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.

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.

Do you want to make a pain and suffering claim without a lawyer?  I believe car crash injury victims are always better off hiring a lawyer for many reasons not worth fully exploring here (but I do here) even in soft tissue muscle, tendon, and ligament injury cases.

Why You May Not Want an Attorney

But attorneys’ fees are a lot of money, usually taking one-third of your recovery. If there is any claim where an injured person can justify proceeding without a personal injury attorney, it is in the classic neck or back soft tissue/whiplash injury traffic collision case with pain and suffering but clearly no permanency. My belief has always been that the benefit of an experienced Maryland car accident attorney can bring to a case is proportionate to the severity of the injury. If you have a permanent injury, you are foolish if you don’t hire a lawyer. (I wouldn’t handle my own case, either. Because that is also an awful idea.)

A quality attorney in serious injury and death cases will statistically get the injured party a lot more money.  I’m talking about the money that put in your pocket.  The same is probably true in tendon strain neck/back injury cases, too. But car accident lawyers cannot run from the fact that the difference is much less significant in smaller cases. 

Some people just prefer the path where lawyers are not taking money away from their settlement. So be it. As long as you understand you run a risk just like you run a risk when you try to install your own bathroom floor, just typically with a lot more money at stake. Continue reading

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 police 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 this police misconduct was 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 is liable under the LGTCA.

The qui tam lawyers at my firm represent corporate whistleblowers in lawsuits under the False Claims Act involving fraud and other illegal schemes.

Under the Federal False Claims Act (FCA) and the Maryland False Claims Act (MFCA), anyone with direct knowledge of corporate fraud that is costing the government money can file a lawsuit against and earn a percentage of any money recovered.

These types of whistleblower lawsuits by private citizens on behalf of the government are known as “qui tam” lawsuits.

In Billing v. Moulsdale, the Maryland Court of Special Appeals overturned a defense verdict and granted the plaintiff a new trial in malpractice lawsuit on damages only.

What the doctor was found to have done as a matter of law is pretty gross doctor are pretty gross.  Essentially, and you can read the case if you want all the details, the doctor performed a breast and vaginal exam on a patient that was completely unrelated to the care he was providing.

Was this a onetime thing?  It never is.  Dr. Moulsdale surrendered his medical license after more women than just the plaintiff accused him of performing unwarranted and unnecessary breast, pelvic and rectal examinations on several female patients.

In Adventist Healthcare Inc. v. Mattingly, the Maryland Court of Special Appeals (COSA) was asked to consider whether a mother’s decision to cremate her son’s remains amounted to the destruction of evidence in a subsequent lawsuit for medical malpractice. The COSA ruled that having remains cremated does not constitute spoliation of evidence in a subsequent malpractice case. The Court held that family members have no duty to preserve evidence from the body or allow potential malpractice defendants to examine the body independently.

Facts of Adventist Healthcare Inc. v. Mattingly

The decedent (Mattingly) underwent surgery to reverse a colostomy at Adventist Hospital in Takoma Park, Maryland. Five days after the surgery, Mr. Mattingly died while still in the hospital. Mattingly’s mother was with him at the hospital when he died, and she immediately suspected that the doctors and staff had been negligent. She wanted an autopsy performed to learn the cause of her son’s death, but she didn’t trust anyone at the hospital to give her an honest opinion.

In its final decision of the Term, Maryland’s Court of Appeals gave us an (arguably) game-changing decision Rochkind v. Stevenson. The court announced that it was discarding the old Frye-Reed rule and formally adopting the Daubert test for the admissibility of expert testimony.  We all knew we would get here one day. And here we finally are.

Factual Background of Rochkind v. Stevenson

The case that gave rise to this appellate decision began back in 2011 when the plaintiff brought a lead paint case against her former landlord, Stanley Rochkind.  The Rochkind name has been ubiquitous in the lead paint world, having been the defendant in hundreds of claims over the last 25 years that were covered by multiple insurers.

Defendants in medical malpractice cases will frequently defend themselves by pointing the finger of blame at another doctor who was involved in the plaintiff’s treatment.  Sort of.   They talk about but rarely do they put on the case with expert testimony.  They just make a lot of rumblings about it in discovery.

Usually, the doctor who gets blamed is not a defendant in the malpractice case. I call this defense strategy “blaming the empty chair.” This defense strategy can be very effective in certain situations. Juries often feel sympathetic for injured plaintiffs, but may be reluctant to condemn the defendant doctors. The empty chair defense offers jurors a tempting “scapegoat” in this context.  It is always so much easier to blame the guy who is not in the room.  We do it all the time in our personal lives. (Clint Eastwood is a huge fan.)

American Radiology v. Reiss

Doctors may now have a new and powerful tool for the early diagnosis of newborns who suffer brain damage during childbirth. A study recently published in Scientific Reports announced that a breakthrough neonatal blood test can effectively and immediately identify those newborns with neurologic damage resulting from oxygen loss during labor and delivery.

This is a significant step forward in neonatal medicine because it enables doctors to diagnose immediately babies born with serious neurologic birth injuries such as cerebral palsy. Without this new blood test, many of these life-changing brain injuries may go undiagnosed for months and even years after birth.

Early treatment and intervention are key to making the most of birth injuries.  This is the most important implication if this technology proves effective.  As a Maryland birth injury lawyer, it is hard to ignore the litigation implications this test could have on birth injuries cases.  It would be a blow to defense lawyers trying to argue that the child was not injured a birth (and, for that matter, specious lawsuits that allege a causal connection).  In other words, it would be easier to get to the real truth as to the ultimate question of whether a doctor or nurse’s mistake caused a birth injury.  I also think it would lead to more birth injury lawsuits because many parents do not connect the dots between a mistake during childbirth with mental and physical injuries to the child that are not revealed (or confirmed) until years later.

Contact Information