Maryland Courts

March 24, 2009

Maryland Auto Accident Cases: A New “Amount in Controversy” Law Passes the Maryland Senate

Maryland Senate Bill 468 passed today in the Maryland Senate. It increases – from $10,000 to $20,000 – the maximum amount in controversy in a civil action in which a party may not demand a jury trial. Defendants would only be able to “bump up” cases between $20,000 and $30,000 from District Court to Circuit Court.

Any case pled in District Court for more than $10,000 can be bumped up to a jury trial. This practice, which is mostly done by insurance companies in personal injury car accident cases, leads to massive numbers of car accident cases before Maryland juries in cases that should be streamlined into District Court trials.

In fact, auto insurance companies are the problem in getting this bill passed; small businesses, for example, did not oppose this bill. Why are auto insurance companies opposed to this bill? It saves them legal costs to be sure. Is it because insurance companies get better results in front of juries than judges? No. The motive is much more nefarious: they want personal injury lawyers to spend time and resources in accident cases if the lawyers and their clients refuse the insurance companies’ below market settlement offers in smaller cases.

February 11, 2009

Circuit Court Removal by Insurance Companies in Maryland Car Accident Cases

by Ronald V. Miller, Jr.

There is a battle now in the Maryland state legislature about whether Maryland should increase the minimum jurisdictional amount before a defendant can remove a case from District Court to Circuit Court. Defense lawyers for State Farm and Allstate, the two largest auto insurance providers in Maryland, routinely “bump up” District Court claims to Circuit Court if the amount in controversy is more than $10,000.

So what happens is we have an enormous volume of cases where insurance defense lawyers in Maryland are seeking jury trials in cases that do not belong in Circuit Court. Why? Do they think a jury will give them a more fair trial? Ironically, for the jury-hating insurance companies who continue to argue that juries are out of control, trust in juries is at least one reason insurance companies seek jury trials in Maryland auto accident cases (at least in some Maryland counties where juries are more conservative).

But the primary reason insurance companies seek jury trials in smaller auto accident cases in Maryland is because it tortures Maryland auto accident lawyers. The insurance companies do this, not motivated by spite—well not primarily anyway, but because it is a good global tactic. A significant number of auto accident lawyers in Maryland are reticent to sue. The threat of getting a small case going through the Circuit Court ringer is even more daunting to many Maryland injury lawyers. I’m not saying it should be. But it is for those seeking the path of least resistance.

August 7, 2008

New Maryland Judges

by Ronald V. Miller, Jr.

New Maryland judges were announced today:

District Court of Anne Arundel County: Henry Richard Duden, Eileen Anne Reilly, Shaem Charles Patrice Spencer

Circuit Court Prince George’s County: Judge Leo Edward Green Jr.

July 30, 2008

Garrett County Judicial Vacancy

by Ronald V. Miller, Jr.

Although our lawyers cover personal injury and medical malpractice cases throughout Maryland, I have to admit we have not handled many Garrett County personal injury cases. Garrett County is the westernmost county in Maryland, and I think many malpractice and accident victims in Garrett County, unfortunately, turn to Pittsburgh lawyers in serious injury and malpractice cases. For lots of reasons, I think that is an enormous mistake, particularly in serious injury and wrongful death cases. But it is what it is. You can learn more about cases in this jurisdiction here.

There are not a lot of serious personal injury cases in Garrett County

Apparently, for District Court claims in Garrett County, not having many Garrett County claims is a good thing because the Oakland court has been without a judge, according to a Maryland Daily Record article today. Over fourteen months have passed since the tragic death of Garrett County’s District Court Judge Ralph M. Burnett from colon cancer complications. Judge Burnett, who apparently was a tireless advocate in the fight against prostate cancer for over 10 years, was Garrett County’s only district court judge. Today his seat remains unfilled. Apparently, the nominating commission for Allegany and Garrett counties recommended two of the four candidates that applied. The nominating commission forwarded the names of Raymond G. Strubin, a Garrett County public defender and, and Daryl T. Walters, a Garrett County Master, to Governor O’Malley. But the Governor requested three names and asked for the reconsideration of Stephan M. Moylan (who I believe is also a public defender in Garrett County) and Lisa Thayer Welch, who is a State’s Attorney in Garrett County. The commission bitterly did just that, but still refused to recommend Ms. Welch or Mr. Moylan. Interestingly, according to the Cumberland Times-News in April, a petition gained 747 signatures requesting Governor O’Malley investigate the “official conduct of the State’s Attorney for Garrett County, Maryland, Lisa Thayer Welch, and the Sheriff of Garrett County, Maryland, Gary Berkebile” regarding their handling of a shooting involving Sheriff’s Berkebile’s brother-in-law. I get the impression that Sheriff Berkebile was more the target of outrage because of the way they handled the investigation when his brother-in-law shot a friend at the friend’s house while drinking at 2:00 a.m. in the morning.

June 19, 2008

Challenge to Maryland’s Cap on Non-Economic Damages

by Ronald V. Miller, Jr.

The Maryland Daily Record reports today that The Law Offices of Peter G. Angelos intends to file an appeal in a Baltimore City medical malpractice case in which the Plaintiff’s $10.2 million jury verdict against University of Maryland Medical Center was capped at $632,500.00 because that is the limit on non-economic damages.

The Daily Record reports that the Plaintiff’s counsel intends to argue that: (1) the limitation on damages has not accomplished its purported legislative aim of reducing medical malpractice insurance rates for doctors; (2) the Maryland cap on non-economic damages is pre-empted by the ADA; (3) that it violates equal protection and due process; and (4) that it deprives the jury of the information necessary to make an informed decision.

Baltimore City Circuit Judge Carol E. Smith denied Plaintiff’s motion to overturn the cap and reduced the Plaintiff’s verdict to his medical expenses and $620,000.00 in non-economic damages (the malpractice must have occurred between October 2002 and September 2003).

June 3, 2008

Forum Non Conveniens Opinion in Randallstown High School Shootings Case

by Ronald V. Miller, Jr.

The Maryland Court of Special Appeals ruled yesterday in Peyton-Henderson v. Evans that Baltimore City Circuit Court Judge George L. Russell, III did not err in transferring a lawsuit from Baltimore City to Baltimore County because of the May 2004 shooting at Randallstown High School.

The ruling covers no new ground, but (sort of) retired Judge Charles E. Moylan Jr. lays out the history of the Maryland case law on forum non conveniens. The court underscored the more modern Maryland trend to focus on “the interests of justice” as opposed to concentrating on convenience of the witness. With a standard as amorphous as “interests of justice” you can be sure that excluding some insane finding, the appeals court will defer to the trial judge. Therefore, I’m surprised this case was initially appealed.

Judge Moylan jabbed lightly at personal injury lawyers who forum shop, quoting now Court of Special Appeals Judge Krauser, “while home may be where the heart is, it is not necessarily where the largest recovery lies.” But, in the next breath, Judge Moylan points out that “is beside the point when dealing with the venue statute rather than forum non conveniens” because Plaintiff is well within his or her right to sue anywhere where the venue is proper.

February 13, 2008

New Maryland Court of Appeals Opinion

by Ronald V. Miller, Jr.

The Maryland Court of Special Appeals decided the Titan v. Advance case yesterday. Titan is a case where the Plaintiff alleged negligent repair of a roof that led to the clogging of a roof drain, which then resulted in the Plaintiff’s premises to flood. It is located on Eastern Avenue in Baltimore, Maryland, at Crown Industrial Park. After a three-day trial, the jury found in favor of the Defendants.

As you might have expected, the amount of rain after the job was completed was relevant. Defendants introduced, over objection, a certified copy of the U.S. Department of Commerce’s weather reports from Baltimore-Washington Airport, which reported rain patterns at the airport between the day the roofing work was completed and the date of the flooding off the roof. Plaintiff objected that the weather at Baltimore Washington Airport on that day was not relevant because it was 10 miles from the site.

The Maryland Court of Special Appeals, in an opinion by Judge Arrie W. Davis, found that the documents were relevant because the parties disputed the amount of rainfall. The court further found that despite the length of the documents, the jury could reasonably interpret the recorded rainfall amounts and the court needed no expert opinion to explain the documents. As to the 10 miles between the Baltimore-Washington Airport and the site of the property, the court concluded this went to the weight of the evidence as opposed to admissibility.

February 7, 2008

Voir Dire in Maryland: Follow-up to Judge Sweeney’s Article on Voir Dire in the Daily Record

by Ronald V. Miller, Jr.

Last month, retired Howard County Judge Dennis M. Sweeney wrote an article in a series of articles he is writing for the Daily Record. The latest article discusses voir dire. One point Judge Sweeney makes is that judges have an aversion to proposed voir dire questions that seem to be uniform in every case the lawyer tries. In my last trial, the defense lawyer did not change the names of the parties from the voir dire that they had apparently cut and pasted from the last case. Judge Sweeney writes that they may poison the trial judge to ignore specific voir dire questions—usually put at the end of voir dire consistent with cut-and-paste practices—that may have more merit.

The article also points to dicta in Landon v. Zorn, 389 Md. 206 (2005), a failure-to -diagnose medical malpractice case in which the Plaintiffs appealed a defense verdict. The basis for the appeal was the trial judge’s refusal to ask whether the jury panel had any “preconceived opinion or bias or prejudice in favor of, or against Plaintiffs in personal injury cases in general and medical malpractice cases in particular?” The Maryland Court of Appeals affirmed in a unanimous opinion written by Judge Clayton Greene, Jr. that it is the responsibility of the attorneys to “propound voir dire questions designed to elicit potential bias from jurors, and not to bootstrap a tort reform argument on appeal to a general question inquiring into any potential ‘bias or prejudice’ against plaintiffs in personal injury or medical malpractice cases.” But as Judge Sweeney notes, the court indicated that the lower court may have had an obligation to include a question more tailored to the plaintiff in that case if requested by the attorneys. Judge Sweeney then said that this “places counsel in the position of having to ask the question in many different formulations to hit on the one that may be correct and specific enough.”

But Maryland trial judges love to rush through voir dire as it is, so I shuttered to imagine giving multiple formulations to these judges. I wrote to Judge Sweeney and asked if he had any solution to the Landon v. Zorn problem of having to ask in many formulations to find the most appropriate, noting my concern about how multiple formulations of the same question might risk annoying the court. Judge Sweeney offered this practical response:

November 5, 2007

Does Maryland’s Cap on Noneconomic Damages Discriminate Against Women

by Ronald V. Miller, Jr.

I have expressed my disdain for Maryland’s cap on non-economic damages many times on this blog. I read an interesting article in the University of Baltimore Law Forum on an issue to which I have never given much consideration: the impact of the cap on non-economic damages on women. In the article, Maryland Tort Damages: A Form of Sex-Based Discrimination 37 U. Balt. L.F. 97 (2007), University of Baltimore law professor Rebecca Korzec argues that the statutory cap on non-economic damages in Maryland, although facially neutral, has the unintended consequence that it disproportionately disadvantages women.

The essential premise is that limiting non-economic damages disproportionately affects female litigants, because women earn less, largely because they spend more time on unpaid child care around the house. Limiting pain and suffering damages does not allow juries to award fair compensation. Non-economic damage caps solidify bias by rewarding economic losses over non-economic ones, intensifying the gender bias of tort law.

Professor Korzec notes that physical injuries to women may not result in significant damages awards, because of some injuries specific to women. A “soccer mom” who suffers an injury requiring a hysterectomy, for example, may cause little economic harm. Restricting or limiting her non-economic damages may cause an insignificant award of damages.

October 23, 2007

New Maryland Assumption of the Risk Opinion

by Ronald V. Miller, Jr.

The Maryland Court of Appeals issued an interesting opinion last week on Maryland’s assumption of the risk doctrine in American Powerlifting Association v. Cotillo.

The Plaintiff, a Prince George’s County police officer, suffered injuries in a powerlifting contest at Patuxent High School in Calvert County, Maryland. He brought a negligence claim in Calvert County against the American Powerlifting Association and the Calvert County Board of Education. Essentially, the Plaintiff claimed that two Patuxent High School students, who spotted the Plaintiff during his effort to bench press 530 pounds, could have prevented his injuries. A Calvert County Circuit Court judge granted the Defendant’s motion for summary judgment because the Plaintiff assumed the risk of his injuries.

The Court of Special Appeals affirmed on all counts except the negligence claim grounded in allegations of improper preparatory instruction of the spotter. The court’s reasoning was that the Plaintiff did not know the spotters were improperly trained, and because their improper training presented an enhanced risk not normally incidental to powerlifting, Plaintiff could not have assumed the risk.

The Maryland Court of Appeals disagreed, finding that the assumption of the risk doctrine barred all of Plaintiff’s claims because any person of normal intelligence knows or should know that one risk inherent in powerlifting is that the bar may fall and injure the participant. Continue reading