Maryland Injury Lawyer Blog

Reading trial transcripts is a great educational tool for both new and experienced trial lawyers. Getting sample trial transcripts is not easy because unless a case gets appealed on the substance of the trial, you never get a transcript. I think 10 years from now we will have an inventory of all of our trial transcripts readily at hand. Now, I can tell you the number of trial transcripts I have seen on one hand (not counting O.J. and Casey Anthony obviously).

I wish we kept all of the trial transcripts we have had. But we have pulled together a number of them - including a $1 million verdict in a truck accident case - which I think are worth a peek. You can find them here.

The Maryland Daily Record reports that Dean Philip J. Closius has resigned as University of Baltimore School of Law, citing differences with University President Robert L. Bogomolny over the amount of law school revenue the university keeps.

Dean Closius came here with a reputation as a guy who was not particularly, how should I say, politically delicate. I think he left on bad terms with the University of Toledo College of Law after doing a great job moving that school up in the food chain. But am I shocked that he resigned and that President Bogomolny actually asked for Closius' resignation? Yes.

I don't follow the UB law gossip much. I had no idea that there was some battle over whether Steve Snyder would have the law school named after him. Is there a legal drama in Baltimore that does not involve Steve Snyder?

The Daily Record says Closius will take one year of administrative leave before returning to the UB law school as a full-time faculty member. I can't imagine that will actually come to pass.

I've been on the faculty at UB for 13 years. We have had more false starts at that school. "Here were go, we are rising up!" only to fall back to exactly where we were. Under Dean Closius, we really started making real, substantive, measurable progress.

Continue reading "UB Dean Closius Resigned? Seriously?" »

• An Iowa jury will get to decide whether to hold a bus company liable for wrongful death for dropping a 13-year-old at the wrong bus stop, where she met up with an adult man by whom she had been sexually abused. The man took her to meet his friend, who eventually killed her.
• Max Kennerly goes after people who deride the trend toward making playgrounds safer. With lots of italics and bolded text.
• In a profanity-laden blurb, you can read about one lawyer suing another lawyer for allegedly breaking his wrist during a deposition.
• A federal jury has convicted former Eastern Shore cardiologist John McLean of putting in unnecessary stents. He could be sentenced to a maximum of 35 years. That sound you hear? It's ex-cardiologist Mark Midei, who has not been criminally charged for similar behavior, shaking in his boots.
• A man who was Tasered outside a Knights of Columbus hall in Forestville by an off-duty cop providing security, has lost his PG County lawsuit against the building's operator, but he's not giving up.
• A former Ohio police officer and his wife had sued Ford for $20 million after his Crown Vic cruiser was hit by a drunken driver and burst into flames, but a jury found the car company not liable for the officer's injuries.
• Can you sue for spiritual injury?
• What a name for a law book about wrongful death cases involving corporations!

Mealy's reports on Jones v. Penn National, a North Carolina uninsured motorist case where the Plaintiff brought a bad faith claim against Penn National, the underinsured motorist carrier, in a case where the at fault defendant - insured by Allstate, naturally - did not tender their policy. The court said that Defendant has no obligation to offer UIM coverage before the exhaustion of liability insurance. I think a Maryland court would make the same ruling.

That's the nutshell. You can stop there. Perhaps I could interest you in an overview of uninsured motorist coverage. Is that something you might be interested in? (Entourage devotees enjoy the joke. Everyone else looks annoyed.) Or we can break it down a little further.

Plaintiff gets into a serious accident. The defendant driver is killed. Allstate, who insured the defendant, offered $7,500 of its $30,000 policy. Plaintiff takes the case to verdict and gets a $185,000 verdict. (Maybe Colossus didn't have a good handle on this one.)

Plaintiff then brought a bad faith claim invoking North Carolina's UIM statute and its Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices Act. Maryland has a similar law. Plaintiff's lawyers claimed that Penn National was bound by a statutory duty — following the car accident and before Allstate tendered its policy - to evaluate the case fairly and honestly. In other words, they are arguing that Penn National is not as dumb as Allstate and knew the claim was worth more.

Continue reading "New Underinsured Motorist Opinion" »

This post was supposed to be about Medicare set-asides but I started with such a long intro about the psychology of claims adjusters that I'll just hit the Medicare issue in a later post. (Or I'll completely forget about it.)

To understand claims adjusters, you have to get inside the labyrinth that is the claims adjuster's mind. (Why labyrinth? I'm just trying to use mildly inflammatory language. I'll stop.) Insurance claims adjusters are more Pete Rose than Barry Bonds: they get paid for singles, not home runs. The great things a claims adjuster does vanish into thin air; the mistakes live on. Ironically, plaintiffs' lawyers operate in the exact opposite world: hit a few million dollar verdicts in a row and everyone forgets your losses. Reason #42,353 why plaintiffs' attorneys and insurance adjusters are the Montagues and Capulets.

Accident lawyers have a misconception about this, thinking adjusters get hugs from the higher ups for ripping off a plaintiffs' lawyer in a settlement negotiation. Actually, hugs is the wrong word - they do get hugs. But, mostly, that's it. The way to make a name for yourself is not by screwing plaintiffs' lawyers but by not screwing up yourself. Make sure everyone likes you and, more importantly, don't make any mistakes. Overpaying on an accident case is not that big of a screw up: but failure to have a death certificate in the file before paying a wrongful death case? That is a federal crime in the insurance world. Under-reserving a case? That's an aggravated felony.

Continue reading "Inside the Mind of a Car Accident Claims Adjuster" »

• Baltimore injury lawyer Barry Glazer of "don't urinate on my leg" fame gets some major attention from Above the Law. I don't think this is the kind of attention our firm wants. This is not great PR for personal injury attorneys that reliably cements the stereotypes about car accident lawyers. But give Barry Glazer this: he's authentic.
• "The Mississippi Supreme Court has stopped all proceedings in an asbestos case that resulted in a record $322 million verdict until a decision is made on whether the trial judge should be removed." HT: Overlawyered.
• McDonald's hot coffee redux. Bonus tip from David Ball's book on damages: don't argue the McDonald's case in voir dire. Just neutrally get the juror's opinions.
• When can baseball pitchers sue successfully?
• So-called tort reform strikes again.

Continue reading "Personal Injury Links" »

One of the things I really like about David Ball's "Damages 3" is his willingness to talk about difficult issues that personal injury lawyers deal with but no one really talks about in polite conversation much less in a trial advocacy book.

In his book, Ball writes about attacking stereotypes head-on with juries. Although things are changing a bit in recent years (like him or hate him, Doug Christie is a part of the solution), discrimination against fat people is one of the few remaining politically acceptable outposts for bigotry and discrimination. Ball says that jurors particularly associate fat people with being lazy, greedy, sloppy, and worse. Ball does not say this but let's face another fact: people are harder on fat women than they are on fat men.

Are these stereotypes ridiculous? Of course. It is criminally ridiculous. But trial lawyers don't have the luxury of climbing above the fray on our high horses. Lawyers have to take their juries as they find them and live in the real world. In our real world as plaintiffs' lawyers we are required to give jurors the facts they need to conclude that the plaintiffs deserve the compensation we believe they are entitled to.

Personal injury lawyers instinctively know this. So many of us counter this groundless assumption with the empty and the trite. "She's was always on the go" or "She had barrels of energy" is the type of testimony often elicited.

Continue reading "Fat and Smelly Plaintiffs: David Ball on Damages, Part 4" »

The Maryland Accident Lawyer Blog has a post about how and why State Farm and many other insurance companies deliberately give deficient discovery responses. The post is about expert designations but, really, it applies to all discovery obligations.

Cheerleader dates boy. Boy dates new girl. New girl wants to be cheerleader. She fails to make team. She sues.

I may have glossed over some Cruel Intentions/Mean Girlness of it all - the juicy Facebook posts, the calling the new girl a slut, the suspensions and all the fun. But that is the gist of it.

The 5th Circuit affirmed the dismissal of this case, concluding this is a "petty squabble, masquerading as a civil rights matter, that has no place in federal court or any other court.

The opinion is interesting and fun (it really trashes Plaintiff's lawyers). But I think what is important is what the opinion does not say. It does not say this girl - I'm calling her the "new girl" - was not wronged. It does not say she was not wrongfully excluded from the cheerleading team. It does not say she should not have pursued her grievance with school administrators.

Continue reading "Cruel Intentions, Cheerleaders and Our Judicial System" »

It is becoming cliché to say that social media is the next big thing in litigation discovery. In personal injury cases, I think social media captures the imagination of insurance adjusters and in-house counsel who inflate the likelihood of finding evidence on Facebook and Twitter that is going to be a game changer at trial. There have been more articles and blog posts about social media discovery than "Holy Grail, We Will Have Our Perry Mason Moment" discoveries.

One issue that has received little attention is just how creepy insurance defense and other lawyers can be in snooping into people's social media postings. Admittedly, the creep factor is pretty low for just Googling what is available on the party or witness on line. But anything beyond that... well, it is not exactly Jack Nicholson in "The Shining" or Steve Buscemi in "Fargo" territory but, still, I would think most lawyers would at least want to take a quick shower after playing amateur voyeur.

San Diego County Bar Legal Ethics Committee takes a look at where the line is from needing to take a shower and unethical behavior. In an advisory opinion, the committee says that it is unethical for opposing counsel to try to Facebook friend a client's former employer’s employee in a wrongful termination lawsuit.

Continue reading "Who Can You Friend?" »

The Maryland Court of Appeals decided another case in the ongoing saga that continues to burn forests that is the Maryland Local Government Tort Claims Act.

First, it is worth noting: the LGTCA is stupid. Really stupid. There is just no reason in 2011 why we put unreasonable burdens on people that are hurt by local government. Personal injury lawyers blow or miss the LGTCA de facto "state of limitations" to give notice of a claim all of the time. Most of those lawyers should know better. But in this case, there is just no reason why the Plaintiff (actually, the estate of the decedent in this case) should have to know about complying with the Local Government Tort Claims Act.

President Obama was asked a tough question at one of the debt ceiling press conferences this week: why do - in massive numbers - the American people shrug off the debt ceiling? The President said - in so many words - the American people know nothing about the subject. Sounds condescending but then he adds the caveat that is germane here: they shouldn't. People are too busy with their lives - their jobs, their kids, American Idol, and whatnot - that they don't have time to focus on the nuances of the debt ceiling.

Same goes with the Local Government Tort Claims Act. You have to realize: the sad reality is that most lawyers handling car accident cases don't understand the Local Government Tort Claims Act. Why do we expect people on the street to understand and follow these rules?

(Brief Post Interruption: Ultimately, if you read the case, you know I'm retrofitting the facts to fit my narrative. There was a lawyer involved in the case early on who - putting it politely - could have set this case up a little better. And plaintiff - who filed a tort claim but was not injured in an accident - didn't really lose the case for failure to provide sufficient notice under the LGTCA but for failure to allege compliance with the LGTCA in the Complaint. I think this is the wrong call, too. I'll get to that point, I promise. But the court makes pretty clear they would have hammered him on the notice if it had been alleged in the Complaint. )

Continue reading "Maryland Local Government Tort Claims Act" »

I'm not in the habit of offering advice to injury defense lawyers. Okay, actually I am. So here goes: defense attorneys, it is highly impolitic to combat a study suggesting that people who live near mountaintop mining operations are at higher risk of birth defects by saying the study didn't take into account the effects of "consanguinity" in Appalachia. Yes, that's right; Crowell and Moring, which has deep ties to the National Mining Association, implied that Appalachians who live near mines are having babies with birth defects not because of the mines... but because they're inbred.

The ABA Journal notes that, stereotypes aside, Appalachians aren't any more inbred than the rest of us. Ultimately, if you are going to throw out politically incorrect invectives about something that causes children and families great pain, at least be right.

The firm is now backpedaling, saying that consanguinity should be taken into account any region, and that it never meant to imply that Appalachians have a high rate of inbreeding. I would have liked to the video of the angst at the partners' meeting where they panicked and drafted this PR back away.

I'm glad Aaron Rodgers is with us and all. But having Aaron Rodgers explaining insurance coverage to me... I'd rather Aaron just focus on the Cover 2 defense, a topic on which he clearly has a firm handle.

• First came "Hot Coffee," the pro-tort claim documentary. Now there's InJustice, which takes just the opposite approach to injury suits, particularly mass torts. Abnormal Use - who I attacked a few weeks ago - has a pretty balanced review. I think I have scared Abnormal Use into keeping it real and being fair and balanced. (You can't convince me otherwise. Look for their "Sinister Confession of a Defense Lawyer" post next week as further proof. ) The Pop Tort also posts on the topic.
• Casey Anthony, Philip K. Dick, and rules for trial lawyers, courtesy of Max Kennerly. Speaking of Casey Anthony - is there anything else to talk about - Carolyn Elefant provides some background on Casey Anthony's lawyer that floored me but that you probably already knew about.
• Would you hire a professional actor to read a deposition? I'm having visions of a really bad Shakespearean actor-reject reading lines in a halting Shatnerian staccato, but maybe that's unfair.
• Wrongful death non-economic damages verdict statistics

Continue reading "Personal Injury Links/Information/News" »

Here's an order we received in Anne Arundel County requiring a recidivist defense expert to produce his financial records before examining the Plaintiff.

I think there is the assumption that my firm is involved in some sort of jihad against IME doctors. Self-referential as this may be, I think we have done more than any law firm in Maryland legal history in fighting for the right to present to a jury evidence of just how deep into the back pocket of insurance companies the doctor is and let them conclude whether this should matter. I'm very proud of this. We are fighting for our clients at every possible turn and our work has created good case law and helped put our clients in the best position to get the settlement or verdict we think they deserve.

That said, I think there are a lot of frequent flyer defense IME doctors that are good people giving honest opinions. Some, less so. (I understate a bit to gain credibility with you, the reader, here.) The battlefield on IMEs is simply whether the expert is required to produce financial information to let the jury decide whether the doctor is unduly motivated by who is paying his freight. Is it the single biggest battlefield in crossing IME doctors? No, I really don't think it is (David Ball apparently agrees with me). But does it matter? Is it the touchstone issue in a minority of personal injury cases? Absolutely. We get paid to advocate for our clients at every single turn. Defense lawyers do the same. It is the way this game is supposed to be played.

Continue reading "Order Compelling Expert to Produce Financial Information" »

The Maryland Court of Special Appeals reversed last week a Harford County judge's dismissal of a claim against the state of Maryland for negligent failure to maintain, repair and reconstruct a bridge where accidents were beyond commonplace. In this case, the bridge was the site of a fatal cross-over car accident collision that led to the death of a young girl.

The Plaintiff's claim is a Hail Mary: you should have erected a Jersey Wall because of the prior head-on and cross-over accidents about which the state obviously had notice. It is Hail Mary where, instead of throwing for the end zone, you are just trying to get a first down because the cap limits the claim to $200,000. Still, a long line of Maryland cases have allowed individual suits against local municipalities for failure to properly maintain roads and sidewalks. The question is whether this same logic extends to claims against the State of Maryland.

Boy, this case has some powerful facts. The Director of Engineering for the Maryland Transportation Authority determined, well prior to this fatal cross-over accident, that a concrete median barrier was both necessary and feasible. Plaintiff also claims the State of Maryland admitted in discovery that there had been a lengthy, unexplained and dangerous delay in installing that median barrier after the State realized it was a no-brainer to put up a Jersey Wall. Why a no-brainer? There had been 142 accidents on that bridge, according to Plaintiff. This is a "stop in your tracks" statistic.

Continue reading ""State of Maryland Should Put Up a Jersey Wall" Opinion " »

The House Judiciary Committee has approved a bill called the Lawsuit Abuse Reduction Act that would mandate sanctions against lawyers who file "frivolous" complaints. As the Justice Watch blog points out, this would lead to a ridiculous amount of lawyers', litigants' and judges' time being wasted on arguing this issue instead of--gee, I don't know--arguing the merits?

Also - and I know I'm a broken record at this point - the truly silly cases don't make it very far anyway. The bill would save the courts minimal time and money and would risk trampling on the rights of legitimate plaintiffs. Finally, the vast majority of personal injury lawyers aren't taking claims that we know are ridiculous. We work on contingency. No recovery, no fee.

I have an unbelievably tragic wrongful death car accident case. A very good man with an unbelievably good family - here's a clue: they were/are very concerned about injuries sustained by the man that caused the car accident - was rear-ended by another car at a high rate of speed in Prince George's County.

At first, liability was in serious question. The police report took forever but, ultimately, the Prince George's County Police got it right to the point where it would be virtually impossible to contend otherwise. Liability is clear.

The defendant has a minimum limits policy with Allstate. The decedent and his wife had a $300,000 underinsured motorist policy with GEICO that, while better than most personal car insurance policies, is still awful. GEICO wants us to jump through every single hoop: death certificate, medical records after the accident, and so forth. I'm cool with that actually. GEICO has auditors and they have to answer for the details of their file. I'm more than happy to do my job.

So I talk to the GEICO claims adjuster yesterday- who, by the way is a good claims adjuster and otherwise a nice person - who throws out a "So, ultimately, what do you think this case should settle for?"

Bracketing for just a second how insulting it is to think I might fall for this, I'm wondering: what if I had said, "I think it is worth $200,000." Does the adjuster then extend a settlement offer - to its own policyholder - a value of the case that is certainly far less than it is worth?

Continue reading "GEICO's Valuation of a Wrongful Death Case" »

Women are bad drivers according to a new University of Michigan study. Granted, the study is too politically correct to say just that. These are serious people, not bloggers. But, really, it is impossible to ramrod any other conclusion from this study.

The study looked at 6.5 million car accidents and found that women cause more car accidents per mile driven then men. The study's lead author found the scope of the difference "astounding."

This is a very difficult argument to make. Not hard intellectually. But hard to make with a PC face on. Ultimately, I don't think most women care much about this "attack" for the same reason I would not care about studies that show men are more violent and less caring. As long as you are not talking about me, you can say anything you want. Same goes for lawyers too, by the way. You think almost all personal injury lawyers are ambulance chasers? Fine. As long you don't include me, I'm cool. But there is going to be an outraged minority that will drive past the data and skip right to indignation.

Continue reading "Women Are Bad Drivers Says University of Michigan Study" »

• Should guilty pleas in traffic court be admissible? A yes vote.
• Medical malpractice news from last week.
• A paralegal's startling confession: she does not hate lawyers.
• Venture capital flocks to medical malpractice insurance? Gee why?
• There is a new malpractice crisis according to the L.A. Times. Wait, take a look. This is from 1969. Jon Bon Jovi said it best. It is all the same. Only the names have changed.

On Tuesday, Medicare and Medicaid set forth new and revised conditional payment final demand letters that are reported to comply with Haro v. Sebelius, No. CV 09-134 TUC DCB, 2011 WL 2040219 (D. Ariz., May 9, 2011). The word on the street is that Medicare has six new conditional payment final demand letters with all new lien language in personal injury and workers' comp cases.

Is dealing with Medicare on product liability, malpractice and accident cases about to get a lot easier? I don't know but I'm giddy. I'll let you know when I find out more details.

• My original Haro v. Sebelius post (which has a link to the case)
• Court rules on motion to enforce settlement when insurance company balks over lien issues
• Lien Resolution Services blog post
• ERISA liens and the "made whole" doctrine
• Five things you don't know about personal injury liens