Maryland Lawyer Blog

Governor O’Malley announced today that Judge Alexander Wright Jr. and Robert A. Zarnoch have been named to the Maryland Court of Special Appeals.

Judge Wright is a former district and circuit court judge who is an attorney with Miles & Stockbridge in Towson, focusing on mediation and alternative dispute resolution. Judge Wright has a broad background as a former assistant attorney general and as a public defender. Soon to be Judge Zarnoch has been the Attorney General’s Chief Counsel for Legislation and Counsel to the Maryland General Assembly since 1979. As chief counsel, Mr. Zarnoch has drafted legislation and authored scores of Attorney General’s opinions. I’m sure he is also no stranger to the other side of the bench of the Court of Special Appeals in his role as chief counsel. He is also an occasional contributor to the Maryland Daily Record.

Both of these judges have exceptionally broad levels of experience which should serve them well on the Court of Special Appeals. Of the two, I think Mr. Zarnoch’s selection is more of an upset just because there were so many well thought of judges who also applied, and as I have written before, I thought the hill would be hard to climb for the non-judicial applicants, even though there were a number of people with impressive credentials who were not judges. Well, apparently Mr. Zarnoch made the climb. Congratulations to both of these men who I’m sure will make excellent Maryland Court of Special Appeals judges.

The battle continues to wage between Allstate and the state of Florida’s Office of Insurance Regulation. The problem arose when the Regulation Office began investigating Allstate’s property insurance practices in Florida. Allstate had requested a double-digit increase in the rates for its homeowner’s insurance, and Florida was investigating possible collusion between Allstate and risk-modeling firms, rating agencies and re-insurers to set prices at artificially high levels. When Allstate failed to submit all of the documents Florida had demanded as part of its investigation, the Florida Insurance Commissioner, Kevin McCarty, suspended the rights of 10 of Allstate’s companies to do business in Florida. A Florida appeals court has decided to lift the ban. But I don’t think the state of Florida is done with Allstate.

When insurance companies flash this kind of arrogance to personal injury lawyers, the general public, judges and state regulatory agencies, not surprisingly, often yawn. But when you flout the authority of an entire state, folks are going to take notice. In response to Florida’s subpoena, Allstate has filed 122 objections. Word to the wise: state agencies are not used to being treated with such disdain.

Florida is not the only place where Allstate is under scrutiny. When a Missouri judge ordered Allstate to turn over similar documents to those sought in Florida, Allstate once again ignored the state and has evaded the Missouri court’s contempt order for four months. Allstate scoffs at the $25,000.00 a day fine imposed by the judge and continues to withhold the requested documents.

Here in Maryland, Allstate was fined $750,000.00 in December for improper rate increases and for violating state laws about how it notifies consumers of changes and files notice of those changes with the agency.

There is an obvious question here: what does Allstate have to hide? If you are willing to allow your license to sell insurance to be suspended in a market like Florida and you are willing to fork over $25,000.00 a day in contempt fines (not to mention the ensuing bad publicity) the guess is that Allstate has some pretty disreputable business practices it would like to keep under wraps. As for me, I’m shocked – shocked! – that gambling is going on in this establishment.

The Maryland Lawyer section of the Daily Record yesterday ranks Maryland’s appellate judges by the number of opinions that they wrote in 2007. I love data. But this is one of those things that appears interesting at first glance, particularly with the Daily Record’s glossy – okay not glossy, but color - two page, center of the paper layout. But once you start reading, it is really not interesting at all.

But I did find the total number of opinions generated by these two courts to be of some interest. The Maryland Court of Appeals published 154 opinions in 2007; the Maryland Court of Special Appeals wrote 1,245 opinions, of which 153 were reported. The courts produced a similar number of opinions the year before. I wish I had a count of how many of those opinions were personal injury cases.

One more thing I found of interest: of the 24 opinions Chief Judge Robert M. Bell wrote for the court, six involved attorney grievance opinions. I realize these cases are important because the career of a lawyer hangs in the balance. But this means 25% of Maryland’s highest judge’s opinions involve attorney grievances that are of little consequence to the citizen of Maryland. This is the highest percentage of any Maryland Court of Appeals judge. I’d rather have Chief Judge Bell writing opinions that impact the lives of more Marylanders. (After I wrote this, I realized they probably did not include dissenting opinions. I think Chief Judge Bell has more than his fair share of those.)

In the middle of writing this blog post yesterday, I was handed a Court of Special Appeals opinion in which I lost. Four – count ‘em, four – Baltimore City Circuit Court judges agreed with me but the Court of Special Appeals is the only opinion that matters if the Court of Appeals does not grant certiorari. I just called opposing counsel to congratulate him but he is just as depressed as I am about it because the court remanded the case down for further proceedings. Everyone, including the clients, was hoping one way or another this opinion would be the end to this case that was filed six years ago. Now we are just getting started again….

The Maryland Injury Lawyer Blog has a post today about the value of personal injury cases involving the loss of vision in one eye. We have a vision loss in one eye case now pending against Home Depot and Chapin International, a New York company that makes the Chapin Sprayer. We contend that our client lost vision in his eye as the result of a design defect in the Chapin Sprayer 2002. I’m writing this blog post because I would like to get into contact with any other Plaintiffs’ products liability lawyers who may have a similar design defect case against Chapin so that we can share information.

We think this model Chapin Sprayer 2002 is defective for a number of reasons. First, it is designed and manufactured with a nipple coming off the tank facing upward in a direction that would likely cause an eye injury. Other Chapin models such as the Spray and Go have the nipple designed to come off the side of the tank in a direction not pointed towards the user’s eye. Second, this model did not have a pressure relief valve, which is the safety feature contained in nearly every other Chapin model. Third, this model was packaged in such a way that the hose was not connected to the tank when it was delivered to the customer. Most of the Chapin sprayers and other sprayers have the hose attached to the tank by a metal crimp or by the factory so that the attachment is more secure than relying on the customer to make this attachment. Fourth, the nut to attach the hose to the tank was not provided to the purchaser. Finally, there were no warnings to indicate that the end user should not use this sprayer with dangerous chemicals, inadequately attached hoses, missing nuts, bib connection pointed toward the eye, and no pressure relief valve.

If you are a lawyer who has a design defect case involving the Chapin Sprayer 2002, give me a call. We have a great deal of information on this product to share and, hopefully, you will have some information for us as well on this Chapin Sprayer.

The Baltmore Sun reports that the Maryland Court of Appeals suggested during oral arguments in a foreclosure case Monday that the court may change with the times and alter notification procedures for foreclosures, which have been on the rise in Maryland and around the country as many of us have taken out loans we cannot afford. At issue in this case is the rule that allows that a home can be sold about two weeks after notification is sent to the homeowner. As in most states, there is no requirement that the notification actually be received by the homeowner.

In a separate but related story, the Baltimore Sun reports that Baltimore has filed suit against Wells Fargo Bank alleging that the bank violated federal housing law by specifically luring blacks into high-interest mortgages.

Interestingly, the city chose Relman & Dane, a Washington based law firm, to bring suit on Baltimore's behalf. Now, I realize from my 10 second review of their website to provide a link that they have a great deal of experience in this area of law. Still, are there no lawyers in Baltimore, who help support the city's tax base, that could have handled this case? Peter Holland, albeit in Annapolis, is quoted in the Maryland Daily Record about the case. He is one of the leading consumer rights advocates in the state. Did anyone ask him? I have no idea what the selection process was and I don't know much about this area of the law. But it would make sense to have someone from Maryland representing Baltimore in these kinds of cases.

With all due respect to fellow trial lawyer John Edwards, the Democratic race seems to be all about Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. With respect to tort reform, both seem to be on the side of allowing juries to make the call with respect to whether and how much compensation should be awarded. In fact, back in their civil days (as in civil to each other) they co-authored an article in the New England Journal of Medicine, entitled "Making Patient Safety the Centerpiece of Medical Liability Reform."

Still, I suspect Hillary Clinton is the safer play for trial lawyers. Obama has taken a mild shot at trial lawyers in the past. Campaigning for the Senate in 2004, he was quoted as saying, "Anyone who denies there's a crisis with medical malpractice is probably a trial lawyer." But, obviously, taking a shot at medical malpractice lawyers is just smart politics and I don't think this changes his position that juries should have the authority to determine who gets what without intervention from statutes or anything else.

Perhaps more tellign when comparing the two candidates, Senator Obama was among the 18 of 44 democratic senators voting for the Class Action Reform Act. In contrast, Senator Clinton (and Senator Edwards), voted against the Act, believing that it would deny a remedies for many in their local state courts.

Who am I voting for? While I think Hillary Clinton may be a marginally safer choice for trial lawyers, the promise - and that is all it is, just hope - that Obama might be a bridge to end the partisan divide that makes progress so difficult.

I used the phrase "tort reform" in the title which I hate because it presumes the need for a change. I try fighting these things. For example, I always say "defense medical exam" instead of the oxymoron "defense medical exam." But with "tort reform", everyone and their mother is using it. I can't fight it anymore. Tort reform it is.

Related Posts

The Maryland Lawyer Blog is starting to really sink its teeth into sperm donor's recipients who strike a deal with the donor only to later seek child support. This is our second blog on the issue in as many months.

In this case, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court went into a different direction, ruling that Joel McKiernan, whose sperm donation allowed his former co-worker and girlfriend Ivonne Ferguson to give birth to twin boys in August 1994, does not have to make monthly child support payments or pay thousands of dollars in back support to help support the now 13 year-old boys. McKiernan donated his sperm to his former girlfriend in 1993 with the understanding that he would have no legal rights to the children and would not have to pay any child support. However, it appears that this agreement was never put in writing, and in 1999, Ferguson sued McKiernan for child support.

The trial judge ruled that McKiernan must pay $66,000 in back support and make monthly payments of $1,500, despite strongly disagreeing with Ms. Ferguson’s decision to renege on her original agreement. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court overturned this earlier decision, stating that although ruling in favor of Mr. McKiernan would deny the boys additional support, they would not have been born had Ms. Ferguson not agreed that Mr. McKiernan would not be financially responsible for the children.

The battleground in these cases is clear because what is in the best interests of the child is mutually exclusive of what is fair. Given these two powerful interests, it is anyone guess what the appropriate course really is.

Thomas C. Cardaro, a partner in the Baltimore medical malpractice law firm Cardaro & Peek, has been named President-Elect of the Maryland State Bar Association (MSBA). He will run unopposed for election this summer, along with Treasurer John Patrick Kudel, a solo practitioner in Rockville who is also of counsel to Karp, Frosh, Lapidus, Wigodsky & Norwind, P.A. in Rockville and Secretary-Elect Thomas D. Murphy, who is with the the Law Offices of Murphy & Mood, P.C.

Tom Cardaro is slated to be president of the MSBA in 2009-2010. Tom and his partner Jeff Peek are two of the best medical malpractice lawyers in Maryland and are both great friends of our firm. I'm sure he will will do an outstanding job as our MSBA president.

Reports are coming out now that former New York Yankee Jim Leyritz was driving with a suspended license at the time he is accused of driving while intoxicated and killing a young woman in Florida last month.

This is one of those things that the media makes a big issue about when it really is no issue at all. Apparently, Jim Leyritz was ticketed for, of all things, using a cell phone while driving and he failed to post for his trial.

This is the very definition of not a big deal. It might even be possible – theoretically - that I recently had my license suspended for of all things failing to display a front tag (I thought my wife paid the fine and they sent notice to my old address). It has absolutely nothing to do with what happened or why it happened in the case and will, in the end, be of no legal consequence.

What is a big deal is that a woman lost her life in this accident and Jim Leyritz has been accused of causing the accident while driving drunk. By focusing on the wrong things, I think the media sometimes sends the wrong message to all of us about what really matters.

According to a recent Jury Verdict Research analysis, based on plaintiffs’ verdicts nationally over the last ten years, the overall median award for foot injuries is $98,583. Multiple fractures to the same foot increase the median to $144,000. In foot injury cases where both feet are fractured, the median rises to $296,940. In another Jury Verdict Research study back in October, it found that 39% of the foot injuries cases that go to verdict were suffered in auto, truck or motorcycle accidents. In fact, a full 11% of these injuries were in motorcycle accident cases. This is incredibly high given the number of driver miles on a motorcycle versus the number logged in cars and trucks. Then again, your risk of dying in a motor vehicle accident 28 times more likely if you are riding a sports bike than if you are enjoying the comforts of a car or truck. (The lesson, as always: don’t ride a motorcycle.)

Foot and ankle injury cases command quality verdicts because foot injuries are difficult to diagnose and even harder to treat. The foot is composed of 26 “major” bones that are important to mobility and hard to repair. When you add the fact that there are 56 ligaments and 38 muscles in each foot and there are four distinct ranges of motion in the foot, there is a lot that can and does go wrong for people who suffer a foot injury from trauma.

Our traumatic foot injury lawyers handle accident and medical malpractice cases not only in Maryland but throughout the United States, achieving victories by settlement and at trial. If you have suffered a serious foot injury as the result of negligence of someone else, call 800-553-8082 or click here for a free consultation. Our lawyers handle only serious foot accident/malpractice injuries.

• Value of Your Injury Claim (how do insurance claims adjusters - and lawyers - determine value of cases?)
• Value of Foot Injury Cases in Your State (state-by-state breakdown)
• Value of Amputated Toe Cases