Maryland Lawyer Blog

Legislation is pending in West Virginia that would prohibit lawyers from seeking damages in personal injury and wrongful death cases in plaintiffs’ complaint. This bill is receiving universal support from everyone in West Virginia. The legislation passed unanimously in both the West Virginia House and Senate. West Virginia Governor Joe Manchin received the bill last week and it has received support of plaintiffs’ lawyers and defense lawyers alike. West Virginia already has a similar law in medical malpractice cases.

In the Maryland Daily Record last week, I read an article about a police brutality or false arrest case (I can’t remember which) in Baltimore. Plaintiffs sued the state of Maryland for $115 million. So, of course, the $115 million was in the title of the article. This is the exact problem that would be eliminated.

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

Posted In: Auto Accidents , Medical Malpractice , Personal Injury

Bookmark:

I found a new blog called ER Stories - Shocking, Hilarious, Bizarre, and Sad Tales from the ER. It is an anonymously written blog by an emergency room doctor.

I have a bit of a problem assessing the credibility of someone who refuses to identify themselves. Does the American Medical Association take a position on this? I also notice the site has a lot of prominently placed Google ads. To borrow the old Seinfeld line, “Not that there is anything wrong with it.” But it is worth noting.

Anyway, one of his leitmotifs is frivolous medical malpractice cases, as evidenced by his post called “What a Wonderful Legal System We Have.” He tells an incredible story of a patient who came in with a fractured ankle but ran out of the hospital to flee police. After getting arrested a few days later, he gets treatment and then brought a medical malpractice claim against the hospital, which the hospital settled for $10,000.

Doc… I’m not quite sure how to… say this. Wait, I got it. You are a liar. This story you are telling? This never happened, at least not with these material facts. I guarantee it. This is right up there with the guy who put his Winnebago on cruise control and went back and made himself a sandwich and then sued for millions.

Doc, instead of making $1 a click on Google Ad words I have a way for you to make more money faster. Prove this happened and I’ll send you a check for $1,000.

Posted by Ronald V. Miller, Jr. | Permalink | Email This Post | Comments (1)

Posted In: Medical Malpractice

Bookmark:

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.

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

Posted In: Medical Malpractice

Bookmark:

The Charleston Daily Mail reports that the West Virginia Supreme Court declined to hear an appeal of a $1.7 million medical malpractice verdict against a West Virginia physician who blinded a patient during an elective surgical procedure.

This is the second article I have seen on this case. The first article was after the jury rendered its verdict. The interesting thing about the case is that the doctor’s lawyers essentially alleged that the plaintiff was faking his injury. All of the articles I have seen have said the same thing. The defendants presented 50 hours of surveillance video from a construction site, but the trial judge found the video showed, “Heckel was disabled, even though the defense omitted footage showing him struggling at such tasks as walking down steps.”

You can Google that sentence and you will find it in a number of different articles. But it makes no sense. Did the jury consider the evidence or was it inadmissible? What happened to the omitted footage? Was it destroyed? What was the practical effect of the judge’s ruling? (If anyone knows, let me know.) But the interesting thing is that that doctor’s lawyers apparently wanted to use the snippets from 50 hours of surveillance that would lead the jury to believe that he might not be blind, but wanted to omit (or delete) the evidence that showed he was blind.

It seems like this doctor’s medical malpractice lawyers had a pretty difficult time showing the doctor did not commit medical malpractice, so they took a shot at attacking the plaintiff. This usually backfires, just as it did in this medical malpractice case.

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

Posted In: Medical Malpractice

Bookmark:

The Arizona Republic reports that an Arizona doctor whose license was recently revoked after three people died during or after liposuction procedures has disappeared. The doctor is facing not only wrongful death medical malpractice cases but also is wanted for questioning by the police.

This might spell yet another disaster for the families bringing wrongful death medical malpractice claims because the insurer may well disclaim coverage because the doctor is not cooperating with the defense. The plaintiffs' medical malpractice lawyer will argue that his absence does not practically prejudice the case because the malpractice was so clear. But this is a tough argument.

This does not happen often but there should be a means of obtaining compensation in the rare cases where this does happen.

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

Posted In: Medical Malpractice

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:

As I have previously mentioned on the Maryland Personal Injury Lawyer Blog, some companies and organizations have begun using lawyer rating systems to rank lawyers. Now, doctors are being faced with the same scrutiny as some insurance companies have launched rating systems to 'assist' consumers in choosing a doctor. However, these rating systems appear to be inherently misleading since they take into account factors such as cost, which are usually not part of the criteria that the average patient uses to pick their physician. Doctors, and rightfully so I think, are enraged that cost is being used to rank their quality when cost is something that can easily be manipulated with billing codes and slightly different diagnosis classifications.

In Connecticut, a group of doctors have filed a lawsuit claiming that such rankings constitute libel, unfair trade practices and breach of contract. The lawsuit, which is seeking class-action status, asks that the rankings programs be terminated.

A similar lawsuit in Washington last year against Regence Blue Shield, which alleged defamation and deceptive business practices, was settled. As part of the settlement, the ranking system was shut down and the insurance company had to be a contribution to the state's medical association's education fund. Interestingly, the settlement did not prohibit Regence from having a ranking system, but merely made them agree that any future system would have the input of doctors and give them a system in which appeal their ranking.

I have mixed feelings on such ranking systems. While I would find it useful, on both a personal and professional level, to have a way to find out more information about physicians (whether it be as a patient or father or as a personal injury lawyer), such systems to date merely give the doctors an artifical classification such as 'elicit' or 'two stars'. If insurance companies are going to do this sort of thing, it has got to give the consumer some hard data in order to be useful.

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

Posted In: Medical Malpractice

Bookmark:

A West Virginia jury this week will consider whether a hospital negligently performed a background check on a orthopedic doctor who is the defendant in an incredible 120 medical malpractice lawsuits. Plaintiffs' medical malpractice lawyers contend that the hospital was not reasonable in failing to properly verify the doctor was fit to practice medicine.

I do not have a strong opinion on this issue. Obviously, 120 defendants need a deep pocket. This hospital is owned by Charleston Area Medical Center, which is a deep pocket. The defendant has stopped practicing medicine, has changed his name and moved out of the state. I doubt that he has insurance although the article I read did not speak to this issue.

Clearly, this doctor was not fit to practice medicine. But he was licensed by the state of West Virginia. Is it negligent to have doctor with a valid medical license working in your hospital even if a full investigation in his background would have discovered he is unfit to practice medicine? I really do not know and I would not want to be juror in that case.

I'll report back on how the jury verdict in this case.

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

Posted In: Medical Malpractice

Bookmark: