A new unreported case caught my eye, Mock v. Patterson, that involved a topic near and dear to my heart: collecting baseball cards.  There are some interesting hearsay issues here in this conversation case that are worth looking at more closely.  The entire appeal focused on what the defendant claimed was hearsay that should not have come into evidence.

Facts of Mock v. Patterson

The defendant faced allegations of taking possession of a portion of a renowned baseball card collector’s collection. Following the collector’s passing, a complaint was filed by the individual serving as the executor of the collector’s estate. The complaint accused the defendant and another party of taking custody of the baseball cards and failing to return them. The central issue in this case revolved around whether the defendant had returned the cards before the collector’s demise.

In Romeka v. RadAmerica II, LLC, a new Maryland Supreme Court opinion, a radiation therapist, sued her former employers, including names we know like MedStar and Helixcare Medical Group.

The basis for her lawsuit was that she was fired and she was fired because she was a whistleblower under the Maryland Health Care Worker Whistleblower Protection Act (HCWWPA).

The circuit court granted summary judgment in favor of the employers, which was affirmed by the Appellate Court of Maryland. She then petitioned for a writ of certiorari, which was granted by the Supreme Court of Maryland.

A new Maryland case, Pennsylvania Manufacturers Association vs. Cree, provides a good look at occupational disease worker’s compensation claims in Maryland.

Occupational Disease and Workers’ Compensation

Occupational disease workers’ compensation claims revolve around illnesses or conditions that an employee contracts due to their work environment. When someone says “occupational disease,” they are referring to a health condition or ailment that emerges as a direct consequence of specific hazards or exposures in the workplace.

The Maryland Appellate Court recently decided a Maryland dram shop case after the tragic death of a man in a single-car crash that had allegedly been overserved at a Charles County bar.  The plaintiffs had the good fortune of drawing as the author of the opinion the  Maryland Supreme Court judge the wrote the dissenting opinion in Maryland’s last big dram shop case.

Plaintiffs still lost.

Facts of Willett v. Ape Hangers

The concept of sovereign immunity is a long-standing – many would say antiquated – belief that a state cannot be sued unless it agrees to be.  The Maryland Tort Claims Act (MTCA), gives this permission for certain cases.  A new case, Williams v. Morgan State, looks at if the MTCA’s agreement to let the state be sued applies to federal cases.

Facts of Williams v. Morgan State

The case started when a woman sued her former employer, Morgan State University, and her old boss, Dean DeWayne Wickham. She said they wrongly fired her for revealing that the University exaggerated some costs and tried to sway the 2016 Baltimore mayor’s race.

In Zadnik v. Ambinder, a Maryland Appellate Court decision issued yesterday, addresses interesting issues of common law marriage and who can bring a wrongful death claim in Maryland.

Facts of Zadnik v. Ambinder

Thomas Zadnik, the appellant, lodged a wrongful death lawsuit against an oncologist and Johns Hopkins Medicine in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City. Mr. Zadnik alleged that the late Margaret Conway, the decedent, was his common-law wife under Pennsylvania law and that the defendants’ negligence caused her death.

Our lawyers believe the AFFF lawsuits will reach a settlement in the near future.  No guarantees.  But that is our prediction.  We think many if not all defendants will offer reasonable AFF settlement amounts to firefighters in 2023.  This post is a look at where we are and gives an update below.  This post was last updated on May 16, 2023.

AFFF Lawsuit

Firefighting foam containing Aqueous Film-Forming Foam (AFFF) has been used for decades to extinguish fires involving fuels and other flammable liquids.  Our firefighting foam lawyers are continuing to investigate and pursue new lawsuits on behalf of firefighters who have been diagnosed with various forms of cancer, such as testicular cancer, kidney cancer, pancreatic cancer, prostate cancer, liver cancer, breast cancer, bladder cancer, lymphoma, leukemia or other injuries that have been linked to PFAS chemicals in AFFF.  The conventional wisdom is that AFFF class action lawsuits for firefighters may soon settle in whole or in part.

Divorce is a complex process that can be emotionally draining and legally challenging. In Maryland, specific laws and procedures must be followed for a divorce to be granted. Understanding these prerequisites and the process as a whole is crucial in navigating this life-altering event. Here are some key points to consider when getting a divorce in Maryland.


Whether a couple is married has so many social and legal implications.  So whether Maryland recognizes common-law marriage is an important and sometimes complex question.

Does Maryland Law Recognize Common Law Marriages?

Maryland law does not recognize common-law marriages. Only ten states and the District of Columbia still recognize common-law marriages.

But, and this is the key, if a valid common-law marriage has been created in a jurisdiction that recognizes common-law marriages, the marriage is valid in Maryland.

Hair relaxer lawsuits are a type of product liability lawsuit that alleges that hair relaxer products caused cancer or other health problems. Hair relaxers are chemical products that are used to straighten curly hair. They contain a number of harsh chemicals, including lye, which can be irritating to the skin and eyes. Some studies have linked hair relaxer use to an increased risk of cancer, including uterine cancer, ovarian cancer, and breast cancer.

Sister Study in October 2022

The first hair relaxer lawsuit was filed in 2017.  The litigation did not go far. That changed in October 2022. The Journal of the National Cancer Institute revealed a new study indicating a heightened risk of uterine cancer in women who frequently use chemical hair straighteners or relaxers. This was no small-time study done by small-time researchers.  The research was undertaken by specialists from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and analyzed data from over 33,000 women participating in the extensive, long-term study focused on women’s health. It is called the “Sister Study.”