Maryland Injury Lawyer Blog

U.S. District Court Judge Roger W. Titus writes an interesting opinion on the applicability of the Maryland long arm statute to a defendant who runs a music camp in New York but has a website that obviously reaches Maryland residents.

The battle in the case was over the rights to the phrase "Bach to Rock." (It is a name worth fighting over, I think. Very catchy.)

You can find the opinion here.

Serious personal injury clients in accident and malpractice cases often understandable get put behind the 8 ball in their personal finances. This means every now and again I find myself dealing with a collection lawyer.

The New York Times takes an honest look at the practice of debt collection. Apparently, and you see this from a few hospitals in Maryland, debt collecting attorneys have decided the best way to collect on a debt is to put the case in suit, a practice that is wreaking havoc on the courts because the volume of computer generated complaints is so high.

The other problem in dealing with debt collecting lawyers, as the article points out, is that many practice law like they are running a factory. You ever try playing phone tag with a debt collection lawyer? It is awful. The lawyer I was calling had no way to get a live receptionist and, incredibly, his message said if we don't call you back, call us again. Another tactic to get the general public feeling cozy about lawyers, I guess. Moreover, professional courtesy seems to take a backseat. These lawyers tend to put calls from personal injury lawyers behind random cold calls in the call back food chain.

Believe me, I know I'm overgeneralizing. And I also understand the importance of having legal mechanisms available to support those collecting debts. The "Man", as John Bratt's refers to big business in his blog post earlier this week, has just as much right to the judicial system as the little guy does. But I think we need to make sure that the consumer is getting adequate protection under the law, too. As the article points out, many of these debt claims are brought without any meaningful proof of a debt but the consumer and the consumer does not have the resources or the sophistication to challenge the creditors claim.

I don't provide any answers today, I'm just point out the problem. Tomorrow's post will try to solve many of the world's problems, I'm sure.

I can't stop working to listen to the Elena Kagan confirmation hearing. But there has been so much talk of the questions Elena Kagan will get, it is hard not to check in.

NPR is live blogging through Tom Goldstein's SCOTUSblog. I love the NPR disclaimer on this: "While SCOTUSblog has relationships with the law firms of Akin Gump and Howe & Russell, it covers the work of the Supreme Court as an impartial, journalistic entity." I think I'll start putting this kind of disclaimer on the Maryland Injury Lawyer Blog. To make the Chinese Wall particularly high, I'll change my shoes and my socks to transition from personal injury lawyer to impartial journalist. You won't see the change but you will have to just trust me.

Getting that off my chest, Goldstein's live blog is worth reading. Also worth reading, for a very different reason, is David Lat and Elie Mystal's live blog of the confirmation hearings on Above the Law. I'm not sure who is doing most of the writing but this is quality stuff. I can't imagine Above the Law is a high paying gig. If I'm any judge of talent, both of these writers will leave Above the Law for greener pastures in the next year. (Then again, I would have bet the farm against Brett Favre last season.)

The fee to file a lawsuit in Maryland will rise $30 to $155 on July 1st. Sue now at the low, low price of $125.

The Maryland Daily Record published a three part series over the last month on mediation in Maryland personal injury cases, a piece I wrote with the Honorable Clifton J. Gordy . You can read the articles on-line but you have to be a subscriber to the Daily Record to read the entire article.

• Part I of Mediation in Personal Injury Cases
• Part II of Mediation in Personal Injury Cases
• Part III of Mediation in Personal Injury Cases

I'm pleased to report that our own John Bratt won two consolidated cases in the Maryland Court of Appeals today. The decision really goes to the core of the question as to what kinds of financial information from professional expert witnesses is discoverable. One of the cases has already gone to verdict; the other is a serious brain injury case where our ability to cross examine Defendant's expert on bias is going to be extremely important.

I would summarize the case but I suspect John can provide the best summary on his Baltimore Injury Lawyer Blog. When he posts his summary, I will alert Maryland Injury Lawyer Blog readers. (It is worth adding John's blog to your RSS feed if you have not already done so.)

You can find the Maryland Court of Appeals opinion here.

The Maryland Court of Appeals found today in a 5-2 opinion in a lead paint case that an individual member of a Maryland limited liability corporation (LLC) can be personally liable for torts personally committed on behalf of the LLC.

The case, Allen v. Dackman, is a classic Baltimore lead paint case, another saga in the tragedy of children suffering brain injuries as the result of ingesting chipping, flaking, and/or peeling lead-based paint.

The owner defendant sought refuge from personal liability because his acts were on behalf of his creatively named LLC, Hard Assets. The trial judge granted summary judgment. The Maryland Court of Special Appeals, in an opinion by Judge Zarnoch, affirmed:

No member shall be personally liable for the obligations of the limited liability company, whether arising in contract, tort or otherwise, solely by reason of being a member of the limited liability company. Thus, appellants cannot succeed in imputing the alleged negligent acts of Hard Assets to appellee.

The Maryland Court of Appeals disagreed, finding that a person can be held responsible for the torts committed on behalf of the LLC, finding that the lead paint landlord could be personally liable for Plaintiffs' injuries because a reasonable jury could find that he was an “owner” of the property, as the Housing Code defined that term.

I did not find any of this earth shattering because this has always been Maryland law for corporations. However appealing it might be to me personally as a member of an LLC, the logic of giving LLC members additional protection for torts does not make sense to me.

So Plaintiffs get another shot at putting on a case against the landlord individually. This is going to be an interesting case to try to a jury. Children claiming brain damage are almost invariably sympathetic but tenants in this case were not actually paying tenants. So there could be some "how can you sue the guy when he was not even the landlord?" sentiment from the jury (assuming there is no successful motion in limine to exclude that evidence).

The take home lesson here for landlords is that you cannot have property, even vacant or property that is not rented, that has chipping, peeling, or flaking paint. The lesson for doctors, lawyers and every other profession in this case: get insurance.

Brian Brown argued the case for Plaintiffs; James R. Benjamin, Jr. (Whiteford, Taylor, and Preston) argued on behalf of the Defendant.

You can find the full opinion here.

I summarized two new Court of Appeals of Maryland opinions elsewhere last week: Benway v. Maryland Port Authority and Darby v. Marley Cooling . Benway deals with a procedural issue with respect to when a party can file a summary judgment motion. Darby deals with an interesting Maryland workers' compensation issue (that I did not fully understand because I have never handled a workers' comp claim).

I think this is the first time on this blog I ever used "Court of Appeals of Maryland" instead of "Maryland Court of Appeals." The former is technically correct but it just sounds strange to me. I'm heading back to Maryland Court of Appeals.

Guy breaks into your house. Your are terrified that harm will come to you, your spouse or your children. Yet something holds you back from taking decisive action to protect your family.. the threat of a civil lawsuit by the burglar.

To stop this insanity, House Bill 207 has been introduced by House Delegate William J. Frank from Baltimore County, to raise the negligence bar for people who use force against a home or office burglar to make them immune from civil liability unless they acted “with malice or gross negligence.”

Naturally, Maryland courts are clogged with frivolous lawsuits by personal injury lawyers representing criminals who were injured breaking into homes of the innocent. Just ask John H. Josselyn who is with the Associated Gun Clubs of Baltimore:

Far too many attorneys are willing to initiate a civil action on behalf of criminals who allege that the victim, who was acting legally in self-defense, did something that violated the rights of the attacker. Defending a civil action, even when it is a frivolous lawsuit, involves great expense.

Let's take a breath and break this quote down and get our arms around whether there is even a portion of it that is not demonstrably false on its face.

Continue reading "Gross Negligence Standard for Homeowners Defending Their Homes" »

Yesterday, The Maryland Court of Appeals decided Prince George's County v. Longtin. The Plaintiff in this case was arrested for murdering his wife. When the real bad guy was found, Plaintiff brought a claim against Prince George’s County, alleging false imprisonment and, more significantly I think, that police officers engaged in a pattern or practice of “unconstitutional and unlawful detention and interrogation” and “excessive force and brutality." One fact that had to stand out to the jury to lend credibility to his claim: the police ignored DNA evidence that ruled out the Plaintiff, keeping him in jail another six months. The jury bought in, awarding over $6 million in damages, which included over a $1 million in punitive damages collectively against the police officers. Why don’t you remember reading about any of this? The murder was over 10 years ago. The wheels of justice sometimes cruise casually.

The jury appeal of this case is easy to see. It is transcendently awful enough to have your wife murdered. But being wrongfully accused when the evidence should have sent police in another direction and then being physically and mentally brutalized by police? It makes anyone’s top 5 nightmares list. These police officers crossed lines that would make Jimmy McNulty blush.

Still, there are limits to the ‘it could just as easily have been me” feeling you might be having reading this post. Plaintiff admitted to having a verbal and physical altercation with his wife just hours before her body was found. After the altercation, he got a knife and ran after her. Later, she turns up missing and murdered. So while I fault the police for a lot based on these reported facts, jumping to conclusions about Plaintiff guilt is not one of them. I mean, what are the chances?

That’s more on the facts than I planned but it is just an incredible story. Anyway, Prince George’s County argued – apparently without shame – from the beginning that that the Local Government Tort Claims act barred his claim because he did not provide adequate notice. Plaintiff responded with the complex legal theory of “how on earth can you expect me to give you notice when you have wrongfully imprisoned me for more than 180 days?”

The Maryland Court of Special Appeals agreed, finding that an “ordinary prudent person” in Plaintiff’s situation could not have given notice in 180 days. I’m dumbing down a complex opinion, but I think that is an adequate summary.

What would have saved everyone a lot of time in this case and furthered justice in countless others would be if the Maryland legislature would simply abolish the Local Government Tort Claims and the Maryland Tort Claims Act. What exactly is the wisdom in treating government different from you and I when it comes to the statute of limitations? If we all agree it is fair that a local government can be sued in actions sounding in tort in the same manner and extent that anyone can be sued, why change the limitations period? I think the idea of governmental immunity is illogical and outdated but at least I understand the rationale. Altering the statute of limitations is a crude and illogical way to treat citizens in substantially similar situations in dissimilar ways.

Interesting historical footnote that may be of interest only to me: Prince George’s County was the first county in Maryland to waive sovereign immunity in 1970.

You can read the full opinion here.

Yesterday in Burnside v. Wong, the Maryland Court of Appeals affirmed the Court of Special Appeals and a Baltimore City trial judge’s finding that Baltimore County was the appropriate venue for a medical malpractice lawsuit filed in Baltimore City.

The doctor had two contacts with Baltimore City that Plaintiff’s malpractice lawyer argued constituted doing business in the jurisdiction. The doctor had privileges at Mercy Medical Center in Baltimore City, and he held active-staff part-time privileges and had a faculty appointment at Johns Hopkins Hospital.

The doctor argued he no longer was seeing patients in Baltimore City and that merely having privileges was not enough to constitute doing business. The Court of Appeals agreed, finding that the proper time period for determining whether a defendant carries on a regular business or habitually engages in a vocation in the venue is when the complaint is filed. The court also rejected the idea that the injury occurred in Baltimore City, in spite of the fact that a doctor provided an affidavit that showed to a reasonable degree of medical probability that Plaintiff’s injury more likely than not occurred in Baltimore City. In other words, while the misdiagnosis may have been elsewhere, the manifestation of injury was likely in Baltimore City.

I think this is a bad decision because I thought the idea in the big picture was to defer to Plaintiff’s choice of venue when in doubt. If the Plaintiff appeared to suffer injury in Baltimore City – and an affidavit said she did – that would seem good enough for me, particularly coupled with the fact that the doctor had privileges and appointments in the city. Believe me, if he testifies, you will hear a lot of throwing “professor at Johns Hopkins” around. Geography should matter a little here, too. Should this defendant doctor really be surprised to be amenable to suit in Baltimore City?

While six smart people obviously disagree with me, I’m heartened by the fact that at least Judge Bell agrees. He believes that under the majority’s interpretation, the venue statute loses it rightful voice in determining venue. From the court’s analysis, Judge Bell points out, every misdiagnosis medical malpractice case must be brought where the misdiagnosis occurred. This does not seem to be the intent of the venue statute. He argued that prior case law makes clear that a plaintiff who experiences pain before, during and after a misdiagnosis, suffers an “injury” for venue purposes. (I'm simplifying a bit, you need to read the opinion.)

You can find the opinion here.

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" »

Last month, I wrote a post about an article I read from Ron Miller, a politician in southern Maryland, who wrote an article suggesting we take a shot at health courts in Maryland to help resolve malpractice cases. Mr. Miller fails to note that we already tried this in Maryland and it completely failed.

Anyway, bizarro Ron Miller strikes back in Southern Maryland Online:

I was pleasantly surprised to stumble across a response to my column on medical malpractice liability reform from another Ron Miller, Ronald V. Miller, Jr. to be exact. Ron is an attorney in Baltimore who represents individuals in personal injury cases. His response is predictable:

"I'm sure he is a nice guy. But politically, and particularly on this issue, he is the anti-me. And I don't think this article even offers the best arguments for those arguing for tort reform in Maryland medical malpractice cases."

Ron is particularly critical of my proposal for a hospital-administered arbitration system for medical malpractice cases, stating it would be "mad" to let hospitals decide if malpractice occurred and what the settlement will be.

Well, Ron, I'm sure you are a nice guy and I dig your name. You may even be, as you say, more famous than me. That's cool; the paparazzi can get on your nerves after a while. I'm not a lawyer so I don't have all your "book learnin'" as my grandfather used to say.

If you read the article beyond the suggestion that sent you into low earth orbit, however, you'd see that even if a patient goes through the entire process, they still have the right to take their case to court if they aren't satisfied. This proposed approach is more flexible than the standard dispute resolution process in most corporations these days where, once you accept their jurisdiction, you surrender your right to outside litigation.

You'd also see where I suggest an independent arbitration system could be established to further ensure impartiality. Finally, I mentioned this system has proved credible with patients who've used it.

You see, "bizarro Ron Miller" doesn't believe a lawsuit is the only way to satisfy the patient and discipline doctors legitimately guilty of malpractice vice simply not meeting unrealistic expectations. I don't want to threaten your livelihood, however. If the health court proposal I reference in the same article is implemented, I think you'd make a great health court judge.

Another critic pointed out that a Congressional Budget Office (CBO) study discounted the conventional wisdom that malpractice liability is a major cost factor in health care. I don't know all the parameters of their study but my mother always told me to "use the common sense God gave you." Common sense tells me if a doctor orders a battery of tests that aren't necessary but might help deflect a potential lawsuit, those extra tests cost somebody some money. If doctors' malpractice insurance premiums are going up rather than down, common sense suggests the cost has to be absorbed somewhere in the system. These higher costs are directly attributable to the threat of malpractice liability and someone's paying for them somewhere.

Continue reading "The Revenge of Bizarro Ron Miller" »

The Maryland Court of Appeals has two big cases in 2009 – one a lead paint case, the other a medical malpractice claim - in which plaintiffs seek a path around Maryland’s non-economic damages cap after big jury verdicts. Plaintiffs lost Round 1 today.

In Green v. NBS, Plaintiffs’ lead paint lawyers argued that the statutory cap on non-economic damages in Maryland does not apply to personal injury claims authorized by the Consumer Protection Act. Specifically, and creatively, Plaintiffs claimed that a lawsuit brought under the CPA is not a “personal injury action” and the Maryland legislature did not want a cap on deceptive practiced covered by the CPA.

The Maryland high court, however, found that Plaintiffs’ CPA claim is a personal injury action, and that CJ § 11-108 is applicable to a proceeding in which a consumer asserts a claim for money damages to compensate for injuries sustained as a result of a Consumer Protection Act violation. The court’s reasoning is, essentially, that if it looks like a personal injury claim and talks like a personal injury claim, then it is a personal injury claim.

Plaintiffs’ lawyers made two other arguments. The first was DOA: the cap violates the Maryland constitution. Again, Plaintiffs’ lawyers tried to put a CPA spin on the old argument, arguing that a cap on a CPA claim violates the prohibition against the enactment of “special laws” in the Maryland Constitution. But the argument went nowhere with the court.

Continue reading "Maryland’s Cap on Damages in Lead Paint Cases" »

The Maryland Court of Special Appeals found Monday that the trial court erred in excluding the estate of a five year old drowning victim from presenting a survival action for conscious pain and suffering of the child while drowning. You can find the opinion here. I first blogged about this case two years ago after an Anne Arundel County jury awarded $4 million in a wrongful death action brought by his parents. The survival claim was dismissed by the trial court for lack of evidence that the boy suffered before he died.

The lawyers in the case on both sides did exactly what lawyers should do: make the best arguments for their clients. I would do the same. But it is haunting trying to explain this to your client in a wrongful death/survival action case. “No one knows for sure whether your child (or parent or sibling) suffered awfully before he/she died. But the likelihood is high because (fill in your own awful means of death). So we are going to argue that he/she endured unbelievable suffering that neither of us can ever imagine.” You don’t say it quite like that. But it is truly awful and it makes you want to get another job.

After I frame the issue, the client almost invariably wants to win the argument. This is completely understandable. But the victim's family finds themselves in the position of rooting that someone who has never met the person they love finds there was horrible suffering before the person's death. But they hope and pray that it is not really true. It is a grotesque paradox.

Defense lawyers have it worse on some level. I don’t know who the lawyer was in this case but what are the chances that lawyer went home to their spouse at the end of the day proud of their victory in the trial court? “Honey, I won this argument today where I argued this little boy drowned and didn’t suffer because there is no proof the child suffered because he died – I’m so proud of my victory.” Do you think that lawyer does not know that child suffered? Don’t you have to sadly admit this as you explain the story of your "victory"? Again, I’d make the argument if I was the defense lawyer. Then I would go home and shower.

Continue reading "New Maryland Appellate Opinion on Survival Actions" »

Maryland Senate Bill 468 passed today in the Maryland Senate. It increases - from $10,000 to $20,000 - the maximum amount in controversy in a civil action in which a party may not demand a jury trial. In other words, defendants would only be able to "bump up" cases between $20,000 and $30,000 from District Court to Circuit Court.

Currently, any case pled in District Court for more than $10,000 can be bumped up to a jury trial. This practice, which is mostly done by insurance companies in personal injury car accident cases, leads to massive numbers of car accident cases before Maryland juries in cases that should be streamlined into District Court trials.

In fact, auto insurance companies are the problem in getting this bill passed; small businesses, for example, did not oppose this bill. Why are auto insurance companies opposed to this bill? It saves them legal costs to be sure. Is it because insurance companies get better results in front of juries than judges? No. The motive is much more nefarious: they want personal injury lawyers to have to spend time and resources in accident cases if the lawyers and their clients refuse the insurance companies' below market settlement offers in smaller cases.

Moving this bump up number from $10,000 to $20,000 is not a panacea, but it will help circuit courts in Maryland focus their energies on more serious cases.

The Daily Record has another article on the Exxon case in Jacksonville that I had blogged about yesterday. What was interesting, at least to me, is that one Plaintiffs' lawyer gave the closing and another Plaintiffs' lawyer gave the rebuttal. Even in large trials involving multiple lawyers for each party, I think this is a little surprising. But I don't think it is a bad thing.

Without reading the pleadings, I'm amazed that the punitive damages have gone to the jury. The Plaintiffs' attorneys have three hurdles to climb to get punitive damages: (1) the jury, (2) the judge, who still may rule against them, and (3) Maryland appellate courts, who most certainly will hear this case if Plaintiffs get past the first two steps.

Continue reading "Punitive Damages in Maryland: More on the Exxon Trial" »

There is a battle now in the Maryland state legislature about whether Maryland should increase the minimum jurisdictional amount before a defendant can remove a case from District Court to Circuit Court. Defense lawyers for State Farm and Allstate, the two largest auto insurance providers in Maryland, routinely "bump up" District Court claims to Circuit Court if the amount in controversy is more than $10,000.

So what happens is we have a large volume of cases where insurance defense lawyers in Maryland are seeking jury trials in cases that do not belong in Circuit Court. Why? Do they think a jury will give them a more fair trial? Ironically, for the jury-hating insurance companies who continue to argue that juries are out of control, trust in juries is at least one reason insurance companies seek jury trials in Maryland auto accident cases (at least in some Maryland counties where juries are more conservative).

But the primary reason why insurance companies seek jury trials in smaller auto accident cases in Maryland is because it tortures Maryland auto accident lawyers. The insurance companies do this, not motivated by spite – well not primarily anyway, but because it is a good global tactic. A significant number of auto accident lawyers in Maryland are reticent to file a lawsuit. The threat of getting a small case going through the Circuit Court ringer is even more daunting to many Maryland injury lawyers. I’m not saying it should be. But it is for those seeking the path of least resistance.

Continue reading "Circuit Court Removal by Insurance Companies in Maryland Car Accident Cases" »

The Baltimore Sun had an article on Sunday about the unfairness of the nature and the speed of lawsuits hospitals are filing against patients for unpaid hospital bills. The numbers are staggering: Maryland hospitals have filed 132,000 lawsuits in the past five years for unpaid bills, a third of which have been filed in Baltimore City District Court.

We have had personal injury and even medical malpractice clients sued by Maryland hospitals, often over incredibly small bills, even after the client has signed an assignment of funds to be paid out of their settlement. The collection lawyers hired by the hospitals are often running collection mills so getting a person on the phone typically takes an Act of Congress if you want to talk about a case.

I don’t know what the answer is. The hospital is entitled to be paid. But so many decent people are getting pounded, often at a time in their lives when they most need a break.

Baltimore is "teetering along the edge of a hellhole" because of its hospitable climate for personal injury lawsuits, according to a new study from the American Tort Reform Foundation.

If you are a lawyer handling medical malpractice, accident or products liability cases in Baltimore, this comes a little out of left field because while Baltimore is considered a more reasonable jurisdiction than most in Maryland to try personal injury cases, Baltimore plaintiffs’ lawyers hardly see Baltimore as a personal injury utopia. Baltimore makes up a large portion of personal injury cases cases in Maryland, which has a median jury verdict in personal injury cases is $12,813. In contrast, the median jury verdict in New York in personal injury cases is $287,628. There are a number of systemic reasons for this difference that have nothing to do with the judges or the juries in Maryland and New York. But still. Baltimore injury lawyers just don't have the impression that Baltimore has runaway juries. Is it a reasonable jurisdiction? Yes, particularly compared to many jurisdictions in Maryland. It is a personal injury lawyer's dream? Not by a long shot. But Baltimore’s place in the report is not based on malpractice, accident or products cases but on two specific types of cases: asbestos and lead paint.

But this is not because of judges or juries in Baltimore. It is because it is – and even more so, was – a blue collar town with a lot of workers who had exposure to asbestos. I realize some people find it frustrating that personal injury lawyers handling these cases ended up with “buy a baseball team” money. This American Tort Reform report plays to this sentiment, calling Baltimore “a welcoming host to a disproportionate share” of asbestos lawsuits and singled out Baltimore Orioles owner, Peter Angelos, calling him an "all-star plaintiffs' attorney with a specialty in asbestos cases." (Somehow, I doubt Angelos takes offense to this.)

I don’t think anyone other than a personal injury lawyer gets excited about a personal injury lawyer making billions of dollars in legal fees. But the reality is that the asbestos litigation was a once in a generation disaster. And Baltimore became a hotbed because of the industries we have here. The abject suffering caused by mesothelioma from asbestos has been lost in all of the attention being paid to the litigation.

Baltimore was also in a unique position on lead paint cases because Baltimore public officials got us out in front of the lead paint problem by testing kids much earlier than other cities which provided the data for lead paint lawyers in Baltimore to secure expert opinions. This means they were able to file a large number of cases before the insurance companies got wise and started putting lead paint exclusions in their insurance polices with landlords. Sure, there have been a number of good lead paint verdicts – including the $5.7 million verdict mentioned in the American Tort Reform report. But, look, trying a case on behalf of a brain injured child against a slum landlord is like shooting fish in a barrel. Moreover, the report neglects to mention that the jury’s award was cut to less that $1.3 million because of the caps on non-economic damages in Maryland.

Continue reading "Is Baltimore a Judicial Hellhole?" »