Ron Miller is an attorney who focuses on serious injury and wrongful death cases involving motor vehicle collisions, medical malpractice, and products and premises liability. If you are looking for a Maryland personal injury attorney for your case, call him today at 800-553-8082.

Last month, Maryland’s Court of Appeals upheld a $7 million verdict to the plaintiff in an asbestos case even though there was no direct evidence that the defendants had installed the asbestos products at issue. In Wallace & Gale Asbestos Settlement Trust v. Busch, a 6-1 majority held that direct evidence of exposure to a specific defendant’s asbestos products is not necessary. Rather, a defendant’s liability for asbestos exposure can be based on circumstantial evidence and reasonable inferences.

Facts of the Case

police brutality pg countyThe underlying facts are fairly typical of most asbestos cases these days. The plaintiff (70-years-old at the time of trial) worked for 30 years as an HVAC technician. He primarily installed thermostats, sensors, and temperature control systems. The plaintiff himself never directly worked with asbestos, but he was sometimes around other people who were using asbestos.

A mass tort that has been getting a lot of attention from lawyers around the country in recent weeks is Xeljanz blood clot lawsuits.

Xeljanz now has a boxed warning, the FDA’s most severe safety warning, for DVT and pulmonary embolisms.

These conditions can be fatal.  This is a big deal for Pfizer’s blockbuster drug.

This is a rare post that does not involve a personal injury case. I’m writing this case because it has a real impact on how people view the civil justice system which has a real impact on my clients.

The 2018 NFC Championship

Even a casual football fan remembers the controversy surrounding this year’s NFC championship game between the New Orleans Saints and the Los Angeles Rams. The Saints were on the verge of sealing a victory in the closing minutes when the referees fail to call a blatant pass interference penalty on the Rams. I was watching the game with my family rooting for the Rams and I still thought the call was ridiculous.

A lawsuit against Gilead Sciences, a prominent drug company known for its HIV medications, has been allowed to continue in federal court after the company filed a motion to dismiss the claims. Although the ruling did dismiss some claims against the biopharma giant, it allowed all the core causes of action to continue making the decision a decisive victory for the plaintiffs.  There is still a long way to go but these cases may have legs that could take the plaintiffs to victories at trial and ultimately a global settlement for all the victims.

The legal allegations against Gilead involve the company’s groundbreaking prescription drugs used for the treatment of HIV.  In 2001, Gilead developed and released a first of its kind drug, tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF) under the brand name Viread. TDF is a unique antiretroviral medicine that works by blocking an enzyme that the HIV virus cells use to replicate and multiply. By preventing the virus cells from replicating, Viread and Gilead’s other TDF drugs effectively stop HIV from growing and progressing into AIDS.

gavel-court-house-238x300Gilead’s TDF drugs (Viread, Atripla, Complera, Stribild) literally changed the treatment landscape for HIV patients. TDF made living long term with HIV a possibility and was being taken every day by hundreds of thousands of patients across the country.  You have to give Gilead a ton of credit for this.  They saved lives and a lot of them.

elderlysigningBecoming the victim of an auto accident can have a profound effect on your life. Even though an accident can happen in the span of a few seconds, it can result in death or injuries and hardships that last months, years, or a lifetime. With that in mind, victims of auto accidents should seek an attorney to ensure that they are compensated for their injuries and/or losses. However, not every attorney is qualified to handle every case. Clients should ensure that they receive the representation that they deserve.

Here are five things to consider when hiring a Maryland car accident attorney:

History of Results

Breaking up with a client is something all personal injury attorneys do on a fairly regular basis. A lot of cases look promising.  But an investigation and review of the medical records can sometimes paint a very different picture.  This is particularly true in medical malpractice cases where the medical records read very differently from what the patient remembers or believes.

For the most part, lawyers are free, as the client is, to sever the attorney-client relationship.  If you have already filed a lawsuit for the client, things are a bit more complication because you will need to get court permission withdrawing from the case.  Before a case is actually filed, however, breaking up is a lot easier.

Maryland Ethical Rules

Our injury lawyers are handling combat arms earplug cases around the country.  If you have a claim, we will evaluate your case at no cost to you.

When most people think about injuries or harm caused by defective products, things like asbestos insulation and power saws with no finger guard usually come to mind. Few people would ever think some as innocuous as small foam earplugs could cause permanent, life-altering injury. But this is exactly what happened to thousands of former military service members, law enforcement officers and others who worked around loud sounds.

3M’s Combat Arms Earplugs May Have Been Defective

phonecall-300x202

Why can’t you get a lawyer on the phone?

I picked up the phone yesterday from someone I knew did not have a personal injury case.  He sent us an online intake weeks ago and was now cycling back to us.  This means has called almost every personal injury lawyer in Maryland but did not keep track of who he had contacted.

The reason he did not have a case was that he had a mass tort case in litigation that has long since ended AND he was passed the statute of limitations.  I spoke to the guy because he never got a personal injury lawyer on the phone to explain to why no one would take his case.  It is confusing.  There are million and one lawyers online and elsewhere begging for cases.  So this guy was understandably perplexed as to why he could not even get anyone on the phone.

Gallagher v Mercy Medical, a new malpractice case handed down this week by the Maryland Court of Appeals,  is the most recent decision from our high court in which a plaintiff’s medical malpractice claims against Mercy Hospital were barred under the “one satisfaction” rule. This rule makes it tough to bring both an auto tort and a medical malpractice case related to the same accident.  If you are handling car accidents cases and there might be a malpractice element to it, you want to read this case (or at least this blog post). The law here his not intuitive because it leads to something the law should not — injustice.

In short, the malpractice claims against Mercy related to treatment for injuries the plaintiff sustained in an auto accident. The plaintiff had already sued the at-fault driver and received settlements from his insurer and a UIM settlement from her own insurance company.

The Court of Appeals held that the settlements from the auto tort action constituted “full satisfaction” for plaintiff’s alleged injuries and, therefore, her subsequent malpractice claims for those injuries were barred by the one satisfaction rule.

The Michigan Supreme Court came out a few weeks ago with a very interesting opinion in favor of the Plaintiff in a malpractice claim that most likely would fail in Maryland.

The doctor’s malpractice attorneys argued that the allegation that the doctor’s negligence caused a reduction in the risk of stroke from 10 to 20 percent to less than 5 to 10 percent was not enough to get the claim to a jury because the loss was not sufficient to meet the burden of proof on proximate causation. The law booksdoctor argued that Michigan law is whether the opportunity to achieve a better result was greater than 50 percent. Under this law, if the plaintiff could not prove that receiving the alleged appropriate treatment would have decreased his risk of injury by 50%, the plaintiff’s claim would fail.

Thankfully, a divided Michigan high court found that this is not the law and that malpractice cases such as this should be decided under a simple principle: the plaintiff is required to prove that the doctor’s negligence more probably than not caused the plaintiff’s injury.

Regrettably, Maryland goes in a different direction on these types of cases as I have previously discussed. One thing Maryland has Michigan beat on is collegiality among the judges on the court. Battles in the Michigan Supreme Court are both political and personal in a way that would shock Maryland lawyers. Judges quoting political statements made by other judges to the press, the judge that wrote the majority opinion writing separately to refute one judge’s personal attack – if you have no interest in this issue it is worth reading the opinion just to get a taste of what this different world is like.

Continue reading

Contact Information