COVID-19 Notice: We are providing FREE consultations via phone or video conferencing for your safety and convenience. Learn More »

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.

Firefighting foam (aqueous film-forming foam “AFF”)) is a chemical product that has been used for years by firemen and in other commercial applications to extinguish fires.

Various studies have recently shown, however, that chronic use or exposure to firefighting can cause certain types of cancer. This discovery has led to a wave of firefighting foam lawsuits by former firemen and others who developed cancer after long periods of occupational exposure to AFF.

Our lawyers are accepting new clients throughout the country for inclusion in the nationwide class action lawsuit.

Paraquat lawsuits are new claims that are sneaking up on plaintiffs’ mass tort trial lawyers.  Let’s take a look at these claims that I think may ultimately lead to a large class action settlement.

Paraquat is universally recognized as one of the most dangerous and highly toxic chemicals in the world. No one disputes this. Paraquat is so highly toxic to the human body that drinking just a tablespoon of it can be fatal. This extreme toxicity (along with environmental concerns) has prompted over 30 countries to ban Paraquat entirely. In the United States, for reasons that defy logic and reason, this toxic chemical is not banned and it has become one of the most widely utilized herbicides in the agriculture industry.  It is so dangerous you need an applicator license to purchase the chemical.   So the question is not why are there Paraquat lawsuits but what took so long?

But now new evidence has revealed that prolonged exposure to Paraquat fumes can health risks that include cause Parkinson’s disease. This discovery might end up being the nail in Paraquat’s coffin. Thousands of lawsuits are now being filed by individuals who used or were exposed to Paraquat and subsequently diagnosed with Parkinson’s disease. There is also a new push in congress to get Paraquat banned.

Over the last few years, victims of child sexual abuse at the hands of clergy members in Maryland have been coming forward to hold their abusers (and the church) accountable.  Our lawyers handle these cases in Maryland and throughout the country.

A groundswell of public support has developed around these victims, and for obvious reasons. The sexual abuse of young children is universally reviled by all cultures. Just the thought of a child being sexually abused by a priest or pastor can send chills down the spine.  The victims of childhood sexual abuse are left permanently scarred and damaged in a very real way.

The wave of abuse allegations and public attention has prompted a movement in favor of holding the clergy abusers and their churches accountable. For the individual clergy members who committed the abuse, accountability often means criminal charges. For the church institutions that allow the abuse to happen, however, accountability has come in the form of civil lawsuits and monetary damages. Over the last decade, religious organizations have paid out over $3 billion in clergy sexual abuse lawsuits.

Does a product manufacturer has a nondelegable duty to design a safe product or can they kick that can down to the end-user?

Said differently, can a product manufacturer shift the responsibility for making safety choices to the end-user of that product?

Okay, this is looking a little bit like a push poll, right?  I’m trying to lead you to the answer that I want.  So maybe the question, phrased least generously to the plaintiff, is does a manufacturer have an obligation to install optional safety equipment?

Tractor-trailers are typically the heaviest vehicles on the road. This makes big rig trucks very dangerous. Serious injuries and fatalities are more likely in truck-related collisions than in accidents involving standard passenger vehicles only. This is why large commercial trucks are required to carry “high-limit” liability insurance coverage.  But the limits are not high enough to give truck accident victims in many cases.

Common Causes for Big Rig Truck Accidents

Accidents with big trucks can happen for all the same reasons as any other auto accident. But the unique nature of big trucks and the commercial trucking industry make certain types of accidents more common. Common accident causes that are unique to the trucking industry include:

The untimely death of a family member or someone you love can be devastating, both emotionally and economically. This type of loss can be even harder to accept when it was caused by someone else’s negligence. Fortunately, our civil legal system gives you the ability to do something about this by filing a wrongful death lawsuit.

The Maryland wrongful death lawyers at Miller & Zois help the survivors hold people accountable for the death of their family member and get financial compensation for their loss. Wrongful death lawsuits are often misunderstood, and our office gets a lot of questions about this topic. In this post, we will go over three key facts that you need to know about Maryland wrongful death lawsuits.

Definition of “Wrongful Death” Under Maryland Law

My law firm limits its law practice to personal injury cases on behalf of victims.  We started our firm in 2002, on a shoestring, a wing, and a prayer, we had potentially lucrative opportunities to jump out to handle other types of case.

Was I tempted?  I was tempted.  But personal injury is our true wheelhouse and we stayed there.  But over the last 18 years, we have handled many different types of personal injury cases.

What is personal injury? The term “personal injury case” is sort of an umbrella phrase that refers to any type of tort lawsuit in which a plaintiff has been physically injured and is suing someone for compensation. There are many different types or categories of personal injury claims under this umbrella. They range from very simple slip and fall cases to extremely complex medical malpractice cases.

here is no law in Maryland requiring shoes or prohibiting certain types of footwear while driving. However, driving while barefoot or wearing shoes such as high heels or flip-flops can be unsafe. Improper footwear affects your ability to apply pressure to your pedals or pivot between them. They can even cause you to hit both pedals at once.

Shoes to Avoid While Driving

You should avoid wearing the following types of shoes while driving. These shoes can impair your ability to control your vehicle’s pedals.


The reason women do not report sexual harassment is their fear of retaliation from the harasser and her employer.  This is particularly true when the harasser has a position of power within the organization.

Juries are made up mostly of people in the workplace.  So they get it.  Jurors often side with the victim in discrimination cases where there is evidence of retaliation for reporting sexual harassment and the organization did nothing to stop it.

There are two types of workplace harassment under federal law:  sexual harassment and retaliatory harassment. This post focus on retaliation.

States are split on whether tort liability may be imposed on local governments for police brutality/excessive force/misconduct cases.  Some states permit the imposition of tort liability for their police officers’ intentional actions while on the job.   Some refuse to impose tort liability, arguing that such conduct is not within the scope of employment.  The Maryland Court of Appeals issued a new opinion that stakes out Maryland’s position on this issue with newfound clarity.

At issue in Baltimore City Police Dept. v. Potts, 468 Md. 265 (2020) was criminal misconduct by Baltimore City police officers could be considered actions within the scope of their employment under the Local Government Tort Claims Act (“LGTCA”).  The misconduct here was next level.  Stopping suspects without probable cause, assaulting them, and planting handguns on suspects to give them grounds for arrest.

Maryland’s Court of Appeals held that these actions were within the scope of the officer’s employment because they were done in furtherance of police business and incidental to authorized police conduct. Therefore, the Police Department could be held liable under the LGTCA.

Contact Information