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.

The most common question I get from friends and acquaintances is whether you can sue if you are not injured in a car accident?   The answer is yes, but with caveats.

Most auto accidents do not result in any physical injuries (75% according to the NHTSA). Even when your vehicle is the only thing that is damaged, you can still file a lawsuit after an auto accident if you were not at fault. This is what is known as a “property damage” auto accident lawsuit. If you file a property damage auto tort case, you can get compensation for the full cost of any damage to your vehicle.

Can I Still Sue If I'm Not Insured in the Auto Accident?

Let’s set aside the property damage because I address that below. The question here is do you have pain and suffering in a car accident where you either had no physical injuries or did not seek medical treatment?

In a personal injury lawsuit, the amount of money you receive for your injuries is determined by calculating your damages. The idea behind damages in a personal injury case is to make the victim “whole” or restore them to the position they were in before the accident.

The legal concept of damages is broad and it includes costs and expenses that have already been incurred (e.g., medical bills from last month) as well as costs and expenses that will be incurred in the future (e.g., the cost of surgery you will need in three months). These two types of damages are often referred to as “past” and “future” damages.

Past damages, such as prior medical expenses and lost wages, are usually very simple to calculate. Future damages, however, can be much more complicated. Future damages must be supported by opinions from qualified experts, and they often get disputed by the defense. In this post, we will look at the process of estimating and supporting claims for future damages in personal injury cases.

 The Paragard IUD is an intrauterine contraceptive device made by Teva Pharmaceuticals. Recently it was discovered that a design defect in the Paragard was causing the IUD device to fracture during removal, leaving shattered pieces floating around inside the uterus.  Now hundreds of women who have been harmed by this defect are filing Paragard lawsuits. Earlier this year the Paragard litigation officially rose to “mass tort” status when cases across the U.S. were consolidated into a new Paragard MDL.

In this post, I will try to answer the questions everyone has after a new mass tort MDL is created: Will the litigation be successful, who qualifies as a plaintiff, and how much will cases be worth?

The Paragard IUD

[Update: June 10, 2021 — Unfortunately,  3M earplug victims lost the second 3M earplug lawsuit that has gone to trial last week.  This was a tinnitus case and a tougher case for the plaintiff.  The third trial is underway and the verdict will be incredibly important in determining settlement amounts in the 3M lawsuits.]

[Update: April 30,2021 — 3M Earplug Verdict!   A whopping $7.1 million verdict with $2.1 million in punitive damages for each of the three plaintiffs!

What does this mean?  First, it means the jury was extremely angry with 3M.  The punitive damages were far greater than the compensation.  Second, these bellwethers trials set settlement values.  So the per person settlement compensation payout projections of the 3M lawsuits just got a lot higher. 

The hernia mesh lawsuits have been litigated for years.  For victims seeking settlement compensation, it has been a never-ending road.  But with the court bouncing back from COVID, two trials are on the way that could be the bridge to a class action hernia mesh settlement to finally bring victims overdue settlement compensation for the harm done to them.

Over the last decade, countless individuals who underwent hernia repair surgeries subsequently suffered pain and serious injuries caused by a defective hernia mesh implant that was used in their procedure. There are currently thousands of hernia mesh lawsuits currently pending across the country and they have been consolidated into three separate class action MDLs.

Progress in all the hernia mesh class action MDLs got interrupted by the pandemic and resulting court closures. Now things are opening back up and it is shaping up to be an action-packed summer on the hernia mesh litigation front.

Our lawyers are investigating Zantac lawsuits in all 50 states.   The evidence seems clear to our attorneys that Zantac is causing many types of cancer.

Zantac lawsuits are now consolidated in a class-action federal court in Florida.  So if you file a Zantac claim in federal court, your lawsuit will wind up in Florida.

There is a widespread belief among mass tort attorneys that these MDL class action claims could be worth billions of dollars.  My guess?  Between $5 billion and $10 billion.

As courts around the country struggle to get back to the business of hearing and deciding cases, many states have recently adopted plans to have virtual jury trials. This raises the possibility that Maryland might follow suit and adopt its own plan for virtual jury trials. In this post, we will speculate on the likelihood of Maryland adopting virtual jury service for civil trials.

COVID-19 Impact on the Maryland Judiciary

The ongoing COVID-19 pandemic has disrupted and forcibly changed almost every level of government administration and services in Maryland and around the country. This seismic disturbance has had a disproportionately harsh impact on civil court proceedings.

In 2013, the FDA approved the iron supplement Injectafer. This drug is used to treat iron-deficiency anemia, a condition where the body lacks enough iron to produce healthy red blood cells. Shortly after FDA approval, studies revealed that the use of Inectafer could cause severe hypophosphatemia (HPP) in some patients.

As a result, several Injectafer lawsuits have been filed against its manufacturers and distributors. The plaintiffs in these suits allege that the drug caused their severe hypophosphatemia, a condition where the body experiences low phosphate levels. Our law firm is currently accepting new Injectafer lawsuits.

About Injectafer

When a litigation settlement offer is “still on the table,” what exactly does that mean and how long does an offer last on “the table” before it expires?  In Moore v. Donegal Mutual Ins. Co. (No. 788) the Maryland Court of Special Appeals (COSA) considers these ponderous questions about the shelf life of settlement offers “on the table.” The COSA held that whether an on-the-table settlement offer had expired after 2 hours and could no longer be accepted was a question of fact for a jury.

Factual Background of Moore v. Donegal Mutual

The plaintiff’s lawyer attempted to accept a settlement offer during a lunch recess at trial. The plaintiff had brought a premises liability action against a hotel in Baltimore County. The insurance carrier for the hotel was Donegal Mutual Insurance Co. (“Donegal”). At some point before trial, Donegal made an $18,000 settlement. Plaintiff balked at the offer and took the case to trial.

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.

Contact Information