Maryland Injury Lawyer Blog

Instead of discussing various torts that could be committed against Raul Ibañez, a man I will now irrationally detest for the rest of my adult life, let's talk today about witness statements and whether they are discoverable. There was an interesting opinion in a California wrongful death case this summer, that I've been meaning to blog about for a while now, about whether recorded statements are discoverable.

This case - Coito v. California - comes to us on facts that are beyond tragic. A 13-year-old boy drowned in the Tuolumne River in Modesto, California. His mother filed a wrongful death lawsuit against a number of defendants, including the State of California.

There were six witnesses, all boys with the young boy who died. There was lots of talk in the air that all were in the process of committing crimes. Obviously, the defendants found this of interest. Defendants were able to get recorded statements from some of the kids. When the kids were deposed, the defendants used the recorded statement to hold one of the kid's feet to the fire on their prior statements.

But, being defendants, they did not want to turn over the recorded statements to the plaintiff, citing the work product privilege. Motions ensued. The trial court denied plaintiff's motion to get the statements, but did order defendants to produce the recording used at the deposition.

Continue reading "Are Witness Statements Discoverable? New Appellate Opinion" »

Forbes, via Overlawyered, has an interesting article on Houston lawyer, Steve Susman's efforts to covert lawyers on both sides of the aisle to try more jury trials... and make cases easier to try. How? Buy reaching stipulations on all of the dumb things lawyers argue about and seek to discovery before trial.

Great idea that will never work in vehicle accident or medical malpractice cases in Maryland. Why? Rule #1 of being an insurance defense lawyer for both in-house and outside counsel is don't screw up by doing something outside of the box. For example, one suggestion Susman makes is to agree in advance not to depose each other's experts. After a large verdict, every insurance company starts doing a CSI forensics witch-hunt. "You did not depose the plaintiffs' experts. Why? Did you get permission for Jonathan P. Paperpusher for that decision?" Insurance companies are not promoting (in-house lawyers for car insurance companies) or doling out work to lawyers (outside counsel) who take outside-the-box risks that could backfire. Insurance companies give out a lot of love to singles hitters, but far less to home run hitters who occasionally strike out.

Continue reading "How to Try More Cases" »

Lawyers do not have a natural affinity for checklists. Lawyers have egos that compare with any profession and checklists are a reminder of your mind's limitations. "I'm not making mistakes in working up cases so why would I need a checklist?" But, sometimes, a new wave of studies are showing, you do not know that you are omitting important things that you have to do to work up an accident case unless you are reminded to do them by a checklist. When do lawyers figure this out? Trial. Most accident cases are settled before trial. So you don't even have the constant reminders of your errors from not having a checklist.

Continue reading "Car and Truck Accident Case Checklist" »

When picking a jury, peremptory strikes are a big deal. There are almost invariably a few prospective jurors that are high up on the roll call that you just know are anti-plaintiff. I don't know how I actually know this - you get just a glimpse of Maryland jurors in voir dire - but I just do. They have this indescribable "I assume the plaintiff's case is garbage and I can't believe I'm here" look. Defense lawyers have a similar fear, of course, terrified of the "I can feel your pain to the point where I'm able to set aside logic and reason" look. Both of these jurors get rooted out by peremptory strikes. And the "look" is fair game as long as it is not based on race, religion, or gender. In Maryland, you get four peremptory challenges plus one peremptory challenge for each group of three or less alternate jurors to be impaneled. So, generally, you get 5 strikes.

Maryland car accident lawyers on both sides of the aisle now assume that Maryland law, after Maurer v. Penn National, is that if an uninsured motorist insurance company waives its subrogation interest in a case when the at fault driver offers her policy limits, that insurance company cannot contest liability at trial.

Plaintiffs' attorneys in Maryland disagree as to whether this is a good rule. Clearly, the problem with the rule for plaintiffs is that insurance companies are less likely to waive subrogation when the underlying insured offers policy limits. This means you have to deal with two sets of defense attorneys which means almost twice the hassle. Insurance companies are also doing side deals now, where the underinsured motorist carrier waivers subrogation on the DL (that's "down low" if you were not cool ten years ago), presumably with a pinky promise.

What does this have to do with jury strikes? Well, defense lawyers try to parlay this double lawyer albatross into double strikes. Can they do this? Maryland Rule 2-512 (h) says that multiple plaintiffs or defendants should be considered a single party unless the court finds that "adverse or hostile interests between plaintiffs or between defendants" justify separate challenges.

In uninsured and underinsured motorist cases, it is hard to claim that the interests of these parties are anything other than the same. But I got broadsided with this argument a few years ago during a trial in Baltimore County. It was a tough case anyway, I was in Baltimore County and, over strenuous objection, both the at-fault driver and the underinsured motorist carrier (MAIF and GEICO) were given strikes. I don't have to tell you how it turned out: awful. (Yet, still, it was more than the settlement offer which pretty much summarizes dealing with MAIF and GEICO).

Continue reading "Jury Strikes Matter" »

I read four personal injury related appellate opinions that were published last week that I think are worth reading:

Thibodeaux v. Trahan: Like most personal injury lawyers, I have been hit with post-trial remitter motions from defense attorneys claiming that the jury’s verdict was unreasonably high. But no plaintiff’s lawyer is silly enough to file a post-trial motion for additur to raise the verdict because it is never going to work. I think federal law prohibits additur in federal court jury awards.
Someone forgot to tell the Plaintiff’s lawyer in this rear-end accident bus case in Louisiana who appealed the trial court’s failure to award future pain and suffering. The appellate court changed not only the comparative negligence allocation but increased the plaintiff’s damages, finding that the trial court failed to award enough damages.

Crazy, right? The facts were unique. This was a bench trial where the trial judge specifically found that the Plaintiff will need future surgery for her knee but did not award damages. Juries, I guess, get a pass on inconsistencies in their verdicts because it could be the result of compromise. But a trial judge deciding damages cannot form a compromise in her own mind and has to make an award consistent with the court’s findings. (Actually, I read this malpractice opinion that was decided last Thursday that makes a similar point.)

Louisiana law allows the appellate court to increase the award to the lowest amount reasonably within the trier of fact’s discretion. I don’t think Maryland law prohibits additur but there is no recorded case in Maryland where the trial court increased a damage award. I don’t know why, if we have remitter we should have additur under Goose v. Gander.

Osorio v. One World Technologies: The First Circuit affirmed a $ 1.5 million award in a product liability case in Massachusetts involving a defectively designed power saw that Plaintiff’s employer bought at Home Depot.

Plaintiff’s hand injury occurred on a construction site while operating a $179 Ryobi Model BTS15 benchtop table saw bought at Home Depot. While cutting a piece of wood, Plaintiff’s left hand slipped and went into the saw’s blade.

Plaintiff’s attorney put up a witness at trial who invented a device that allows a table saw to sense when the blade comes into contact with the user’s body and stops the blade from spinning. This is very cool, of course, but none of the major table saw manufacturers bought the invention.

Plaintiff’s theory as to why? Basically an Oliver Stoneian conspiracy theory that the manufacturers' failure to incorporate this invention is because of a collective understanding that if any of them adopts the technology, then the others will face heightened liability exposure for not following suit.

Honestly, I’m not sure that entirely even makes sense and I really doubt that is what happened. The messenger is a bit suspect, too: the guy who failed to sell table saw manufacturers on his technology.

Continue reading "Four Personal Injury Opinions From Last Week You Should Read" »

The Maryland Court of Appeals tackled a piece of one of the new vexing issues our courts face: dealing with social media. Most of the legal opinions circulating around involve discovery of social media such as Facebook and Twitter in civil cases. The court's opinion in Griffin v. State deals with a different issue: determining the appropriate way to authenticate at trial electronically stored information printed from a social networking site. This is a Cecil County criminal case but the same logic would apply to a civil case so it is a case personal injury lawyers really should read.

In this Cecil County case, Defendant's girlfriend apparently had a My Space name of “Sistasouljah” who put an entry on her page that read: "FREE BOOZY!!!! JUST REMEMBER SNITCHES GET STITCHES!! U KNOW WHO YOU ARE!!”. Without going into the details of the case, it suffices to say that this did not reflect well on the Defendant's case.

For reasons that are unclear, the prosecutor did not try to authenticate this social media entry through the Defendant's girlfriend although she did testify. Instead, they tried to use a police officer who, on the stand, put two and two together.

A divided Maryland Court of Appeals disagreed that the officer can authenticate a social media posting because the identity of who generated the profile is unknown. In other words, the court's problem is that just because I put up a Facebook profile claiming I'm Charlie Sheen, it does not mean that I'm Charlie Sheen.

Judge Harrell appreciated the concern of the technical "heebie-jeebies" (yeah, he used that phrase and defined it by footnote) but believes that you can add two and two together under these facts because the heebie-jeebie concerns go to the weight to be given the evidence by the trier of fact. If the post was not the girlfriend's post, the Defendant should feel free to argue that, in Judge Harrell's opinion.

Continue reading "New Maryland Social Media Evidence Opinion" »

Last week, the Maryland Court of Special Appeals decided Logan v. LSP Marketing, a lead paint case in Baltimore City.

In this case, Plaintiff did not answer discovery. Defense lawyers, who I believe were the Leder Law Group in D.C., filed a motion to compel. In what is regrettably a common practice in Maryland, the motion to compel got Plaintiff to answer the discovery and their response was "hey, this is moot, we answered now." Defendant's counsel, to their credit, wrote a reply saying the answers were insufficient in part because Plaintiff wrote garden variety broad designations of experts. The motion was granted but a more detailed expert designation never came.

So before trial, Defendant sought to strike the experts. Baltimore City Judge Kaye A. Allison struck Plaintiff's experts from testifying at trial. When the case went to trial, Judge John P. Miller denied the motion to reconsider Judge Allison's motion. Which left Plaintiff with no case and Judge Miller granted Defendant's motion for summary judgment.

Continue reading "New Expert Designations Opinion" »

The Drug and Device Law Blog writes a good post on a recent Facebook discovery opinion, arguing in favor of making Facebook posts, ostensibly intended only for your "friends", discoverable:

We might have responded: C’mon, Dude, everyone knows that what you tell or write your friends may come out some day. You knew that when your best bro told everybody about that problem in your nether regions. And when your teacher intercepted the note you passed in class, you never would have thought to object on privilege grounds before she read it to the class. Nor could you do anything when the cops squeezed your roommate and he told them where you said your stash was. So why should what you tell your friends in Facebook posts be protected from disclosure when what you tell your friends in other ways is not?

First, I wonder if the Drug and Device Law Blog is suggesting discovery should just be produced or reviewed in camera by the court. The blog has argued forcefully for liberal designation of confidentiality for discovery documents. But Facebook posts that could cause embarrassment and humiliation and be used completely out of context? Let's all look at those. We should be sensitive to huge multinational drug companies but let's just rifle through the little man's private life. Somewhere, Michele Bachmann is smiling and she does not know why.

Continue reading "Facebook Discovery News" »

After a car accident, police do an investigation, talk to the witnesses, and file a police report. Although the police report is generally inadmissible at trial in Maryland, the facts contained in the report and the conclusion of the police officer as to who was at fault colors - sometimes permanently -how the insurance companies view the merits of accident claims.

In serious injury accident cases, often there are parties to the accident who are unable to talk to police because they are tending to their injuries. Obviously, this problem is even more pronounced in wrongful death accident cases.

I recently received a call from a potential client who forwarded to me the police report in this case that showed that she was undeniably the cause of the accident. The problem was that as a matter of physics and given the property damage, the accident could not have happened as the police report suggested. What did the woman who was listed at-fault tell the police after the accident? Nothing. She was airlifted to shock trauma. So the police officer listened to the driver that was there, accepted his story and then filed his police report listing the woman as the at-fault driver.

The big lesson here for accident lawyers is to take the police report's findings with a grain of salt. If you have a serious injury case, do your own investigation of the accident as opposed to making a decision on the case by looking at the police report.

• Sample Police Reports (under "Sample Forms for Car Accident Lawyers")
• Baltimore City Police Reports (how to get)
• Montgomery County Police Reports
• New (Since Modified) Rules on Getting Police Reports
• Ambulance Chasers Using Accident Reports

In addition to Kearney v. Berger, there was another interesting opinion that came down from Maryland's appellate courts yesterday. The Maryland Court of Special Appeals ruled on an interesting discovery issue in a landlord-tenant case that has implications for Maryland personal injury lawyers.

The underlying case is a dispute between Checkers - I'm assuming it is the fast food chain Checkers we are talking about - and its landlord. Checkers claimed it exercised an option to extend its lease. The case involved an estoppel certificate and a bunch of other things that I did not fully understand. Checkers sought documents from Gallagher Evelius & Jones (GEJ), a Baltimore law firm that represented the landlord. GEJ claimed a bunch of exceptions to the attorney-client privilege that were quite interesting. But the trial court never got to the merits of the argument because GEJ did not present its opposition to the motion to compel in the proper “set-up format.”

At first, I did a double take when I saw proper "set-up format." There is a proper set-up format? But without knowing it, I think everyone here does file their motions to compel in what the trial court saw as the proper set up format: setting up the controversy in the pleadings with the request, the response to the request, and the argument so the court is not required to flip back and forth between documents. I never thought it was a requirement and I'm still not sure that it is. But it seems like a good idea to avoid further annoying the trial court - usually rightfully so - that you have already annoyed with a discovery dispute in the first place.

Continue reading "New CSA Opinion on Discovery" »

George Washington Law Review has published an article titled, appropriately, Against Summary Judgment. The premise of the article is that summary judgment is an archaic procedural device that usurps the role of the jury.

Nonsense. Summary judgment resolves cases that juries should not have to decide because the law bars the claim... or the defense.

I find particularly annoying this premise of the article: summary judgment is bad because most cases that now go to summary judgment would settle early rather than go to trial. In other words, cases that should fail because they have not stated a claim under the law will still settle because the defendant will want to avoid the risks and costs of litigation.

Setting aside offensive summary judgment for a second which is an important tool in a plaintiffs' lawyers arsenal, I'm a personal injury lawyer who would theoretically benefit from such a paradigm shift in jurisprudence. What a great system for personal injury lawyers, right? You get paid on all claims, not just the just claims. Can't get a doctor to support your claim that the injuries from the car accident are related a plaintiff's injuries? Who cares? Let a jury decide or, better yet, try to induce settlement because the defendant does not want - for whatever reason, including litigation costs - to go to trial.

It is a home run with one little victim: justice. It is not fair for defendants to fight claims that are not really legitimate claims because the law does not allow them. If you file a lawsuit and don't have a case the law supports, that claims should be dismissed as quickly as possible. Moreover, it unfairly lessens the settlement value of legitimate claims brought by victims who are both hurt and have a real cause of action under the tort laws that we have agreed upon as a society.

When you think about it, the mirror image of this insanity is caps on non-economic damages. Cases that should not be brought should be dismissed; juries verdicts in meaningful cases should be allowed to stand.

You can find this law review article discussing why summary judgment should be abolished here.

• Sample Motions for Summary Judgment (20 example motions/responses)
• Why Plaintiffs' Lawyers Should Use Summary Judgment More Often (an underutilized tool in personal injury car accident cases)
• Thoughts on Defending Motions for Summary Judgment

LawyersUSA has an article today on a frequent topic on this blog: "independent" medical exams. There are a number of quotes from me in this article.

The New York Times has a good article today on Independent Medical Examination doctors, including a doctor referred to by New York injury lawyers as "Doctor Says-No." We have a number of IME doctors in Maryland that must be related to him because they have the exact same last name.

The New York Times would not have written this story if it did not have examples of patients possessing the great weapon of the modern age: "I've got it on tape." The article has examples of doctors who told the patient one thing in the evaluation - which the patient's taped with their phones - and put the opposite conclusion in the report.

In Maryland, our lawyers are seeing a new wave of IME doctors replacing the old guard of discredited doctors that juries stopped believing long ago. Below are a few tools to fight for your clients to get fair defense medical exams.

My colleague John Bratt (author of the Baltimore Personal Injury Lawyer Blog) is in the middle of a battle in a Montgomery County case where the expert is refusing to meet the very same conditions imposed against this same expert by a judge in another case we had with him in Montgomery County. In another accident case my colleague Rod Gaston has with the same doctor, the doctor was ordered to produce his financial records. Bizarrely, the insurance company withdrew the doctor but he still filed an interlocutory appeal. I'm looking forward to finding out who has been paying his legal fees for all of this. My bet: the insurance company.

(Note: I have fixed the New York Times link, as requested. Thanks to all for bringing it to my attention.)

Continue reading "IME Doctors Caught on Tape" »

The Mass Torts Blog, another defense lawyer blog brought to you from our friends at Dechert, posts on Labor Day about medical screening in mass tort cases. The allegations are basically that plaintiffs' product liability lawyers are committing fraud when screening clients. Read the post for yourself and tell me that is not a fair summary of what the post alleges.

It would be nice to have a more moderated voice coming from Dechert, a fantastic international law firm, as opposed to the the defense lawyer version of Ann Coulter. But if what the Mass Tort Blog is saying is correct - that a large number of plaintiffs who accepted settlements in the asbestos, silica, fen-phen, silicone breast implant, and welding fume litigations were fradulent, manufactured claims - where were the defense lawyers to protect the defendants from this fraud?

Obviously, it was easy to make this determination, as Cardozo Law School Professor Lester Brickman had done in his study, which was relied upon in the Mass Torts Blog post. Were defense medical examinations a condition of settlement? Did they just blindly trust the plaintiffs' lawyers? If this really is the case, shouldn't we infer that all of the defense lawyers who defended these cases committed legal malpractice?

Before a posse of drug and medical device companies form to file a lawsuit against all of these defense lawyers for legal malpractice (including, ironically, Dechert) for failure to properly defend their clients, let me save them: this contention is nonsense. The reality is that the defense lawyers sized up these cases, reviewed medical records, and made the appropriate decisions as to who should be included or excluded. The notion - that defense lawyers allow systems to exist where they just have to trust, without safeguard, the plaintiffs' lawyers and the doctors they hire to evaluate cases - lacks any foundation, notwithstanding Professor Brickman's 177 page polemic.

By the way, I wonder what Professor Brinkman’s null hypothesis was coming into this article. Does his CV give it away at all? Jury consultant David Ball suggests not presenting a case with the language of an advocate in an opening statement until you have earned the confidence of jury. On page 14 of his 177 page paper, Professor Brinkman says, “Thus, screenings coined money as surely as if the lawyers had access to the government printing press.”

I don’t think Professor Brinkman has read David Ball.

Insurance Settlements, a two volume treatise for which I am the lead author, is now available from James Publishing. This treatise is for personal injury lawyers handling auto accident, truck accident, medical malpractice and product liability cases with a lens toward getting the best possible outcome at all stages of these cases (though trial). The better title for the book - with the benefit of hindsight - would have been "Maximizing the Value of Personal Injury Cases." Maybe I can convince James Publishing to change it down the road.

I’m excited about the book. If you are interested getting a copy, click on this James Publishing link. If you have any comments on the book, please email me at ronmiller@millerandzois.com under the subject "Insurance Settlements Questions or Comments."

The National Law Journal has an article on the increasingly contentious battleground over the circumstances of “independent medical exams.” Personal injury lawyers in Maryland in car and truck accident cases are increasingly battling over the terms and conditions of the plaintiff’s medical exam, from who can attend the exam to more substantive concerns like the production of the IME doctors’ financial records. In the last 24 hours we have had two separate disputes with defense lawyers that we like and with whom we regularly cooperate. One involves the defendant’s lawyer wanting a doctor in Washington D.C. that just coincidentally is outside our subpoena power. Interestingly, the doctor lives in Maryland but has an amazing skill of evading service. (Does that show up on his C.V.?)

You can find the entire article here which includes a quote from me.

Related Posts:

Our Conditions for an Independent Medical Exam (IME)

Should Lawyers Videotape Independent Medical Exams?

How to Cross Examine IME Doctor

Response to Protective Order for IME Doctor Not to Produce Financial Records

Our lawyers have long believed that professional expert witnesses’ financial information, including their tax returns, may be discoverable and admissible for the purpose of showing potential bias. Yesterday, the Alaska Supreme Court joined the list of jurisdictions that agree with us.

Noffke v. Perez is a car accident case wherein a wife and husband were awarded $54,000 and $24,000, respectively, by an Anchorage, Alaska jury. On appeal to the Alaska Supreme Court, the defendant claimed that it was error for the trial judge to require her expert witness to produce income tax records. Reading between the lines, it seems that after a motion to compel the records was sought and granted, the defendant’s expert did what many hired medical experts do after an order to produce their records: they refuse to testify.

The Alaska Supreme Court found that there might be a “plausible argument that the witness generates such a significant portion of his or her income from a particular side or particularly attorney that the expert’s impartiality can reasonably be questioned” making this information discoverable and admissible (emphasis added with joy).

The problem I have is that there are a number of doctors who are “Med Mutual doctors” or “State Farm doctors,” the folks that these insurance companies turn to when they need a doctor who is willing to go out on a limb to take a tough position. I do not believe I am being a cynic. This is just reality. To be willing to take this quantum leap from objective doctor to advocate doctor, these experts usually want to be well compensated. To be fair, this happens to some plaintiffs’ experts too, but I think this happens to a lesser extent. If for no other reason than the insurance companies have more of a market share than individual plaintiffs’ lawyers, increasing their leverage over experts. Our law firm has never called an expert to testify at trial who was personally financially beholden to us – insurance companies do it all of the time. (If I'm wrong about this, defense lawyers should join hands with me on this issue.)

Accordingly, it is fair game to question how much money they have made from (1) legal related work generally, (2) from a specific lawyer, law firm or company, and (3) how much money the expert makes overall. Why does the expert’s total income matter? Because without that information, it is easy for an expert to claim that, while he might make $200,000 a year doing legal work, it is a small portion of his income. To put that in fair context, the jury should know just what that portion is.

Unfortunately for these plaintiffs and their personal injury lawyer, Alaska Association of Trial Lawyer President, Michaela Kelly Canterbury, this case was reversed, but on other grounds (excluding certain medical exhibits and failure to give a comparative negligence instruction).

You can find the Alaska Supreme Court decision here.

There is another good blog post from the Drug and Device Law Blog this time regarding electronic discovery with respect to on-line diaries and the social networking like Facebook and MySpace. I have not had this issue arise with one of our clients but it is only a matter of time. Anything on there inconsistent with plaintiff's complaints is going to be used against them (as it should in most cases).

Speaking of which, you can find my Facebook profile here and my Linkedin profile here. If you are on Facebook or Linkedin, add me to your list of friends.

Maryland has a new law that went into effect this month providing for a couple of additional hoops for car accident lawyers to jump through to get police reports in Maryland. The Maryland Transportation Article Section 20-110 sets forth new requirements in Maryland to get a police report within 60 days of the accident. The requesting party must provide (1) a valid driver's license, (2) proof of your legitimate reason to obtain the police report, and (3) a notarized certification that for 60 days after the accident or incident you will not use the police report for commercial solicitation.

Baltimore County has created a form to meet these new requirements although it does not appear to require a driver's license. You can get this form on the Maryland Personal Injury Help Center miscellaneous forms and letters page by clicking here. We will continue to add the forms additional counties provide to us as they become available.

One-hundred percent of our law firm’s practice is personal injury cases. We do not and will not take any defense cases even if we believe in the defendant’s case. Yet, last year I found myself on the other side of the coin as a defense expert. I served as a legal malpractice expert for a local defense firm on behalf of a plaintiffs’ personal injury lawyer in Towson. I believe this lawyer did not breach the standard of care according to his version of the facts (and, parenthetically, I believe the most logical version of the facts). Certainly, in this case, under the Plaintiff’s version of the case, the lawyer committed legal malpractice.

While I did not have the slightest trepidation about taking this case or the expert opinions I expressed, it was certainly an odd experience to be back on the defense side for the first time in over six years. Regrettably, from an experience standpoint, the case settled before I had the opportunity to be deposed. It would have been a particularly educational experience, because the legal malpractice lawyer who would have deposed me is a skilled and well prepared lawyer, who would have been effective in challenging my opinions. Taking a different role in a case certainly does change your perspective, and I think helps you think more creatively about your cases. (Similarly, I have been a law professor for over 10 years. It would be interesting to be a student again after all of the exams I have graded over the years. I think being a professor would make me a better student.)

Believe me, I am all in favor of plaintiffs’ personal injury lawyers suing other personal injury lawyers when one of us has breached the standard of care. The whole idea of lawyers "sticking together" is both absurd and wrong. Our lawyers handle legal malpractice cases where the underlying case is a catastrophic personal injury case. But I also think there is an obligation to be willing to come forward and testify on behalf of a fellow personal injury lawyer if you believe the lawyer has not breached the standard of care and committed legal malpractice.