Maryland Injury Lawyer Blog

I was trying an auto accident case recently where the Plaintiff’s lost wages were at issue. The Plaintiff did not have an “off slip” from a doctor. Instead, she took off work when she felt like her pain dictated taking a day off. On cross-examination, my client was grilled – over objection – about whether the medical records sitting at the trial table contained an “off slip” from a doctor. The client admitted - somewhat sheepishly - that no note was obtained.

In his State of the Union address in January, 2004, George W. Bush told the American people, “We do not need a permission slip to defend America." How much energy do you think the administration spent to come up with that line? When a metaphor comes out of the Republican machine – and the Democratic machine, too, to be fair – they gave it some thought. With respect to the Republicans, George Lakoff’s Don’t Think of an Elephant offers great analysis into the GOP’s careful consideration of the use of language and metaphors. Lakoff writes:

What is going on with a permission slip? He could have just said, "We won't ask permission." But talking about a permission slip is different. Think about when you last needed a permission slip. Think about who has to ask for a permission slip. Think about who is being asked. Think about the relationship between them.

Personally, a permission slip reminds me of being a kid which reminds me of fun. But I get the point. In my case, my client was a well-respected scientist. The notion of this near workaholic scientist needing a permission slip to take time off from work was more than a little ridiculous.

One bizarre transformation that occurs when a citizen becomes a juror is the development of a poker face. Something about that power that turns people into Mike McDermott. (“Listen, here's the thing. If you can't spot the sucker in your first half hour at the table, then you are the sucker.”) I would like a psychologist to write an article about this phenomenon.

Continue reading "Trial Tactics Tips from George W. Bush" »

The Baltimore Injury Lawyer Blog offers additional insight into the Baltimore Sun's editorial on proposed changes to the medical malpractice cap in Maryland, including the Sun's publication of a letter to the editor presenting the victim's point of view on the issue of malpractice caps. Clearly, the Sun saw the light after criticism from the Maryland Injury Lawyer Blog. (Shhh. Let me delude myself.)

CNN has a story that would be very hard to believe if there was not a guilty plea. Two judges in Pennsylvania were paid $2.6 million in kickbacks to sentence juveniles to facilities for troubled teens. The judges have been disbarred and have resigned from the bench, agreeing to serve over 7 years in prison under their plea bargains.

The article offers a number of insane examples of the sentences of these judges. One 15-year-old was sent to a wilderness camp for mocking an assistant principal on her MySpace page. Incredible. I cannot imagine how all of this slipped through the cracks for as long as it did.

Last week, I wrote on the Maryland Medical Malpractice Attorney Blog about the Baltimore Sun taking a position opposing medical malpractice caps, choosing the new, innovative path of side stepping the substance of this issue and trying to demonize trial lawyers. The Baltimore Sun responded Sunday by printing a letter to the editor offering the opposing view on damage caps, explaining how children who lose a parent by the carelessness of someone else are woefully under-compensated. In other news yesterday, Larry Summers is stepping down from his position as Director of the National Economic Council to co-host The View.

Oh, wait. Those things didn’t happen. Instead, the Sun printed a “me too” editorial from Timonium doctor Mark Hass:

At a time when the nation's economy is slumping and the governor is proposing to mandate that Maryland hospitals and physicians provide more free care to lower-income families, it's ironic that the state House Judiciary Committee, led by trial lawyer Joseph F. Vallario Jr., is proposing legislation to roll back the reforms in the state's medical malpractice insurance policies enacted in 2004 ("Attack of the trial lawyers," editorial, Feb. 17).

Such a rollback would ultimately result in higher malpractice insurance rates for doctors and hospitals, higher health care costs for consumers, higher health insurance premiums for businesses, and, of course, higher incomes for well-heeled trial lawyers.

Perhaps the "attack" of these lawyers on physicians and hospitals will only abate when enough doctors have left Maryland and enough hospitals have closed that they no longer have anyone left to sue.

Dr. Mark Haas
Timonium

Continue reading "Medical Malpractice and the Baltimore Sun" »

The worst thing going for the perception of plaintiffs’ trial lawyers – and by extension, plaintiffs – is famous people. Because they sue and get sued in a way that completely misleads the public as to the extent to which the civil justice system is misused.

Case #34,230,290: A $15 million "fear of AIDS” lawsuit has been filed by the ex-girlfriend of HIV negative former Baltimore Orioles (among others) second baseman Roberto Alomar for having unprotected sex with her when he had “reason to know” he was HIV positive or had AIDS.

The young lady is fine. This is not a case. I’m 99% certain as to how this played out. Correctly or incorrectly, she believes Alomar has HIV. She demanded a settlement completely out of line with the fact that she has no real injury simply because she could embarrass the Defendant who has money. He refused. She chooses the nuclear option of filing a lawsuit.

Believe me, if this is you or me in Alomar’s shoes, there is no lawsuit in 99.99999% of the cases. (I’m assuming you are not rich and famous. If you are, here is the link to US Magazine. Thanks for stopping by.) But the public sees this kind of stuff constantly and it bleeds into the public perception of plaintiffs bringing personal injury cases.

We had put a sample trial transcript from a car accident trial in Charles County, Maryland on our website a few weeks ago. The sample transcript had some difficulties: the full transcript took too much time to load and specific sections were labeled by bates number instead of the actual numbers on the trial transcript. Anyway, we have sorted out all of this for those who want to see a sample transcript. (Note to those who vigorously complained about the mix-up: I’m very grateful for the heads-up on any error to the website or this blog. I often get suggestions/corrections and I really do appreciate it. But for some, it might be worth remembering that you are not a paid subscriber: it is all free!)

One of my verdicts from last year is on appeal and we will add this trial transcript, as well, when we receive it from the court reporter.

There is a battle now in the Maryland state legislature about whether Maryland should increase the minimum jurisdictional amount before a defendant can remove a case from District Court to Circuit Court. Defense lawyers for State Farm and Allstate, the two largest auto insurance providers in Maryland, routinely "bump up" District Court claims to Circuit Court if the amount in controversy is more than $10,000.

So what happens is we have a large volume of cases where insurance defense lawyers in Maryland are seeking jury trials in cases that do not belong in Circuit Court. Why? Do they think a jury will give them a more fair trial? Ironically, for the jury-hating insurance companies who continue to argue that juries are out of control, trust in juries is at least one reason insurance companies seek jury trials in Maryland auto accident cases (at least in some Maryland counties where juries are more conservative).

But the primary reason why insurance companies seek jury trials in smaller auto accident cases in Maryland is because it tortures Maryland auto accident lawyers. The insurance companies do this, not motivated by spite – well not primarily anyway, but because it is a good global tactic. A significant number of auto accident lawyers in Maryland are reticent to file a lawsuit. The threat of getting a small case going through the Circuit Court ringer is even more daunting to many Maryland injury lawyers. I’m not saying it should be. But it is for those seeking the path of least resistance.

Continue reading "Circuit Court Removal by Insurance Companies in Maryland Car Accident Cases" »

A Lord & Whip partner filed a Complaint for Voluntary Dissolution in Anne Arundel County Circuit Court. The Complaint is juicy to say the least, including information on how much revenue one partner had brought into the firm and how one of the Lord & Whip partners told the partner seeking dissolution that he was a "sociopath" who needs "psychiatric treatment."

I hesitated whether to post this because there is little educational value: this is just good Baltimore legal gossip. But it is good legal gossip and the details in the Complaint were not necessary for notice pleading. They have to have been added because the Plaintiff hoped someone would read them. So there you go. Mission Justification: accomplished.

You can read the entire complaint here.

It is much easier to comment on the content of other people's writings than writing commentary that is original and interesting. So let's go that route today. This is what I've been reading:

Generally, I dislike trying personal injury cases with high-low agreements that contain the size of the verdict. If you are going to force us to take the case to trial, I would prefer to have the chance of the upside. My gut level reaction is no deal.

But the problem with this bravado is clients. Our law firm has a decent volume of personal injury cases which means our lawyers are able to spread the risk of the possibility of a bad outcome at trial. Clients have just one case, so their risk calculus is very different. An added force of inertia for high-low agreements that tends to make the numbers more reasonable for injury victims is that insurance companies do want to limit the possibility of a verdict in excess of policy limits.

Continue reading "High-Low Agreements in Personal Injury Cases" »

Last Wednesday, I reported on the Seroquel summary judgment in Florida in the much awaited first Seroquel MDL. The opinion appeared to give AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals a boost (although there are a thousand variables that are involved in the 1% rise in the stock price – the Seroquel lawsuits are a small piece of the large mosaic that is a major pharmaceutical company) and depress not only Seroquel litigants and their lawyers, but also plaintiffs’ lawyers in drug and medical device litigation, who have had a tough year.

But after reading the order granting the summary judgment in this Seroquel case, the reports of the demise of the Seroquel litigation were greatly exaggerated. This case was decided on its particular facts, and the fact pattern in this case was not advantageous for Seroquel lawyers.

Continue reading "Seroquel Lawsuits: Followup to Summary Judgment Ruling in Florida" »