Maryland Injury Law Center

May 28, 2014

New $5.2 Million Miller & Zois Baltimore Medical Malpractice Verdict

Our Memorial Day weekend got a good kickoff with a $5.2 million verdict in Baltimore in an emergency room misdiagnosis medical malpractice case.

I can’t start out the facts of this case without pointing out how amazing our client and his family were and are. Just a great loyal family. They came in and out of the courtroom during the two-week trial, including six of his seven siblings. His elderly parents were there for the closing too, along with one of his nieces. I have four small kids. When they are older, I want us to all be as close as that family. They are great people that love each other, and they love God. Which means they have 95% of life covered when they wake up in the morning.

Facts of the Case

May 22, 2014

New Maryland Rule That Might Cause a Malpractice Action Against You

by Ronald V. Miller, Jr.

Update: Stop the presses. This rule has already been repealed.

We have a new rule in Maryland: Rule 1-322.2:

Rule 1-322.2 shall take effect and apply to all actions commenced on or after July 1, 2014, and insofar as practicable to all actions then pending.

(a) Certificate Required. Every pleading or paper filed in an action on or after July 1, 2014 shall contain either:

(1) a certificate of compliance with Rule 1-322.1 that is signed by an individual who is (A) the party filing it or an attorney for the party, or (B) if the paper is filed by a nonparty, the person filing it or the person’s attorney, employee, or agent; or

(2) in an affected action under Title 20 of these Rules, a certificate that complies with Rule 20-201 (f)(1)(B).

Cross reference: For the definition of “affected action,” see Rule 20-101.

(b) Action by Clerk. The clerk shall not accept for filing any pleading or other paper requiring a certificate under section (a) of this Rule unless the pleading or paper contains the certificate.

Source: This Rule is new.

May 10, 2014

Drafting Interrogatories | Thoughts for the Plaintiffs’ Attorney

by Ronald V. Miller, Jr.

Drafting Interrogatories

In Maryland, each party is allowed 30 interrogatories under Maryland Rule 421 without leave of the court. I was looking at a case today that was referred to us by a lawyer who had already filed suit in the case. Our lawyers are normally hesitant to take a case that is already in litigation but the referring lawyer has referred a lot of work to us over the years so we agreed to step in and take over the case. It is a complex case involving serious injuries but the defendant’s attorney has posed serious questions as to causation of the Plaintiff’s injuries (previously nonsymptomatic patient with a herniated disk with an MRI that shows degeneration in the discs). I would love to ask additional interrogatories but the referring attorney, who is a great lawyer, filed 30 interrogatories with the Plaintiff’s Complaint.

The lawyer was probably under the mistaken impression that you cannot file multiple sets of interrogatories. This was the rule until 1994 when Maryland Rule 2-421 was amended to allow parties to serve multiple sets of interrogatories. Of course, the total number of interrogatories still may not exceed thirty. But there is no reason not to break them up into over one set and given this rule, we typically serve a first set of initial interrogatories and file ”clean-up” interrogatories after putting together the initial facts. When using multiple sets of interrogatories, another tactic our we often use is alternative interrogatories, drafted considering the defendant’s attorneys’ answers to requests for admission.

May 9, 2014

Recipe for a Bad Verdict | A Recent Anne Arundel County Accident Case

by Ronald V. Miller, Jr.

The average verdict in a Maryland auto tort case is around $12,000.

How can this be? I’ll tell you how it be: attorneys filing cases in Circuit Court that just should not be going in front of a jury.

These are my thoughts after reading about a recent jury verdict in Anne Arundel County. It was a garden variety auto accident case. The 21-year-old plaintiff, a college student from Pennsylvania, was driving with his mother in the left lane at a speed of 55 to 60 mph when they got into a collision with another vehicle. Plaintiff did what a passenger should do in this case where the cause of the crash is in dispute. He sued both drivers.

April 23, 2014

Can You Scare a Man to Death? New Opinion | Kassem v. Gaddy

by Ronald V. Miller, Jr.

In Kassem v. Gaddy, the Michigan Court of Appeals was faced with a simple question: can you scare a man to death?

Facts of Kassem

This is an odd case. An 85-year-old man crashed into the back of a tractor trailer. It sounds like the man was at fault for the accident. But the police accident reconstructionist placed the blame on the truck driver.

Why? The expert found that the trucker did not place his trailer’s outer bumper in the “down” position. So in the up position, a trailing driver on a wet, chilly night could not see any taillights until it was too late.

It was not a serious accident. There was no evidence of physical injuries. But the elderly man died of a cardiac arrhythmia that the medical examiner concluded, without looking at the body, was from coronary artery disease. Presumably, he based this on the fact that the man was 85.

April 22, 2014

Baltimore Lead Paint Verdict Affirmed by Maryland High Court

by Ronald V. Miller, Jr.

The Maryland Court of Appeals just affirmed a lead paint verdict against the Baltimore Housing Authority. This is yet another case where a governmental entity sought the refuge of the Local Government Tort Claims Act. Thankfully, the Baltimore Housing Authority could not avail causing brain damage to a child via this loophole, at least not in this case.

Facts of Case

The plaintiff lived in a Baltimore Housing authority for two years after her birth in 1995. She was exposed, she alleged, to chipping and peeling lead-based paint. Her lead level was 13 mcg/dl. When I defended these cases in the ’90s, we would have rolled our heads at that number. Now we know better. A level like this can cause actual injury and can bring a large jury verdict in Baltimore.

The story from here is familiar. The plaintiff’s mom noticed classic lead-related injuries manifested themselves early: attention issues, delays in learning to read, and behavioral problems. Plaintiff’s experts testified that she lost 5-7 IQ points.

The Baltimore Housing Authority put on its usual witnesses – Patrick Connor, Joseph Scheller, Joel Morse, etc. – to argue that the girl was not injured by lead-based paint.

The jury did not buy-in, awarding $160,000 in future lost wages (which seems low) and $1.1 million in non-economic damages. Under Maryland’s cap for non-economic damages, this portion of the award was reduced to $530,000. Why so low? The injuries occurred in 1995 when the cap was much lower. Continue reading

April 1, 2014

Why Tiger Woods Back Surgery Is Bad News for Personal Injury Victims

by Ronald V. Miller, Jr.

Tiger Woods “easy” back surgery hurts some tort victims

Tiger Woods announced today that he has undergone successful back surgery and expects to be back playing golf this summer. Good for him. This is bad news for golf fans who passionately root for or against Tiger. But it is also bad for personal injury victims who are bringing a back injury claim in front of a jury. Why? Because juries get constant evidence from athletes that back injuries and back surgery is not a big deal. Some will equate Tiger Woods to 58-year-old Mary Smith when she has a discectomy and fusion for a herniated disc after a car accident.

Why Tiger’s Surgery and Expected Recovery Misleads Juries

There are several reasons the comparison is unfair. First, not all back injuries are created the same. Tiger had a microdiscectomy for a pinched nerve. That is light-years from, say, a herniated disc suffered by great trauma. But some jurors view back surgery as back surgery, regardless of the severity of the injury. Second, Tiger is a professional athlete who dedicates his life to keeping his body in the best shape. Tiger won’t even share his workout secrets. He will also get stunning medical care. The best doctors, and ridiculous amounts of medical attention you and I would never see. Finally, Tiger’s getting surgery in the first place is probably something you and I never would have gotten in the first place. Why? First, we are not violently swinging a golf club at the speed of light. So I can probably still work out and work around the same injury that Tiger needs to get taken care of so he can perform on a world-class level. Continue reading

March 19, 2014

Important New Maryland Voir Dire Opinion | Pearson v. Maryland

by Ronald V. Miller, Jr.

In Pearson v. State, the Maryland Court of Appeals earlier this month addressed the important question of which voir dire questions, if requested, must be asked of prospective jurors. Why am I writing about it? It might have important ramifications on civil personal injury jury cases.

The case’s facts are simply: Pearson is indicted and convicted for a narcotics offense. On appeal, he argues that he has been denied a fair trial because he could not ask certain questions during voir dire. Pearson claims that the trial court committed reversible error when it refused to ask the venire panel:

if any member of the panel, or any member’s family, friend, or acquaintance had ever been the victim of a crime; and
if any member of the panel was ever a member of a law-enforcement agency or “kn[e]w anyone who is employed” by a law-enforcement agency. Both requests had been denied by the trial court.
Do any of you have strong feelings about [the crime with which the defendant is charged]?

Maryland only allows questions to be presented during voir dire if the question is “reasonably likely to reveal specific cause for disqualification.” Maryland only recognizes two specific instances that comprise specific cause for disqualification: (1) a statute disqualifies a prospective juror or (2) a collateral matter is reasonably liable to have “undue influence over a prospective juror.” Under the second category, which this case addressed, a matter has undue influence if it addresses biases that create a “demonstrably strong correlation” with a mental or emotional state that will improperly influence a juror’s decisions. Continue reading

March 11, 2014

University of Baltimore Law’s U.S. News and World Report Ranking

by Ronald V. Miller, Jr.

2019 Update: We are #119. Which is some progress. We can do better and we will.

The U.S. News and World Report rankings came out today (I wrote this in 2015.). It was not a good day for the University of Baltimore School of Law: ranked #135 among U.S. law schools.

Of course, this post will assume that U.S. News & World Report is relevant to anything. When was the last time you paid a moment’s attention to this magazine that did not involve looking at school rankings? The answer is probably 10 years ago. But it is because people care about it. But whether it reflects quality is anyone’s guess.

What Happened?

I don’t know. You have to appreciate that the University of Baltimore School of Law has been on a crazy roll in recent years. After falling and falling, its ranking with U.S News had been soaring higher each year. But the real kicker is the new building they opened last year. The old UB was a rat hole. We can say that now. It really was. The new building is just stunning. It has anything you could ever want to teach or to receive an education in, and do it in style. Even Above the Law, which has snarky commentary on the color of the sky, had positive things to say about the design of the building.

March 11, 2014

New Maryland Dog Bite Law | Legislative Update on Pit Bulls

by Ronald V. Miller, Jr.

One of the most highly commented blog posts I have had here was when the Maryland Court of Appeals decided Tracey v. Solesky, one of the rare appellate opinions that seemed to make everyone mad. Tracy carved out a pit bull exception and make pit bull owners pretty much strictly liable.

Everything, in this case, was goofy. The court even came back with an amended opinion – how often does that happen? – to say that mixed breeds are not strictly liable which, theoretically, would make the key to the case the tracing of the dog’s bloodlines.

Pit bull lovers and owners demanded that the Internet be shut down. Their passion – and their statistics – forced me to do something rare on the Internet: change my opinion in midstream. Whoever said screaming at someone on the Internet can’t change hearts and minds?

This passion pushed the Maryland Senate last week to unanimously pass a bill that eliminated breed distinctions. Which, is bad news for victims of pit bull attacks (and, let’s face it, plaintiffs’ lawyers). The Senate bill throws a bone — literally no pun originally intended until after I wrote it — to victims by creating strict liability for canines who attack while running at large. But, let’s be honest, that is not most pit bull attacks. About 70% of dog bites occur on the owner’s property.

The one thing that struck me about the anti- Tracey opinion zealots is that they rarely opposed strict liability on dogs. There seemed to be some receptivity to the idea that the problem in dog bite cases is not bad dogs but irresponsible dog owners.