Clayton testified he did in trial. Gaudet grew emotional as he recalled being at the intersection after the boys were struck and seeing their parents.
Melissa Wolfson, who lives about half a mile from the intersection and complained to City Hall that it was unsafe for pedestrians,
Defense attorney also entered portions of Huelsen’s depositions as evidence beyond what jurors from the Iskanders’ lawyers.
You can watch all testimony on my YouTube channel through this playlist.
Liability and compensatory closing arguments
Panish suggested jurors award $438 million in compensatory damages during his 2 1/2 hour closing argument on June 1. Erickson’s lawyer Jeff Braun suggested $10 million; Holm suggested whatever jurors feel is reasonable.
Punitive damages opening statements
Braun began his opening statement in the punitive phase by asking the 12 jurors, “Good morning. Anybody want to switch places with me today?”
Judge Cotton said the comment was “improper” as Panish called it “totally improper” and asked the judge to strike it from the record.
“Comment is stricken,” Cotton said.
Braun, a partner at McNeil Tropp & Braun LLP in Newport Beach, tried again.
“Good morning. Before anything else, I want to speak to the Iskander team plainly and respectfully, because they’ve suffered an immeasurable loss,” he said.
“It’s irrelevant to this phase of the trial,” Panish interjected. Judge Cotton sustained the objection.
Braun said “on behalf of my client, we acknowledge the jury’s prior fight, and we express genuine remorse for the harm that has occurred.”
“We accept your verdict on liability and on the finding that the conduct was involved malice, oppression or fraud, and we will not argue those determinations. We’re here for a different task today,” Braun said.
He said the punitive phase is “limited in scope.”
“Your role now is not to decide what happened or whether my client is responsible. That’s already been decided. Your role is to determine the amount of punitive damages, if any, that serves the law’s purpose of punishment and deterrence. Not vengeance. Not anger, and not to compensate for the loss,” Braun said.
Panish said he believes the punitive damages phase is “the most important part of the trial” because the purpose of the damages is to punish the defendants and send a message to society.
“You’re going to send a message that this conduct is not tolerated, and it’s going to stop others from engaging in this conduct, drunk driving, and all racing, all this cover up, all of this,” Panish said.
“You’re going to set a message that this conduct is not tolerated, and it’s going to stop others from engaging in this conduct, drunk driving, and all racing, all this cover up, all of this,” Panish said. “That’s what this punitive damage part of the trial is going to be about, sending a message to not only Erickson and Grossman, but to everyone in our community that this conduct, if you do it, you’re going to be punished, and if you can deter some people, that’s going to make it all worthwhile.”
Punitive damages witnesses
Len Esmond, a certified public accountant for nearly 40 years, worked for the Grossmans from 2015 to 2025. He prepared their personal tax returns and those of their business entities, including the Grossman Burn Center LLC, Grossman Medical Group Inc, Grossman Plastic Surgery Inc, and Grossman Surgery Center Inc. He said their income in 2020 was $1,167,192; 2021 was $1,339,519; 2022 was $1,389,611; 2023 was $1.9 million and 2024 was $1,053,283. That’s about $6.9 million in five years. He also testified about the annual profits for Grossman’s surgery centers.
Roy Pasco, a former financial controller for the Grossman Burn Foundation who answered questions about the corporations and finances.
Robert Leffler, the California Highway Patrol officer who ticketed Grossman in 2013. The Iskanders’ lawyers played another except from the video deposition in which he testified Grossman told him “something to the effect of, ‘I hope you don’t need the services of the Grossman Burn Center’ … or something like that, or ‘you’d better hope you don’t need the services.’ It was something in that nature, of you know, the Grossman Burn Center not being an option for me in the future, potentially.”
Scott Erickson testified for 48 minutes on June 5 in the punitive phase after a multi-day witness stand appearance in the liability phase. A clip of him testifying about what happened to the $46 million he made during his 17 years in professional baseball has been viewed millions of times.
Peter Grossman testified on June 5 and June 8 about he and his wife’s income and his companies for his plastic surgery business . Grossman’s father founded the Grossman Burn Foundation, and Grossman is a nationally prominent surgeon whose patients include comedian Jay Leno.
“Your wife killed Mark and Jacob Iskander, didn’t she?” Panish asked.
“My wife was involved in the accident, and she bears responsibility for that. I don’t particularly care for the word kills,” Grossman answered.
“Your wife was driving a motor vehicle that killed two youths while she was over the legal limit of alcohol, correct?” Panish asked.
Judge Cotton overruled an objection and Grossman answered, “No.”
“No? Your wife wasn’t over the legal limit of alcohol?” Panish asked.
“I do not believe she was over the legal limit of alcohol, sir,” Grossman answered.
Panish asked if the Grossman discussed “preventing Panish from getting control or access to all your assets.”
“We talked a number of things, and I believe that may have been a conversation,” Grossman answered.
“Is that a yes?” Panish asked.
“Yes,” Grossman answered.
“In fact, part of your scheme and plan was to transfer assets so the Iskander family couldn’t collect from your family, correct?” Panish asked.
“No,” Grossman answered.
“So you didn’t rely on lawyers to create all these trusts and transfers documents? You did that all yourself?” Panish asked.
“I don’t believe that was your last question. I think you asked me if I did it with an intent to hide. The answer to that is ‘no’,” Grossman answered.
Panish also asked Grossman about a “documentary” being produced about his wife’s prosecution and imprisonment. He referenced Paul Huebel in the courtroom, whom Grossman described as “a former newscaster, or news figure, and he is also an investigator.”
Grossman said he and his wife aren’t paying for a documentary but “people have asked us to make a documentary.”
“And Marla Maples, she’s been involved in helping in the documentary, right?” Panish asked.
“She has been involved, yes, sir,” Grossman answered.
“And Howie Mandel is another one you recruited to be involved in this documentary, right?” Panish asked.
“Not to my knowledge, sir,” Grossman answered.
Grossman said he’s “not privy” to the production details but “I know that there is people are making a documentary.”
“I certainly have not objected to it, but I have not had anything to do with the financing of it,” he said.
Grossman said he believes the “that at one time there was a title called ‘Gross Injustice.’”
“It’s called ‘Judicial Misconduct’, isn’t it, sir?” Panish asked.
“I have no idea about that, sir,” Grossman answered.
Panish played excerpts of recorded calls between the Grossmans, including one in which Peter Grossman said Nancy Iskander is “full of sh**” when she said she saw Rebecca in the hospital while doctors were trying to save Jacob’s life.
Panish also asked Grossman about his decision to “disinherit Rebecca from everything.”
“And the reason you were disinheriting her was to avoid creditors, wasn’t it, sir?” Panish asked.
“No, sir,” Grossman answered.
“Let’s see what you told your wife when you all were talking on the tape recorded line,” Panish said.
In the call, Rebecca asked, “When are you thinking about putting the house up for sale?”
“I would like to do it, honey,” Peter said. “I just don’t know the market yet, you know?" The real estate market and interest rates and stuff like that. I mean, again, if somebody came to me right away, I do it right away.”
Peter said he wants “to be a little bit more aggressive than I am right now, which is doing nothing, but I don’t want to be impulsive.”
Rebecca asked, “Are you worried that Panish is going to try to come after it?"
Peter said “he can’t” but “he’ll try.”
“There is no community equity anymore,” he said.
The recording ended and Panish asked, “You were worried about Iskanders getting to the money, weren’t you?"
“No, sir. I think it just said that I wasn’t worried about what Mr. Panish was going to do. Rebecca asked me that question,” Grossman said.
Holm said in her closing on Tuesday that jurors “heard phone calls” and “some of those things you heard were not very nice.”
“But this trial and this phase of the trial is about the conduct at the time of the accident,” said Holm, a partner at Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP in Costa Mesa.
“I hope that you stay focused on that, because it’s not about what happens years later, it’s not about people talking about what happened, it’s about the actual conduct at the time, this, and it’s also not about opinion. So, Dr. Grossman has his opinions, he’s certainly entitled to those. You don’t have to agree with those. I know you don’t agree with those, and that is your prerogative. That’s the jury system. You’re supposed to come in here and say what it is you feel,” Holm said.
She said the jury’s $176 million verdict for compensatory damages “sent a message.”
“It tells us what you’re thinking,” she said.
You can watch all testimony and arguments on my YouTube channel, and you can find extensive coverage on TikTok, Instagram and Facebook.
Thank you for supporting my independent legal affairs journalism. Your paid subscriptions make my work possible. If you’re not already a paid subscriber, please consider purchasing a subscription through Substack.