Ron Miller is an attorney who focuses on serious injury and wrongful death cases involving motor vehicle collisions, medical malpractice, and products and premises liability. If you are looking for a Maryland personal injury attorney for your case, call him today at 800-553-8082.

In Adventist Healthcare Inc. v. Mattingly, the Maryland Court of Special Appeals (COSA) was asked to consider whether a mother’s decision to cremate her son’s remains amounted to the destruction of evidence in a subsequent lawsuit for medical malpractice. The COSA ruled that having remains cremated does not constitute spoliation of evidence in a subsequent malpractice case. The Court held that family members have no duty to preserve evidence from the body or allow potential malpractice defendants to examine the body independently.

Facts of Adventist Healthcare Inc. v. Mattingly

The decedent (Mattingly) underwent surgery to reverse a colostomy at Adventist Hospital in Takoma Park, Maryland. Five days after the surgery, Mr. Mattingly died while still in the hospital. Mattingly’s mother was with him at the hospital when he died, and she immediately suspected that the doctors and staff had been negligent. She wanted an autopsy performed to learn the cause of her son’s death, but she didn’t trust anyone at the hospital to give her an honest opinion.

In its final decision of the Term, Maryland’s Court of Appeals gave us an (arguably) game-changing decision Rochkind v. Stevenson. The court announced that it was discarding the old Frye-Reed rule and formally adopting the Daubert test for the admissibility of expert testimony.  We all knew we would get here one day. And here we finally are.

Defendants in medical malpractice cases will frequently defend themselves by pointing the finger of blame at another doctor who was involved in the plaintiff’s treatment.  Sort of.   They talk about but rarely do they put on the case with expert testimony.  They just make a lot of rumblings about it in discovery.

Usually, the doctor who gets blamed is not a defendant in the malpractice case. I call this defense strategy “blaming the empty chair.” This defense strategy can be very effective in certain situations. Juries often feel sympathetic for injured plaintiffs, but may be reluctant to condemn the defendant doctors. The empty chair defense offers jurors a tempting “scapegoat” in this context.  It is always so much easier to blame the guy who is not in the room.  We do it all the time in our personal lives. (Clint Eastwood is a huge fan.)

American Radiology v. Reiss

Doctors may now have a new and powerful tool for the early diagnosis of newborns who suffer brain damage during childbirth. A study recently published in Scientific Reports announced that a breakthrough neonatal blood test can effectively and immediately identify those newborns with neurologic damage resulting from oxygen loss during labor and delivery.

This is a significant step forward in neonatal medicine because it enables doctors to diagnose immediately babies born with serious neurologic birth injuries such as cerebral palsy. Without this new blood test, many of these life-changing brain injuries may go undiagnosed for months and even years after birth.

Early treatment and intervention are key to making the most of birth injuries.  This is the most important implication if this technology proves effective.  As a Maryland birth injury lawyer, it is hard to ignore the litigation implications this test could have on birth injuries cases.  It would be a blow to defense lawyers trying to argue that the child was not injured a birth (and, for that matter, specious lawsuits that allege a causal connection).  In other words, it would be easier to get to the real truth as to the ultimate question of whether a doctor or nurse’s mistake caused a birth injury.  I also think it would lead to more birth injury lawsuits because many parents do not connect the dots between a mistake during childbirth with mental and physical injuries to the child that are not revealed (or confirmed) until years later.

In Berry v. Queen the Maryland Court of Appeals held that the cost of getting a rental car must be covered under the uninsured motorist component of auto insurance policies. This is a significant decision that will impact any Maryland drivers who get in an accident with an uninsured driver.  For the first time, we have a clear ruling that uninsured motorist coverage requires the insurance company to provide a rental car.

What Were the Facts in Berry v. Queen?

This was actually two cases involving the same issue that were consolidated for purposes of the opinion on appeal. The underlying facts of the cases had no real impact on the court’s analysis or decision, but they are worth a brief overview.  They both involve State Farm. We have had to battle State Farm many times to get our clients’ a rental car. So it is fitting these are State Farm cases.

Case 1

Since shortly after I became a plaintiffs’ lawyer, I have been preaching that we need fundamental change in our nursing homes in this country.  Profit drivers the train.  These nursing homes need to be fixed.  In ten years, we won’t believe what we as a society turned a blind eye to in 2020.  Everything about the COVID-19 pandemic has enhanced this view.

If you have evidence that a nursing home or long-term care facility is providing grossly negligent care, overbilling, or engaging in other fraudulent practices, you can bring a whistleblower lawsuit and get a percentage of any money awarded in the case. Whistleblower plaintiffs in these cases are usually employees at the nursing home, but anyone with direct knowledge of fraud or neglect at the facility can potentially bring a case.

Nursing home liability

Nursing Home Liability Under the False Claims Act

Chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyradiculoneuropathy (CIDP) is an uncommon neurologic condition causing impairment of the arms and legs. CIDP is a condition that is frequently misdiagnosed leading to harmful delays in treatment or unnecessary treatments. If you have been harmed by a misdiagnosis of CIDP you may be entitled to bring a malpractice case and get compensation.

Continue reading

balance billing

Click to enlarge

Dealing with healthcare providers who seek to “balance bill” in personal injury cases is becoming an increasingly frequent occurrence in our practice. Balance billing is when the medical provider seeks payment for the entire bill, when the patient’s health insurance or HMO does not cover that portion of the bill. The medical provider bills the patient for whatever the insurance company or HMO does not pay.

Maryland Balance Billing Law

Balance billing in Maryland is permissible if it is not limited by law or contract.  But when medical providers agree to accept reimbursement from government health plans, there are often restrictions on the ability of the medical provider to balance bill.  With private medical insurance like most of us have, the insurance company often mandates by contract to protect their insureds by requiring the provider accepting the insurance to accept the insurance company’s payment along with any necessary Co-pays.

For example, your client’s insurance company might pay $4,000 for a particular surgery, but the surgeon charges $5,000. If the surgeon’s office accepts the plan’s payment but then seeks to collect the remaining balance from the client, the surgeon is balance billing the client. The question for the personal injury lawyer who is trying to get as much money as he/she can for their client is can medical providers balance bill from a settlement or judgment of a personal injury claim?

If the provider is Medicare, the answer is no. See 42 U.S.C. 1395(y). In Maryland, medical providers cannot balance bill if an HMO makes payments. See Health General Section 19-710(o); Patel v. Healthplus, Inc., 112 Md. App. 251 (1996).

Regarding other insurance companies, the answer is the provider cannot balance bill. But it depends on the insurance company’s contract with the medical provider. In-network medical providers may not balance bill for covered services under the terms of their contract.

They must accept the amount paid by the plan (plus any member Co-payment and/or coinsurance) as stipulated in their contract. The language of the contract will provide the answer. Medical providers that are out-of-network and do not have an agreement with the insurance company, often hospitals after an emergency room visit, may balance bill.

If you are in an HMO or PPO, the law might protect you beyond your co-pays and deductible, but contracting and non-contracting providers may directly bill an HMO member for a non-covered service. Doctors who accept assignments also may not balance bill in Maryland.

In Maryland, CareFirst Blue Cross Blue Shield provides insurance for many of us.  Ultimately, the doctor’s ability to balance the bill will depend on the specifics of the doctor’s contract with CareFirst.  We have not seen every provider’s contract but it can also depend on whether the health care provider is in or out of the network.  CareFirst is sometimes helpful with these issues if you do not mind spending time on hold.

Balance Billing and Workers’ Comp in Maryland

In workers’ compensation claims, balance billing is generally not allowed. Healthcare providers are required to accept the payment made by the workers’ compensation insurance carrier as payment in full for the services provided. This means that the healthcare provider cannot bill the injured worker for any amount beyond what the insurance carrier has agreed to pay.

Additionally, many states have laws that specifically prohibit balance billing in workers’ compensation claims. For example, in Maryland, balance billing is not allowed in by statute for workers’ compensation claims. See MD. Code Ann., Labor & Employment §9-731(a)(ii).

Dealing with Health Care Providers That Are Balance Billing Your Clients

Four practice pointers for personal injury lawyers:

Continue reading

The original post was about an interesting verdict in New York in a “calling fore” golf course injury case.  The case is still interesting. But it is 11 years-old.  So I’m updating the post in 2020 by including sample settlements and verdicts in golf course injury lawsuits.

Golf Course Injury Verdicts and Settlements

  • 2020, Texas: $125,000 Settlement. A minor girl suffered a traumatic brain injury after falling from a golf cart that was operated by a minor.  Look at the infographic we have on this page.  These injuries are unbelievably common.  The injury left her with permanent impairments. Her family sued the driver for recklessly operating the vehicle and failing to properly brake. They also sued the cart’s owner for negligently entrusting it to an incompetent operator. The case settled for $125,000. Obviously, there was a real problem for the victim’s lawyer in establishing fault because a case like this should be worth millions at trial if successful.
Contact Information