Maryland Injury Lawyer Blog

The Baltimore Sun has an article this week about Columbia criminal attorney Clarke F. Ahlers attempt to unseat Judge Lenore R. Gelfman and Judge William V. Tucker on the Howard County bench in November.

I don't know Ahlers. I know he was a former Howard County police officer who taught at the University of Baltimore School of Law for a time. I'm not floating around in Maryland criminal law circles but the impression I have is that he is well liked and well respected. So Ahlers is right, he probably would make a good judge. That is not a canned, obligatory throw away line: I really think he would be a good judge.

But what exactly are the issues in the campaign? Well, I went to Ahlers' website. He has a category devoted to the issues. Oh good, I thought, let's see what they are.

There are no issues. There is a lot of talk about the Constitution but, really, are there judges out there running on an anti-Constitution platform? He also wants and new courthouse, and he was in private practice. Most of the page is devoted to the serious criminal/police cases he has handled. A great resume but not exactly an explanation of the issues.

There is, however, a quote from Thomas Jefferson about blessing of judicial elections and a bit of a lecture for those of us who oppose judicial elections in Maryland:

Those who favor a purely appointed system of judges believe citizens are too dull to manage their own lives without government’s direction, and are unqualified to select those who would sit in judgement of them.

I think this populist argument is the best arrow in the quiver of judicial elections. But it is weak. I certainly don't think opposing local judicial elections is a sign off on the idea that citizens are too dull to manage their own lives with government direction. In fact, the connection of the two is - respectfully (hey, particularly respectfully if Ahlers wins!) - intellectually lazy. I can favor having police officers without being in favor of a Gestapo. I can favor taxes without being in favor of socialism. I can favor Joe Flacco without calling him a top ten NFL quarterback.

Clearly no one agrees that we should select every governmental position? Should we vote on who should be the Howard County Chief of Police? How about the Superintendent of Schools? Are we so lazy that we don't care who can arrest us and who teaches our children?

Continue reading "Clark Ahlers: Howard Court Judge Election Battle" »

LawyersUSA has an article out today on the struggles that personal injury attorneys have had in getting fair compensation for their clients in accident and malpractice cases. The article contains a few quotes from me.

There are a couple of leitmotifs lawyers deal with when representing injured people who are either illegal immigrants or appear to be. First, if they are legally here in this country, you have to get that out on direct. There are some jurors who - let's face it - are going to view anyone with an accent as an illegal immigrant. In the real world, there is a prejudice against illegal immigrants. If you can kill that perception, do it.

Conversely, you need to move in limine to bar any evidence, suggestion, or argument regarding the immigration status of plaintiff (or any witness, for that matter) simplly because it is prejudicial. Put in front of a jury that the plaintiff is legally working in this country, yet suppress any mention of immigration status if the plaintiff is undocumented? Is firing off these two seemly contradictory statements in the span of seconds lawyer double talk or even duplicitous. Actually, it is not. Juries don't say "Gee, we have a documented immigrant, let's open up the checkbook" but they might discriminate against a plaintiff because they don't think he/she belongs in this country. Doors don't always swing both ways.

Continue reading "Illegal Immigrants in Personal Injury Cases" »

Caps on non-economic damages make it impossible to receive true fair value in wrongful death claims in Maryland (and in most states). Accordingly, personal injury lawyers need to turn over every possible stone to maximize the economic damages in wrongful death cases. Often overlooked, even by the best wrongful death lawyers - at least until they get the case to an economist - is the decedent's employer funded benefits. The problem is, in many wrongful death cases an economist is not used either because the plaintiffs' lawyer thinks he does not need one, or because the case reaches a settlement long before an economist is engaged. As a result, employee funded benefits are not always included in the calculus. Fifteen years ago, if you left out these benefits, the overall value of your case suffered a little. In 2012, with health insurance and other employee benefits skyrocketing, if you don't include these in your damages in a wrongful death case, you are leaving as much as 25% of the value of the claim on the table.

Continue reading "Increasing the Value of Wrongful Death Cases" »

The Baltimore Sun had an interesting front page article yesterday on Maryland hospitals referring patients with malpractice claims to specific medical malpractice lawyers. I think this is a bad idea.

First, it is worth noting that everyone means well. The hospitals know they have made a mistake and want to (1) get the clients to a competent malpractice lawyer, and (2) get a deal going where the attorneys' fees are reduced by as much as a fourth of what they would otherwise be. The lawyers who get the referrals are trying to maximize the value of the case and try to get the client as much as possible.

But there are some cases where the appropriate strategy- or the client's wish - is just to wage war. It is hard to wage war against someone where your relationship is such that they are recommending you to people they just malpracticed. If you repeatly go scorched earth and decide that early resolution is not the answer and a lawsuit is, you can expect these referrals to dry up pretty quickly. You can't fault the hospitals if they stop referring patients to that "wage war" malpractice lawyer. It is just the way of things.

The hospital is not referring over every potential medical malpractice case. I'm sure these are the "Oh, gosh, we totally screwed up, let's make it right" malpractice cases. The only remaining question issue is damages. But, as Jerry Seinfeld would say, that's a pretty big matzo ball hanging out there. Ninety percent of the car accident cases we have in suit are admitted liability cases where the only dispute is damages. Establishing liability is only half of the equation. In serious injury cases, very reasonable people see the values of cases differently, which is why we need the adversarial system to operate at its fullest.

The conflict here is not just a problem for the bad guys, but also for good, honest malpractice lawyers. The big picture colors your thinking even when you specifically are trying hard not to let it. History of man reminds us over and over that self-interest colors the calculations of even the good guys.

Remember when Justice Antonin Scalia came under fire for not recusing himself in a case involving Vice President Dick Chaney, after the pair had recently hopped on Air Force Two for a little hunting trip. Who have you ever gotten on a plane with, and went on a trip with that you were not incredibly tight with? Seriously. If I'm getting on a plane with you, we are tight. Scalia's retort: “If it is reasonable to think that a Supreme Court Justice can be bought so cheap, the nation is in deeper trouble than I had imagined.” It is a good line (give him credit, Scalia has lots of good lines). But just because Scalia was not aware of how such a bias could influence him on his ultimate thinking and decision from the bench, it does not mean that it does not exist.

Continue reading "Maryland Hospitals Referring Lawyers?" »

This is hysterical:

Hello Mr. Miller:

My name is Mary [deleted], and I'm working with Allstate Insurance to ensure they are being accurately and effectively represented online.

I was reading your article "I Support Allstate" at http://www.marylandinjurylawyerblog.com/2012/01/i_support_allstate_1.html and noticed that while you discuss Allstate (thank you for your interesting thoughts) there is no link to Allstate's website for your readers to click on.

I wanted to provide you with Allstate's site in the hopes that you would include a link within your piece. Allstate's website is located at http://www.allstate.com/. Please let me know if you require more information in order to make this edit possible.

Thanks so much for your consideration.

Mary
[Name Deleted]
Performics
On Behalf of Allstate Insurance
111 E. Wacker, Suite 1500
Chicago, Illinois 60601
e:[deleted]

• Paul Luvera provides a good "cost v. benefits" sample cross examination.
• Accurint may no longer be the only game in town for plaintiffs' lawyers trying to track down defendants.
• Using requests for admission to seal up your uninsured motorist case.
• Johnson & Johnson won round four of the Levaquin mass tort lawsuits. Plaintiffs are now 1-2 in the MDL and 1-3 overall. (The plaintiffs' verdict was for $1.8 million.) The jury agreed that Johnson & Johnson failed to properly place a warning on its product but did not think the plaintiffs' injuries were caused by Levaquin.
• Johnson & Johnson can't win them all. A federal judge ruled J&J will have to defend allegations that Motrin can cause Stevens-Johnson Syndrome and Toxic Epidermal Necrolysis. The judge refused to dismiss two lawsuits brought by parents who claim their children were harmed.
• The Maryland Court of Appeals says Allstate can stop providing homeowners insurance coverage to areas at high risk for hurricane damage.
• Overlawyered reports on some people who are pretending that they on the Costa Concordia cruise ship. This was not an MTA bus, I would think there is some record of who was on the ship, so I think the jig is going to be up one way or the other.
• Can a court say that the trial judge erred as the finder of fact in finding that the plaintiff was without fault and then conclude that the plaintiff was 10% at fault? They are cutting it a little thin on the abuse of discretion standard, aren't they?

The Maryland Court of Appeals issued an opinion Friday in Spangler v. McQuitty, ending this cerebral palsy medical malpractice case that began 17 years ago. I first wrote about this case two years ago when the Maryland Court of Appeals heard this tragic case involving a boy who was born with severe cerebral palsy. Plaintiffs' Maryland malpractice lawyers argued at trial (in Baltimore County) that the doctor breached the duty to obtain the mother's informed consent, when he failed to give her an informed choice of her options to either take the baby early or assume the risks that come with letting the delivery play out. A Sophia's choice. But it was the mother's choice. The jury - to the tune of $13 million - agreed, and found that that the risks and benefits of these options should have been communicated to the patient, but were not.

Continue reading "New Maryland Medical Malpractice CA Opinion" »

Clearly, the new Republican tradition is to pay homage to Ronald Reagan whenever you have a segue to do so - and even when there's not. Everyone has forgotten Iran-Contra and those Marines in Lebanon and focused on the fact that he presided over 8 years of relative peace and prosperity and his contribution to our victory in the Cold War. At a debate back for the RNC Chairmanship, Grover Norquist asked the candidates, "Who is your favorite Republican president?" Every one of the six candidates picked Reagan. Poor Lincoln. Even Democrats look back on Reagan and point out - maybe correctly, I don't know - that Reagan is not conservative enough to win the Republican nomination in 2012.

I found on my Google +1 (come join me there, and Miller & Zois too) a post from someone who worked for Reagan, that looks at what he actually said about tort reform. Apparently, all of his years of public life, Reagan gave only one tort reform speech in his political career in which he specifically said the issue is one for individual states. He never followed up on this speech.

Continue reading "Was Ronald Reagan for Tort Reform?" »

We have our share of struggles with Allstate in car accident and other personal injury cases. Allstate can be a very difficult company to deal with when they are defending either first or third party injury claims. But Allstate just won a big fight - a critical fight for them - in front of the Maryland Court of Appeals. And I'm glad they won.

Allstate decided to stop writing home insurance policies in Southern Maryland, the Lower Eastern Shore, and some properties on or near the waterfront in Anne Arundel County. Why? Allstate thinks that the spate of of hurricanes that have pounded the eastern seaboard in recent years may not be anomalous but instead are the result of increases of tropical sea surface temperatures (or whatever else it might be). Allstate does not care why. What Allstate does know is that it no long wants to bear the risk of catastrophic financial losses if a hurricane hits these at risk areas.

The Court of Appeals agreed that Allstate had a reasonable basis. Judge Harrell, in his dissent, says that Allstate has decided not to write new homeowner’s insurance policies in these areas because of an unsubstantiated fear of a hypothetical force of nature, a Category 2 or greater hurricane making landfall in Maryland. I agree. But is he sure? Couldn't reasonable minds differ on this? Does anyone really have an handle on the degree that global warming is going to impact the future? I think the answer is that no one really has a clue and, accordingly, Allstate should be given the discretion to decide for itself. I also think the applicable laws - § 19-107 and § 27-501 of the Maryland Insurance Article - give them that ability.

Continue reading "I Support Allstate" »

An MDL Panel ruled this week that any Actos lawsuits filed in federal court in Maryland will be consolidated in Louisiana.

Actos is another drug for type 2 diabetes that has helped treat the diabetes, but can get the patient into problems that they did not anticipate (Avandia has also had its share of problems). With Actos, studies have shown that people who take Actos for more than a year are 40 percent more likely to develop bladder cancer than those never exposed to Actos.

Actos does an effective job of treating diabetes. Actos improves blood sugar levels by increasing the body’s sensitivity to insulin in patients who have been diagnosed with type 2 Diabetes. Clearly, diabetes is a serious disease and the medications to treat diabetes come with - as most medications do - risk. Certainly, if you have life threatening diabetes and Actos is the only drug that works for you, maybe you take on otherwise unacceptable risks. I get that. But Actos users did not sign up for this risk of bladder cancer. There are too many patients over the years that would not have used Actos if they knew it caused bladder cancer.

Continue reading "Maryland Actos Lawsuits" »

Republican presidential hopeful candidate Rick Santorum is a big advocate of medical malpractice tort reform. In 1996, his wife Karen brought a medical malpractice case alleging a negligent chiropractic manipulation that caused a herniated disc in her back. She got a jury verdict of $350,000 which was reduced to $175,000 by the trial judge, presumably after a remittur motion. Her medical bills that allegedly resulted from the malpractice were $18,000.

You knew this already? Yeah, I guess I have been living under a rock. I can't believe I missed this.

Where is Santorum on this issue? The answer comes in Mitt Romney flavor. In the House of Representatives in 1994, Santorum introduced a bill to cap non-economic damages awarded by juries in medical malpractice cases at $250,000.

His wife's lawsuit, I guess, opened up his heart. In 2003, Had Not Yet Lost By 20 Points Senator Santorum said the $250,000 cap set in Congressman Jim Greenwood’s bill was “too low.” The next day, he told The Associated Press that he’d “been hesitant to sign on to any bill that has a cap.” Alas, he is not solidly back in the tort reformers corner. Enough time has passed since his wife's medical malpractice lawsuit, I guess.

There is no way on earth I would vote for Rick Santorum. But he struck me - and I think voters -as a guy who practiced what he preached. Then, he went into the whole, as Jon Stewart put it, "Class warfare against the rich -- excuse me, job creators -- is wrong, unless we're talking about Mitt Romney" hypocrisy. Now, Santorum is exposed for his "everyone should be capped on malpractice awards except my family" position on tort reform (I won't even get into his, "I voted for every spending bill that raised the deficit, but now I'm a hawk on spending" problem).

Continue reading "Rick Santorum and Medical Malpractice" »

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" »