Maryland Injury Lawyer Blog

Good medical malpractice lawyers in Maryland read every high court opinion about medical malpractice. Yet I think everyone can skip the Maryland Court of Appeals opinion that was released today in Neustadter v. Holy Cross Hospital.

Neustadter is a malpractice/wrongful death case involving the death of a 91 year-old Holocaust survivor. Another interesting factoid: the decedent chose Holy Cross because it is a Catholic hospital which he believed to be compatible with his Orthodox Jewish beliefs for medical treatment.

Continue reading "New Maryland Malpractice Case You Don't Need to Know About" »

It is time for the 2011 Bella awards. Without further ado:

• #5: On October 10, 2010, after three days of deliberation, the jury read a verdict of $10.10 in an Atlanta, Georgia wrongful death case. Asked later, a juror said, "We are sorry that guy died. But the irony of awarding $10.10 was irresistible. We actually waited a few minutes to give our verdict at 10:10 a.m. Get it now? $10.10. Great, right?"
• #4: A jury in Orlando, Florida gave a defense verdict in a rear end accident case. The defendant claimed he put his Winnebago on cruise control and went back and made himself a sandwich. The jury agreed that it was reasonable to assume the cruise control would drive the Winnebago to its destination.
• #3: A Richmond, Virginia jury awards no damages to a 23 year-old pedestrian who was hit by an F-150 truck while walking on the sidewalk. The jury found the Plaintiff contributorily negligent because she was singing while she was walking.
• #2: Calvert County Maryland jury finds Defendant wrongfully shot plaintiff. With a gun. In the back. Jury awards $1.
• #1: Patient goes to Jackson, Mississippi hospital for gallbladder surgery. Doctor amputates leg. A Houston, Texas jury finds in favor of the doctor. Afterwards, the jury told the gathered press: "Hey, anyone could make that mistake."

Continue reading "Bella Awards" »

The Legal Intelligencer has a blog with a smart title any trial lawyer would love: “Beware of the Smiling Juror.” In their heads, lawyers agree with the premise of the article which is: trying to read jurors is a complete waste of energy. But at trial, our hearts overrule our heads and we find ourselves interpreting more useless clues than we ever did on the dating circuit.

With respect to the smiling juror, the author writes:

Of course, we also have the ever-mysterious “smiling juror.” Many of us may have encountered that person who looks right at us when we give our presentations with a grin on her face. That person can make us feel good because a smile is typically a friendly gesture by someone who likes us and agrees with us … unless it is not. That beaming smile, as we all know, can also be a sign that this particular juror is happy to have the opportunity to stick it to us the first chance she gets.

Continuing with the heart/head metaphor, a plaintiffs' personal injury trial lawyer's head knows that the case is ultimately about whether the jurors believe the client is entitled to compensation? Does it help if the jury likes the client or the lawyer? Sure. Jurors are just like us. But, ultimately in many more cases than not, the jury comes to a fair resolution based on what they believe the evidence to be.

Continue reading "Reading Jurors" »

Driver fatigue is a frequent cause of truck accidents. How frequent is a matter of opinion.

But more facts are on the way to creating informed opinions thanks to the Federal Motor Safety Administration's new Compliance Safety Accountability Program. Safety reporting is the defining feature of this program. One of my favorite aspects is the use of electronic on-board recovery. The new rule requires trucking companies who have violation rates of 10% or higher, with reference to discrepancies in time spent on the road and time recorded in their logs, to install recorders in all of their vehicles.

Clearly, the home run play would be to require electronic trucking logs in every vehicle. The problem of falsifying trucking logs has been well-known by truck accident lawyers for years. But proof is hard to come by. Unfortunately, transportation has not bounced back like the rest of the economy yet and there is little inertia in the Obama administration to take any action to increase transportation costs.

Continue reading "New Truck Accident Laws: Electronic On-Board Records" »

In Muti v. University of Maryland Medical Systems, the Maryland Court of Special Appeals returned again to a subject that, until recently, has gotten little attention by our appellate courts: "use plaintiffs" in wrongful death cases.

This is a medical malpractice wrongful death and survival action claim brought by two men who alleged that University of Maryland Medical Systems ("UMMS") doctors negligently tore their father's trachea during an intubation procedure after he had an acute myocardial infarction. Plaintiffs' malpractice lawsuit alleged the doctors failed to timely treat the torn trachea which led to complications that caused their father's death.

Tragic anyway you look at it but, so far, nothing out of the ordinary in a medical malpractice case. Until, in deposition testimony that apparently surprised lawyers on both sides, the sons testified that their father had a third adopted son. The hospital and the doctors jumped on this, filing a motion to dismiss for failing to join a necessary party. Baltimore City Circuit Court Judge Evelyn Cannon dismissed the plaintiffs' wrongful death claims without leave to amend, finding that in applying the law the court should not look to see "whether or not this will make it difficult for one party or the other.” This effectively barred the wrongful death claim because the three year statute of limitations had passed.

Continue reading "New Maryland Med Mal Appellate Opinion" »

There is an interesting opinion last week in a medical malpractice case involving federal diversity in U.S. District Court in Baltimore.

In Robertson v. Iuliano, Plaintiff filed suit against St. Agnes and another in-state defendant and against a neurologist who lives in Washington, D.C. Diversity shouldn't have been a problem because there is not complete diversity. But Plaintiff's malpractice lawyer served the out-of-state doctor first which allowed the doctor's lawyer to remove the case to federal court. The District Court, in an opinion by Judge Richard D. Bennett, denied Plaintiff's motion to remand the case back to Baltimore City Circuit Court.

The purpose of this rule is to prevent the gamesmanship of plaintiffs' lawyers who join defendants they never intend to serve to defeat diversity. But the rule creates more gamesmanship by defense lawyers who quickly remove a case that does not belong in federal court just because service is effectuated first on the out-of-state defendant.

The Drug and Device Law Blog has covered this removal issue eight different ways to Sunday (I don't know what that means and neither does the guy who named his blog after the expression). This is a good explanatory post which includes banter with me and the authors over whether this is a fair rule.

The take home message for malpractice lawyers suing an out-of-state defendant is clear: get service on the in-state defendants first.

I was going to write a rant about dealing with adjusters in claims against Baltimore City. Instead, I'm just going to cut and paste some notes we have taken in our efforts to resolve this car accident claim. No liability dispute, everyone agrees a huge truck owned by the City rear-ended my client. The problem is getting the City to make an offer.

It is easy to stick your chest out when you are dealing with a recalcitrant defendant and say we are just going to file a lawsuit. But that comes with costs and, with my office, an increase in attorneys' fees. So it makes more sense for the clients in some situations to just wait out the insanity. But, really, get a load of this:

12/22/2010 - JES - called the main line for Baltimore City Government - [410-396-3100] and asked for a supervisor's name for __________. The lady informed me that she did not have a supervisor's name, but she may be able to put me through to someone who can help. I was then transferred to a general voicemail for the law department. Instead of leaving a message, I called the CR herself. When I told her who I was and where I was calling from, she knew exactly which client I was going to reference and said, "it's scheduled for Tuesday." Before I even got a chance to ask any further questions, she hung up the phone.

12/07/2010 - JES - called and spoke with CR; she got snippy with me when she realized who I was calling on. "Didn't you just call yesterday?" I informed her that my persistence was due to the fact that the demand has been out since mid-August. She said to tell the attorneys, "A memo needs to be created, this is a process."

12/06/2010 - JES - l/m for CR.

12/02/2010 - JES - CR returned my call; she said she will have an offer by next week.

12/02/2010 - JES - l/m for CR.

11/30/2010 - JES - l/m for CR.

11/24/2010 - JES - l/m for CR.

11/19/2010 - JES - CR called from home office; she said she had an emergency dental situation, but she would try to call me on Monday upon her return with an offer.

11/19/2010 - JES - l/m for CR.

11/17/2010 - JES - l/m for CR.

11/12/2010 - JES - l/m for CR.

11/09/2010 - JES - l/m for CR.

11/04/2010 - JES - called and spoke with CR; she said she just got back from vacation and is straightening out her desk, but as she said before, this is top priority. She said she will call me back by 3:00 PM this afternoon.

11/02/2010 - JES - tried to call again and the same message played for extended leave.

11/01/2010 - JES - tried to leave message for CR, but the recording states that she has an "extended absence greeting and will not be accepting any new messages?" I will follow up.

10/21/2010 - JES - l/m for CR.

10/15/2010 - JES - l/m for CR to verify that she received demand figures.

10/13/2010 - JES - RVM related demand; faxed letter to CR at: 410-837-1152.

10/12/2010 - JES - CR called back; she said she has completed the evaluation and she just got the city report from the safety agency; she needs a few days to review the report as it was quite lengthy. She will be out of the office from 10/22/2010 -- 10/30/2010, but she said she has made it a top priority upon her return. The only thing she is missing is a "demand figure;" placed DRAFT letter on RVM's desk regarding policy limits.

10/12/2010 - JES - l/m for CR.

10/05/2010 - JES - l/m for CR.

09/16/10 RVM Message adjuster; she called back; I also spoke to GEICO who has not returned subro yet. We can expect an offer next month at some point. J, I would call in about three weeks.

09/14/2010 - JES - l/m for CR.

09/09/2010 - JES - l/m for CR.

08/30/2010 - JES - l/m for CR.

08/19/2010 - JES - sent out demand package.

• Some Wisconsin lawyers are helping us fight slip and fall injuries. I think. (JS Online via Overlawyered)
• Speaking of Wisconsin, the Drug and Device Law Blog thinks that tort reform in Wisconsin is upsetting to plaintiffs' lawyers. Rule #1 of Fight Club: don't talk about Fight Club. Rule #1 for defense lawyers: don't talk about the fact that they hate legislation that limits plaintiffs' 7th Amendment rights.
• Speaking of defense lawyers, check out this video of defense lawyers dealing with insurance adjusters. Please note: I never send you to humorous links on here. So if I do, it has to be funny. Trust me until I do you wrong.
• Speaking of humor and insurance claims adjusters, this is a funny look at a plaintiffs' lawyer settling soft tissue injury cases with insurance companies. As silly as this is, I think there is a lesson for all personal injury lawyers here about setting expectations. I think too many lawyers give their clients unrealistic expectations regarding the value of their case which just sets the client up for disappointment. This is even more of a problem in serious injury cases.
• Speaking of doing someone wrong, check out this bad faith verdict against Paul Revere.
• Speaking of bad faith, Max Kennerly writes about the sham House hearings on medical malpractice tort reform.
• Speaking of medical malpractice, the TortsProf Blog gives its own roundup of links. It has a few medical malpractice links, including one from me (thanks, guys).

I filed a billion dollar lawsuit today on behalf of a car accident victim. The lawsuit arose out of a rear end auto accident where the Plaintiff suffered soft tissue injuries to her neck and back that did not resolve until eight weeks later.

Continue reading "Billion Dollar Lawsuit" »