Maryland Lawyer Blog

A federal jury in Waco, Texas has awarded six million dollars in a truck accident case to a man critically injured when his motorcycle collided with a tractor-trailer in March, 2006. The plaintiff lost four fingers on his left hand and can no longer walk without assistance because of injuries to his left leg.

The case most likely went to trial because there appears to be a meaningful defense on the question of liability. Plaintiff claimed he was changing lanes when the tractor trailer struck him and knocked him off his motorcycle. Defendants argued that Plaintiff entered an entrance ramp and simply drove into the big rig.

Nine times out of ten, these he said/she said truck accident cases come down to who the jury believes. I'd be willing to bet that the trucking company's insurance company would have offered a great deal more to settle the case if it had been a car instead of a motorcycle because jurors are so skeptical of motorcycle riders. But in this case,the insurance company and their truck accident lawyers bet wrong to the tune of $6 million.

Posted by Ronald V. Miller, Jr. | Permalink | Email This Post | Comments (0)

Posted In: Truck Accidents , Verdicts and Settlements

Bookmark:

The Prince George’s County Bar Association, the Administrative Offices of the Courts, and the Pro Bono Resource Center of Maryland, are sponsoring a Pro Bono Legal Services Fair for Maryland lawyers on Friday, September 28, 2008 at the UMUC Inn and Conference Center by Marriott, 3501 University Blvd., East, Adelphi, MD 20783. For those of you who want to do good and still get paid, a CLE is being held in Room 1123, at 5:00-6:00 called “Just Because Its Pro Bono Doesn’t Mean You Can’t Get Paid.” (Don't you get the feeling John Edwards might roll in the door for that topic?)

The keynote speaker for the pro bono fair is Robert M. Bell who, of course is the Chief Judge of the Maryland Court of Appeals. Panel members are Jo Benson Fogel, Orlando Barnes, Barbara Jorgenson, Peter Holland, Philip Robinson. The moderator is Judge Cathy Hollenberg-Serrette.

Posted by Ronald V. Miller, Jr. | Permalink | Email This Post | Comments (0)

Posted In: Practicing Law

Bookmark:

Conventional wisdom was that a part of the problem with nursing homes is that too many were mom and pop shops without structure, organization and accountability.

Make sense? It seems logical. Reality may provide a different picture. The sale of Habana Health Care Center, a Tampa nursing home, by a private investment firm hopefully meant better care for residents. It certainly meant big profits for investors of this nursing home and thousands of nursing homes across the country that large investment companies have purchased in the last five years.

Yet since the nursing home was sold in 2002, 15 residents have died and their survivors have blamed negligent care as the reason for their deaths. You can read more about this story in the New York Times, which did an lengthy article yesterday on the topic of the privatization of nursing homes. The fear now is that the mom and pop nursing homes had the upside of at least a personal connection to the homes and the residents. It may be that Nursing Home 2.0, the for-profit version, is even more deadly.

Posted by Ronald V. Miller, Jr. | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Nursing Home Abuse and Neglect

Bookmark:

Wednesday, a Cecil County judge awarded the plaintiff in a settled "lemon law" case more than $12,000.00 in attorney's fees. The case involves a complaint filed by the plaintiff which stated that her 2005 Hyundai was "useless" vehicle and had been taken into the dealership where she purchased it more than four times in a one year period for problems with a dashboard light. She claimed that Hyundai was in violation of Maryland's Automotive Enforcement Warranty Act and Consumer Protection Act, as well as the federal Magnuson-Moss Warranty Improvement Act.

Apparently, on the morning of trial, Hyundai offered the plaintiff a new vehicle and she accepted. Plaintiff, in asking for attorney's fees, alleged that she was the "prevailing party" and therefore eligible to receive attorneys' fees. Hyundai, of course, disagreed, claiming that the settlement was not an admission of liability.

I don't appreciate the nuances of consumer protection law but I am certainly pleased that Hyundai's offer to settle for what was apparently full value on the courthouse steps led this Cecil County court to find that she was the "prevailing party." We often have the same problem in personal injury cases when the insurance company makes the personal injury lawyers jump through hoop after hoop only to settle the case for the policy limits just before trial. A lot of time and money can be saved for everyone by offering fair value from the beginning.

Posted by Ronald V. Miller, Jr. | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Consumer Law

Bookmark:

The Anne Arundel County Bar Association's annual crab feast is on Friday, September 28, 2007, 1:00 p.m. at Sandy Point State Park.

I probably will not go this year but I have gone in previous years. It really is a nice, very well attended event at an absolutely beautiful site overlooking the water in Annapolis.

Posted by Ronald V. Miller, Jr. | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Practicing Law

Bookmark:

On Tuesday, the Court of Appeals, in a 4 to 3 majority, declined an attempt to legalize gay marriage. The majority did, however, underscore the legislature's authority to choose to legalize same-sex marriage.

The Court reversed Baltimore City Circuit Court Judge Brooke Murdock's decision which found that the marriage statute, Family Law Article 2-201, which defined marriage as between a man and a woman was unconstitutional because it discriminated on the basis of gender, thereby violating the Equal Rights amendment.

The opinion contained a partial concurrence/dissent and two dissenting opinions, one by Chief Judge Robert Bell. The majority held that the Equal Rights Amendment was not violated because the law discriminates equally between men and women who wished to engage in same-sex marriage (as opposed to only one of the sexes not being able to marry). This is a brillant application of the law or the twisting of logic to get to the result the Court wanted to reach. I cannot decide. Either way, the ball is still in the hands of the Maryland legislature.

The court issued a total of four opinions totaling 244 pages. I have to think this is a record. This reflects the angst of this court on this incredibly emotion issue. Obviously, this decision will likely set off a flurry of activity from activists on both sides of the issue.

I'm not going to ramble on about my own views on this issue. But I will say this: I can understand the depth of emotion gays have on this issue, their fight to be in the mainstream of society. I understand people who think like Hillary Clinton (who is obviously very liberal) and believe that marriage is between a man and a woman. I appreciate both arguments. I just think it is a little odd to be so passionate about excluding someone or denying the rights of another person. They might believe gay marriage is wrong. But I can't see how they can get so worked up over the idea of excluding someone. From where does that passion come?

Posted by Ronald V. Miller, Jr. | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Family Law

Bookmark:

The New York Times reports on a story from the Connecticut Post on jury selection. On Sept. 9th, the front page of the paper was dominated by a story about the jury selection process in a criminal case involving the death penalty. Incredibly, the story included identifying information about the jurors: name, hometown and occupation. Not surprisingly, two jurors begged off the panel the next day, citing safety concerns in a death penalty case.

The paper's editor stood by the writer. “The U.S. Constitution calls for a public trial with an impartial jury,” said the editor of the Connecticut Post. “How do you know if the jury is impartial if you don’t know who they are and something about them?”

I think he fails to realize that the judicial system can screen jurors. Is the information of interest to readers? Sure. So might be the name of a rape victims. But both are bad idea. In this case, there is real potential physical harm and near certain psychological harm to potential jurors, many of which don't want to serve on any criminal case, much less a death penalty case. I won't call this irresponsible journalism but, in my opinion, this is awful judgment by the Connecticut Post. And while they are defending the practice today, I'm betting they do not publish juror names ever again.

Posted by Ronald V. Miller, Jr. | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Maryland Legal News

Bookmark:

The Maryland Daily Record reported yesterday that Rod J. Rosenstein, Maryland's U.S. Attorney, is being vetted as a possible 4th Circuit Court of Appeals nominee. Apparently, the Washington Post reported the same thing last Thursday.

Mr. Rosenstein is in his early 40s and made a name for himself at a young age, in part, for his work in the prosecution of Jim Guy Tucker and Jim and Susan McDougal. If selected and confirmed (a big question in this Democratic controlled Congress), Mr. Rosenstein would be in a position to make either a lasting impact on the 4th Circuit or to make the big leap down the road to the Supreme Court.

Posted by Ronald V. Miller, Jr. | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Maryland Legal News

Bookmark:

The Wall Street Journal blog has published convicted Enron executive Jeff Skilling 237 page appellate brief.

Like most Americans, I did not follow the case closely and have not carefully reviewed the evidence against him but I assume he is guilty because a jury convicted him. (From a documentary I saw, I could certainly convict him of first degree arrogance in about 3.4 seconds.) Anyway, I am linking to this brief because, after reading about 10 pages, it is obvious Jeffery Skilling picked lawyers who are fantastic writers. The best way for lawyers to become better writers is to read good legal writing.

You may wonder how these lawyers got around the requirement in the Federal Rules that a brief may contain no more than 14,000 words. His lawyers filed a motion asking the appeals court to accept a longer brief. One blog, Talk Left, said that: "Jeff Skilling is serving 24 years in prison. The trial lasted several months. If his lawyers say they need 237 pages to present his arguments, I say let them." While I suspect the guy is guilty, I could not agree more.

Posted by Ronald V. Miller, Jr. | Permalink | Email This Post | Comments (0)

Posted In: Criminal Law , Practicing Law

Bookmark:

California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger (those are still four funny words to write) signed into law this week a rule that mandates that teenage drivers cannot use cell phones while driving a car.

This is a good idea. But the real solution to this problem is far more radical. Car crashes are the No. 1 cause of death among 15- to 20-year-olds in Maryland. Anna Quindlen wrote an editorial in Newsweek last month attacking the logic of allowing 16 year-olds to drive. Her logic is unassailable.

It is an article of faith in Maryland that sixteen is the driving age. When I was a kid, it was an article of faith that putting your kids in the back of a station wagon with a seat belt was not child abuse. I cannot tell you how many fatal car accident our lawyers have handled involving young kids who are either die or have killed someone else. I suspect in the next 10 years, Maryland, Washington, D.C. and a lot of other states will raise the driving age to 18. As a result, my office is going to have fewer wrongful death cases. We won't miss these lost clients.

Posted by Ronald V. Miller, Jr. | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Auto Accidents

Bookmark:

Digging through my miscellaneous files today (an incredible hodgepodge), I found a Metro Verdicts Monthly reporting on median settlements and verdicts in employment discrimination cases in Maryland, Washington, D.C., and Virginia. Washington D.C. leads this pack at $206,000. Virginia's median is $150,000 while Maryland lags behind at $117,000.

While the categories vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, employment discrimination is essentially when an employer discriminates on the basis of gender, religion, age, race, gender, sexual orientation, or disability.

With the baby boomers coming of age, the next hot area for employment lawyers in Maryland is going to be age discrimination. Between 1997 and 2003, age discrimination plaintiffs recovered $262,405 from juries, more than did any other protected group, according to Employment Practices Liability: Jury Trends and Statistics, a study conducted by Jury Verdict Research.

Posted by Ronald V. Miller, Jr. | Permalink | Email This Post | Comments (0)

Posted In: Employment Law

Bookmark:

The Illinois Trial Practice Weblog has a good post on what should be in the introduction when writing a motion. You can find it here. The gist of the post is that lawyers should not use the introduction to just introduce what is to come but should instead provide an clean executive summary of the motion. Most lawyers summarize in the introduction intuitively but this lucid explanation is worth reading even if you do.

Posted by Ronald V. Miller, Jr. | Permalink | Email This Post | Comments (0)

Posted In: Practicing Law

Bookmark:

Later this month, the Illinois cap on non-economic damages ($500,000 for a doctor and $1 million for a hospital) in medical malpractice cases will receive state constitutional review by a judge in infamous Cook County, Illinois.

Just like in Maryland, the political climate has changed since the medical malpractice "reform" in 2005. Medical malpractice payouts in 2006 fell even though the new law impacted only a small handful of cases that resolved in 2006. Medical malpractice insurance premiums have fallen. In Maryland, Med Mutual reportedly cut premiums by 8% in 2007. Medical malpractice lawyers told the legislatures that the insurance companies had essentially cooked the books, creating a crisis that was mostly created by low interest rates. History is bearing out this warning as premiums are falling and insurance companies’ profits are skyrocketing. I don't think anyone should begrudge the insurance companies profits (or their CEOs large salaries for that matter as many plaintiffs' lawyers wrongfully do, in my opinion). But those facts do not square up with their "sky is falling" warnings of doom.

The case on review in Cook County involves a baby with severe brain damage. Proponents of a cap argue that $500,000 (or $680,000 in Maryland) is an appropriate cap on non-economic damages for a child to go through life with a brain injury. Plaintiffs' medical malpractice lawyers and their clients, to put it mildly, strongly disagree.

Posted by Ronald V. Miller, Jr. | Permalink | Email This Post | Comments (0)

Posted In: Medical Malpractice

Bookmark:

Two recent medical malpractice cases regarding emergency room physicians raise the question of who should a patient trust for their ultimate diagnosis after an emergency room visit.

The first case involves a woman who was awarded $10 million for the death of her 73 year old husband whose premature death she claimed was a result of the negligent treatment of an emergency room physician for failing to administer anti-clotting medication for more than 2 hours after he presented to the ER suffering a heart attack in 2003. However, her husband lived 3 more years after this ER visit and had a heart transplant in 2006. His immediate cause of death was an infection he got a month after the transplant (a known and common risk with all transplants).

The second case involves a jury verdict of $5 million dollars to the family of a man who died from an aortic rupture which was undetected by an emergency room physician. The decedent in this case, age 30, presented to the Swedish Medical Center in Washington and was prescribed heartburn medication and sent home. Two days later, he went to the University of Washington emergency room and an aortic tear was diagnosis and he died shortly thereafter of a heart infection. Evidence was presented that the tear should have been detected.

I have a few thoughts on these cases. First, compare the amounts of the verdicts. The death of a 73 year old who died more than 3 years after the alleged malpractice occurs commands a $10 million dollar verdict, whereas the death of a 30 year old, who suffers an almost immediate death from the alleged malpractice, gets half that. I would also like to know more about facts about the 73 year old case because I have trouble understanding how the late administration of the clotting medicine caused his death. I assume facts were presented which showed that this failure somehow damaged his heart and thus led to the eventual need for a transplant.

Perhaps the nature of emergency medicine--quick and dirty as it often may seem---makes it necessary, in an abundance of caution, for all patients to go for followup care just in case something was missed. However, with rising health care costs, duplicative care is probably not the answer that insurance companies would prescribe, or cover. And, it may often be hard to justify, especially in cases like the second one where the diagnosis was heartburn. Who would get a second opinion for a hurtburn diagnosis.

Posted by Ronald V. Miller, Jr. | Permalink | Email This Post | Comments (0)

Posted In: Verdicts and Settlements

Bookmark: