In Doali-Miller v. SuperValu, U.S. District Court Magistrate Paul W. Grimm considers the defendant’s motion in limine regarding medical records and bills in a personal injury case. The plaintiff’s lawyer did not bother writing a response, so Judge Grimm pretty much does that himself. Since Judge Grimm is the most qualified lawyer in Maryland to make these arguments, the plaintiff still gets a fair shake and the motion is denied in part and granted in part. If Judge Grimm is writing about evidence in a personal injury case, I know I need to be reading that opinion.
In Jones v. John Crane, District Court Judge Catherine C. Blake writes about federal jurisdiction in an asbestos products’ liability case where the exposure allegedly occurred on the Aberdeen Proving Ground. Usual story, defendants want to be in federal court; plaintiffs want to be in Baltimore City. The case remains in federal court for now, pending further discovery.
In Buss v. Nilar U, the Plaintiff sought summary judgment on a mediation error lawsuit filed in Carroll County, Maryland against a Wal-Mart and a primary care doctor. The plaintiff’s attorney’s argument was that because the doctor did not deny breaching the standard of care, the plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment on the malpractice claim against the doctor. District Court Judge James K. Bredar found that while the standard of care may have been breached, there was a dispute of material fact as to causation, which is an element of the plaintiff’s burden of proof.
Let’s take one outside of Maryland. In Martin v. St. Dominic’s Hospital, a divided Mississippi Supreme Court dealt with the difficult issue of determining what medical experts need to say when thin-slicing new and pre-existing injuries.