Maryland Injury Lawyer Blog

Beth Osowski provides a nice list of trial themes for plaintiffs and defendants' lawyers in the Civil Litigation Blog.

This is not a bad list to gloss over before trial if you are not crystal clear on what your trial theme(s) should be. I like that these themes are short and simple. If you can't describe your claim (or defense) in 5 words or less, it is going to be hard to get it across to a jury. From the plaintiffs' perspective, as David Ball and Don Keenan explain in Reptile, the best themes show the defendant's actions constitute an immediate threat to public safety and that a significant verdict for the plaintiff will reduce that danger.

Nora Freeman Engstrom writes an amazing article for the Georgetown Journal of Legal Ethics titled Run-of-the-Mill Justice. She writes about settlement mill law firms, writing with a 60 Minutes investigative journalism style that names names, calling out a few law firms she has labeled as settlement mill firms. Engstrom characterizes these firms as "characterized by their high claim volume, aggressive advertising, significant delegation to non-attorneys, entrepreneurial focus, and quick resolution of claims, typically without initiation of suit."

There are about 10 different facets of the article I find interesting. I found of particular interest the idea that settlement mills create a "one size fits all" (my words, not hers) kind of justice. Under this system, individualized pain and suffering does not exist for settlement purposes.

What matters, then, for car accident settlement purposes in non-serious injury cases is the amount of the medical bills, what the injuries are, and how much damage was done to the vehicles. Plaintiffs' car accident lawyers have blamed this on a paradigm shift in the thinking of insurance companies in the 90s, This article argues, quite convincingly, that many plaintiffs' lawyers are unindicted co-conspirators in this system.

The author overlooks that settlement mill auto accident law firms are just one contributing cause. The opposite extreme is equally to blame, lawyers who have very small practices and no real marketing presence that do that exact same thing. Take the case, send in the medical records and bills, and settle the case for whatever you can. There are tons of local lawyers parading as lawyers suited to handle car accident claims. The bigger problem? These same lawyers get serious injury accident cases, typically car accidents, where the victim's financial future is at stake. These lawyers take the case because they can't resist and the results are often disastrous. Settlement mill law firms often have the good sense to refer these cases out, realizing they are asking for a legal malpractice lawsuit. Often, the guy with the office on the corner that does wills, criminal, domestic, and everything else under the sun does not have this same sense.

Of course, it is a mistake to label every solo general practitioner as incompetent to handle large auto accident cases just as it is a mistake to assume every firm that runs massive amounts of television commercials as settlement mills.

What is a good plaintiffs' auto accident lawyer to do if he does not want to get caught up in this mess that has been created? If you have a client who wants to settle their auto accident claim quickly and at any price, you are going to be a victim of this system. There is no way out. But if you have a client that wants to maximize the value of their case, there is a simple answer: file suit and request a jury trial. The insurance company is either going to pay at least a reasonable value on the claim or it is going to go to trial where a jury is going to give you the fair value of the case. Because a jury is the ultimate definer of the fair value of a case.

John Bratt's Baltimore Injury Lawyer Blog offers advice on defending motions for summary judgment.

You can find sample oppositions to motions for summary judgment here.

The article that John Bratt and I wrote for Trial that offers advice to plaintiffs' personal injury lawyers on the mediation of catastrophic injury cases is is now available online for American Association of Justice members. If you get the magazine, you should be getting it any day now. Email me at ronmiller@millerandzois.com with any questions or comments that you may have.

I’m now joining the rest of America in finally reading Malcolm Gladwell’s “Blink.” Gladwell’s theory is essentially that in some cases, split second decisions are more accurate than drawn out analysis with lots of different variables to consider.

Of course, I wondered how this best relates to personal injury lawyers. I think the “Blink” thesis that best applies to plaintiff’s trial lawyers is the decision to take the case in the first place. Some cases are no-brainers. A rear-end truck accident where someone is killed or seriously injured is obviously a case. A red light/green light case with two independent witnesses against you is not a case. But there is a middle ground in between where reasonable minds can differ. We have recovered millions of dollars for clients who could not find a lawyer. And I’m sure our rejected cases have also recovered a million dollars. The old cliché “one man’s trash is another man treasure” fits snugly here.

Most of the cases I have taken that I regret taking were cases I talked myself into with additional facts. Right now I’m getting a medical malpractice case off my desk that I knew from jump street was not a case. But I liked the client, and I roped myself into looking at the case and spending thousands of dollars in medical records before concluding that it is clearly a bad outcome case that does not involve malpractice.

When we get a good verdict or settlement in a case that has been rejected by other lawyers, there is an overwhelming temptation to feel a little smug about it. If you handle personal injury cases, you know exactly the feeling I’m talking about. But it is misguided. The reality is if you had a top 10 list for personal injury lawyers in Maryland for “most cases rejected that ended successfully,” I’ll bet almost every personal injury lawyer on that list is a successful lawyer. This principle holds with greater force in medical malpractice and product liability cases because the risks of time and money are typically – not always, but typically - greater than in a typical car or truck accident case.

Whenever I prepare for giving an opening statement, as I am today, my head is filled with more advice that I have heard or read over the years than expletives Bill Belichick threw out last night. I am writing today about two issues: what you should wear to trial and how you begin your opening.

The conventional advice from noted trial advocacy authors I have read and respect, such as Thomas Mauet and David Ball, is to leave the Rolex at home. This literal advice includes its corollaries of dressing conservatively with a blue or black suit that you did not buy in Italy, no necklaces or bracelets, etc.

This is the conventional wisdom, and I buy into a part of the premise. Generally speaking, jurors are going to prefer trial lawyers they can related to, and many of us do not relate to the guy with the Craig Sager suit jacket. But I think what really creates a disconnect between a trial lawyer and a jury is when the lawyer is not perceived as authentic. Any time you are stepping out of your box, you are going to be less comfortable in your own skin. Juries are people: they sense this like a shark senses blood.

My style is conservative in that I wear “please don’t notice my clothes one way or the other” attire. I would feel uncomfortable with a diamond hoop earring and a gold bracelet. But some lawyers with traditional clothes look like your Uncle Bill at a wedding: miserably out of their element. If that is who you are, be who you are. Juries are going to say, "Hey, he/she is not like me, but this is a real person." (For Maryland lawyers, see Snyder, Steve for the epitome of this concept.)

A related issue is the first words that come out of your mouth in an opening. Many lawyers, including fellow blogger Mitch Jackson who wrote about this recently, and the late Fred Warren Bennett, a criminal defense giant (as the Daily Record called him) who I was blessed to have had as a trial advocacy professor and adviser when I began trying cases, argue that introductions of counsel and client should come later because you have to seize the opening while you have the jury’s complete attention.

I never saw Professor Bennett try a case. But from class and from everything that I’ve read, he was naturally florid and dramatic. So it probably came easy for him to make a dramatic opening and then introduce himself later. But Professor Bennett told me something else that resonated with me: an opening statement should be a kitchen table conversation where one person is telling another person (each of the six jurors being a person) a story over coffee.

Personally, I can’t have a conversation over coffee without first introducing myself. So for what I lose in the “maximum paying attention” window, I think I gain back by being authentically me.

This commentary underscores how difficult it is for trial lawyers to steal styles, or even tactics, from other lawyers on certain issues of style. Because only you can try a case in your body.

• What Trial Lawyers Should Wear for Trial (Trial Lawyer Resource Center post)
• Quad Cities Injury Lawyers Blog (more on what to wear at trial)
• Motion to Compel Florida Lawyer to Wear Nicer Shoes (no, really)

John Bratt reports in his Baltimore Injury Lawyer Blog on his appellate argument before the Maryland Court of Special Appeals on Friday. John asked the court to affirm a jury verdict his client obtained last year in a truck accident case in Charles County, Maryland.

I agree with John that nothing is more annoying than the lawyer who pretends he is best friends with the judge - even if the lawyer is best friends with the judge. I love the whole "using the judge's first name twenty times as we discuss the case" spiel. Usually, I get your point the first ten times you used the judge's first name.

I'm not so sure I would go as far as John does in saying that calling a judge "Judge __________" in court is a bad practice. But I certainly get his point.

I once had a jury ask the judge to see my damage exhibits in a case where I had asked for over $800,000. We all knew what that meant: Plaintiff's verdict. The judge gently chided the defense lawyer for making no offer in the case. I took a deep, satisfied breath with confidence that a jury verdict was imminent.

Because of how I'm leading the story, you know what happens next. The jury came back with a defense verdict.

So, I take with more than a few grains of salt any question that a jury has during deliberations. The Sacramento Bee reports that jurors in a wrongful death case in Sacramento asked for an adding machine that went up to ten digits.

In spite of my story above, I would still view this as a favorable sign for Plaintiffs.

The Maryland Court of Appeals decided Abrishamian v. Barbely, a pedestrian accident appeal from Montgomery County, after jury awarded only half of the client’s special damages (medical bills and lost wages) and gave $0.00 for pain and suffering. The Plaintiff loses this appeal and it is not a close call. The court, however, does discuss some interesting law that is of interest to the Maryland accident lawyer.

The first issue is no issue at all. Plaintiff’s lawyer asked the judge to recuse himself because the judge’s brother represented the defendant 17 years ago and someone else with the same last name as Defendant ten years ago. I’d love to know how the Plaintiff’s lawyer learned this fact and I’d also be curious as to why he would seek recusal for such an attenuated connection. Had the court gone the other way, it would have really brought havoc to the justice system in Mayberry. Would they have to transfer every case to Mount Pilot?

(Brief intermission: one of the great unsolved mysteries of my childhood was the distance from Mayberry to Mount Pilot. Someone once said a four hour drive, but Barney Fife said it was 12 miles. Barney was not the most credible person but 12 miles is pretty specific and he had no reason to exaggerate, given the context. I just don’t know. In an unrelated story, I may have watched too much television as a child. Let’s just get back to this case.)

The second issue is far more interesting. Defendant’s doctor was asked on cross whether he had a copy of the Plaintiff’s medical insurance card. Plaintiff’s lawyer objected before an answer could be given and the judge sustained the objection. Plaintiff’s lawyer argued the trial judge should have granted a mistrial because the question violated collateral source rule. Clearly, this is a long shot argument – a mistrial is not out of the question if the question was inappropriate, but it is a Dr. Sam Beckett quantum leap from that to mistrial as a matter law. (The court also noted that a question may not be “evidence” subject to the collateral source rule.)

Continue reading "Maryland Pedestrian Accident Appellate Opinion" »

The Drug and Device Law Blog has a guest post explaining expected changes to the Federal Rules of Procedure that will dramatically change how time is calculated in litigation in federal court. If you are an attorney with a case in federal court, you really need to read this post.

One interesting tidbit that will be a blow to courier services and lawyers looking for a very petty advantage: the deletion of the rule that provided extra time if service was effectuated by U.S. Mail rather than by hand delivery.

There is a split of opinion among personal injury lawyers as to whether plaintiffs should propound interrogatories before or after taking depositions, particularly in a case where there is a significant dispute as to liability.

When looking at this question, it is important to acknowledge that defense lawyers in personal injury cases are like actors: there a lot of Jack Nicholsons and Meryl Streeps and there are also a lot of folks who call themselves actors but their acting skills do not rise to even Skinamax quality.

So some lawyers are going to learn the case when they get the file and get their client ready, regardless of the stage of the case. Others are going to not know the file at all and introduce themselves to the client and the case 10 minutes before the depositions. The theory behind waiting to serve interrogatories is that if you get the latter type of defense attorney, the defendant will take positions that don’t comport with the facts, logic or good strategy because they have not looked at the nuances of the case. Arguably, this logic would even hold up against a top notch lawyer because every lawyer, even well prepared lawyers, sees a case with a clearer lens on the courthouse steps than they do when preparing for a deposition.

By the way, the same logic holds true with less force when serving requests for admission when litigation commences. Every defense lawyers’ instinct – it was mine as a defense lawyer – is deny, deny, deny and then never go back and look at the answers again. If you have a leg fracture case where the client’s leg is pretty much replaced by a titanium rod, answers to requests for admission that deny the victim was even hurt in the accident certainly make clear to the jury that the defendant is not trying to be reasonable. But it is with less force because the statements of a party are far more compelling to a jury than what they admitted or denied in requests for admission.

The advantage in first obtaining answers to interrogatories is that the answers should help the attorney determine who should be deposed, what questions should be asked of those deponents and what documents should be obtained in the case. Having the interrogatory answers, in some cases, also may tend to shorten the length of time required for the deposition. A possible advantage in taking the opposing party's deposition before serving interrogatories is that the party's deponent will not have thought out the factual and legal position thoroughly with the attorney and be as prepared as he/she might be otherwise.

The decision turns on many factors, including the intelligence of the adverse party and the thoroughness of opposing counsel. A competent, careful attorney would adequately prepare the client for a deposition, despite when it was noted. However, the longer the case progresses, the more likely it is that an attorney will become familiar with the facts and legal arguments and be better able to prepare the witness to testify in a manner beneficial to the client's cause.

Anyway, having said all of that, we serve our interrogatories with our Complaint. First, I think most defense lawyers are pretty good lawyers so the advantage is not overwhelming. (Random aside: I think the average defense lawyer is a better lawyer than your average personal injury lawyer.)

Second, it allows you to take advantage of the fact that as plaintiffs’ lawyers, we can dictate the pace. Going first, we can fully load the proverbial gun before firing, which helps you get your offense started. As much as I like to depose a defendant when he/she and the defense lawyer are not prepared, I think it is even more important to know where defense is going with their case before you answer detailed questions about where you are going. You can play petty tactics games to get to the same place with filing interrogatories first. But I don’t think it is worth the goodwill you spend because, not always but often enough that it matters, goodwill and lack of pettiness begets the same in return.

Finally, there is also another practical issue at play for lawyers with a full case load: from a systems standpoint you have one less thing you have to put back on your checklist. You have less of a chance of screwing it up if you get it right from the beginning.

So why did I bore you with all of this when I could have just written “we serve our interrogatories with the Complaint” and called it a day? One, I think reasonable minds can differ on this point, so I wanted to lay out both sides of the issue. But I also think that applying a “one size fits all” template is a bad idea and leads to stagnant trial tactics. Smart personal injury lawyers do a “drive-by” on this issue in every single case.

Related Posts:

One of the most important things to do to prepare for mediation is to get the client ready for mediation. If you are prepping a client for mediation in a personal injury case, don't forget to prepare the client for what may come in the defense lawyer's opening statement. Some lawyers try so hard to get the mediator on their side, they go overboard in their opening statement to the mediator, outlining the deficiencies in the opposing party’s case (sometimes even personally attacking the opposing party or his/her personal injury lawyer).

Making matters worse, the practice in much mediation is for the defense lawyer to address the client directly. This does one of two things to clients: (1) makes them scared to the point where they will settle the case for anything, or (2) dig their heels in deeper. In mediation, both are bad outcomes. Get the client ready for this. Plaintiffs should expect to hear a frank discussion of the defense's contentions as to the weaknesses of their case. In your own opening statement, eschew personal attacks and speak kindly if you possibly can of the defendant's lawyer (particularly if their client is in the room, they are always appreciative). Mediation is not a place where hot temperatures facilitate a better outcome.

Of course, the other way to help your client relax during mediation is by being incredibly well prepared. Plaintiffs' personal injury lawyers should be prepared to provide a detailed analysis of how they intend to prove that all of the damages claimed are a result of the defendants' conduct, and should be prepared to address liability issues head on with the mediator and the defense lawyer. Remind the client why the client hired you in the first place.

The personal injury case with the "Motion for Counsel to Get New Shoes" that I blogged about Friday ended in a mistrial, setting aside what apparently would been a $2.2 million plaintiff's verdict. So, essentially, filing this silly motion may have cost his injured client $2.2 million.

The writer who wrote the original column provides a well written background of his dealing with the lawyers in the case before publishing the story. I don't know whether this column is accurate. Either way, it does not convey a very good image of personal injury lawyers.

• Palm Beach Post (column explaining original column)
• Original Palm Beach Post (original Palm Beach Post article)
• Above the Law (which is where I found the story)
  

The Palm Beach Post has an insane story about a plaintiffs' lawyer in a personal injury case in Florida who filed a motion to prevent a defense lawyer from wearing shoes with holes in them:

Part of this strategy is to present Mr. Robb and his client as modest individuals who are so frugal that Mr. Robb has to wear shoes with holes in the soles. Mr. Robb is known to stand at sidebar with one foot crossed casually beside the other so that the holes in his shoes are readily apparent to the jury who are intently watching all counsel and the Court at that moment....Mr. Robb should be required to wear shoes without holes in the soles at trial to avoid the unfair prejudice suggested by this conduct."

Does anyone really believe that having worn out shoes is a secret key of success? Then, again, maybe this is how President Obama rose from obscure state legislature to POTUS in what felt like 20 minutes. (I was shooting for a whimsical topic after yesterday's post.)

• Above the Law (post that includes the motion)
• Lowering the Bar (another post on the topic)
• How Should Lawyers Dress at Trial? (Quad Cities Injury Lawyers post)

The Indiana Supreme Court issued a troubling opinion last week in Stanley v. Walker, ruling that the discounted price actually paid for medical care by insurance is admissible as evidence.

Ah, what about the collateral source rule? Well, the Indiana Supreme Court thinks they have us covered. The court says this evidence can only be introduced to the extent that discounted amounts can be introduced without referencing insurance. I dissent.

This is an appeal of an accident case of what was probably a decent verdict: $70,000 on $11,570 in medical bills (does not appear to be a serious injury case, but the opinion is not clear). His medical bills actually received by the health care providers were adjusted by write-offs negotiated by his insurance company, Anthem Blue Cross Blue Shield, to $6,820.

Defendant’s lawyer agreed that he could not ask questions about Plaintiff’s collateral source rule, which, as I understand it, is similar to Maryland’s rule. But the defense lawyer did argue that neither the Plaintiff nor his insurance company was responsible to pay the written-off sum, and accordingly, the write-offs did not constitute an insurance benefit under Indiana's collateral source statute.

From this creative argument – which I applaud on either side of the v - Defendant’s lawyer contended that he could introduce evidence of reductions as indicia of the actual expenses. Plaintiff’s lawyer’s response – that carried the day below in the trial court and to the Indiana Court of Appeals – was that because collateral source payments were insurance benefits that Plaintiff paid for, they are not admissible. Plaintiff claims that the Defendant should not be the beneficiary of Plaintiff’s bargaining power through the insurance companies because – again this bears repeating – he was the one who paid the insurance premiums for the last 50 years, not the Defendant (okay, I’m making up the 50 year thing – you get the point).

The Indiana Court of Appeals cited Griffin v. Louisiana Sheriff’s Auto Risk Association, 802 So. 2d 691 (La. App. 2001) to underscore Plaintiff’s argument:

This rationale can best be understood by analyzing the write-offs in two situations: one in which a tortfeasor injures an uninsured victim and the other in which the same tortfeasor, in the same manner and to the same extent, injures an insured victim. Unless the write-offs are considered collateral sources, the tortfeasor would be relieved of his liability to the insured victim to the extent of the amount of the write-offs. The argument that there is no underlying obligation for plaintiff to pay the amount of the write-offs and, therefore, the plaintiff should not be allowed to benefit from a non-existent debt, fa[i]ls because the effect of this reasoning results in a diminution of the tortfeasor's liability vis-à-vis an insured victim when compared with the same tortfeasor's liability vis-à-vis an uninsured victim.

Another Louisiana case, Bozeman v. Louisiana, 879 So.2d 692 (La. 2004) tightens this analysis further:

If we were to permit a tortfeasor to mitigate damages with payments from plaintiff's insurance, [the] plaintiff would be in a position inferior to that of having bought no insurance, because his payment of premiums would have earned no benefit. [The defendant] should not be able to avoid payment of full compensation for the injury inflicted merely because the victim has had the foresight to provide himself with insurance.

The Indiana Supreme Court disagreed, relying on the fact that under the current system we have in this country, a doctor’s medical bills do not equate to cost. But this makes every medical bill unreasonable on some level. Should the law be that you cannot introduce medical bills because the whole system is screwed up? I just don’t think it makes any sense.

Continue reading "Collateral Source Rule Under Attack in Indiana" »

I read a series of articles in Trial Magazine on cross examining experts at trial. One article revolved around a joke the lawyer made and how everyone laughed, except for the expert. The moral of the article is that the expert’s failure to laugh at the joke “showed the witness’s pomposity” and was the “key to the jury acceptance of [plaintiff’s] experts and their credibility."

I’m sure the joke played as the author suggests. But a jury trial is typically not conducive to humor. I’ve seen many efforts at humor – including my own efforts that I thought at the time were good – fail miserably. This is particularly true in a shorter trial where the jury has not had an extended time to warm up to you and relax. Chris Rock would have a hard time being funny in an opening statement.

My advice: if you are not incredibly sure it is going to be funny, leave that club in your bag. Only an extremely funny person can get away with prepared humor during a jury trial. Not sure if you are extremely funny? You are not.

The Maryland Court of Special Appeals in a 2-1 decision today affirmed a Frederick County trial court’s grant of summary judgment to Erie Insurance in an underinsured motorist lawsuit.

The nutshell: State Farm paid its $100,000 liability policy in a serious injury car accident case. Plaintiff sought payment under his $250,000 uninsured/underinsured motorist policy with Erie Insurance. Erie claimed that it was entitled to a workers’ compensation setoff of $246,305.66, representing the workers compensation benefits the car accident victim received because he was working at the time of the accident. The Plaintiff claimed the setoff should be $27,396.28 because this was the amount of the workers’ compensation lien.

Continue reading "Workmen's Compensation Uninsured Motorist Setoff: New Opinion for the Maryland Court of Special Appeals" »

The 1st Circuit Court of Appeals wrote a helpful opinion for product liability lawyers who get the name of the defendant wrong when filing just before statute of limitations expires. The court elevated substance over form in finding the the claim "relates back" under federal law.

The case involves an incredibly tragic auto accident. A 1987 Mercedes-Benz 300SDL parked on an inclined street in Puerto Rico began rolling downhill and crushed and killed a six-month-old child. The plaintiffs' product liability lawsuit alleged that design of the Mercedes-Benz caused the child's death, alleging a "gallimaufry" of product liability theories against Daimler-Chrysler Corporation.

Continue reading ""Relates Back" Lawsuit Reinstated: New 1st Circuit Opinion" »

University of Baltimore law professor Richard W. Bourne wrote an article published this year in the Arkansas Law Review articulating the theory that there should be an independent tort claim when a doctor destroys evidence or when a doctor fails to disclose to the patient that there has been a breach of the appropriate standard of care that causes injury. Professor Bourne would limit this tort to cases where (1) the wrong is serious, and (2) the failure to reveal is intentional.

Professor Bourne also quotes Harvard evidence professor Charles R. Nesson on the inherent problem in making the punishment for spoliation of evidence "assuming that the spoliators ... destroy the evidence because it [is] damaging to their case, none of these sanctions puts the spoliator in a worse position than he would have been in had he produced the evidence."

In other words, if the document or evidence indicates the worst possible scenario, the defendant has nothing to lose, except possibly inflaming the jury by destroying the evidence. Of course, in Maryland medical malpractice cases, there are ostensibly ramifications with the Maryland Board of Physicians for doctors destroying medical records. But as this blog recently underscored, the Maryland Board of Physicians does not appear to be an effective enforcer of medical ethics.

I think many doctors who support medical malpractice tort reform will reflexively roll their eyes at the suggestion from a lawyer that we need another medical malpractice tort. But as a lawyer I would certainly support this rule in legal malpractice cases in Maryland. Similarly, I think a lot of Maryland doctors who want to rid the medical profession of dishonest doctors would also support a tort to punish doctors who deliberately destroy evidence and/or do not reveal to the patient that serious medical malpractice has been committed.

So what will happen with this bright idea? Absolutely nothing. The Maryland Court of Appeals is not in the mood to create a new tort in medical malpractice cases and it will be impossible to gin up the inertia in the Maryland General Assembly for anything that will impose new liability on Maryland doctors.

Warren Buffett's Berkshire Hathaway took a bath this year. But in Buffett's annual letter to shareholders, he seems pumped about how GEICO is faring in the car insurance market. Buffett noted that under GEICO chief executive Tony Nicely, GEICO did its part to keep Berkshire Hathaway profitable, increasing GEICO's market share to 7.7% of the auto insurance market last year (over 19% in Maryland). Buffett makes clear in his report that he is bullish on GEICO:

As we view GEICO's current opportunities, Tony and I feel like two hungry mosquitoes in a nudist camp. Juicy targets are everywhere.

This is a funny quote but, then again, everything sounds a little funnier when coming from a billionaire.

One thing is for sure: GEICO's business model in recent years has included a willingness to absorb more litigation costs because GEICO is far more willing to eschew reasonable settlements in favor of forcing injured accident victims to file a lawsuit than GEICO was seven years ago. I don't say this derisively. Obviously, this business model is working for GEICO. But it does create a lot more work for Maryland accident lawyers and delays justice for injury victims.