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.

The Court of Appeals has issued an opinion regarding sanctions for bad faith claims that has a lot of lawyers on both sides of the “v” talking.

The case’s background is just plain goofy. Mr. W and Mr. G are neighbors who live in Montgomery County. Sometime in February 2000, Mr. W is shoveling snow in his driveway when a man comes up with a video camera and starts videotaping him as he shovels snow. The man with the camera is actually Mr. G, but because there’s a large camera in his face and he’s wrapped in winter clothing, Mr. W doesn’t recognize him. Mr. W says to the man with the camera, “Can I help you?” but he gets no response. Mr. W then sets down his shovel, walks toward the man, and tells him to stop videotaping. After that, Mr. W realizes the man with the camera is his neighbor, Mr. G, and at that point, Mr. W allegedly pushes the video camera out of Mr. G’s face. Obviously, these are neighbors with a history of bad blood.

Continue reading

The Maryland high court last week suspended an attorney indefinitely for failure to honor a lien against his client’s case. He has a right to reapply to the bar after 6 months.

Two clients had small injury cases that collectively settled for a little over $25,000. The Food Employees’ Labor Relations Association and United Food and Commercial Workers’ Health and Welfare Fund had a lien on the case. Unlike almost every other non-military lien holder, this union demands full payment of its lien with no reduction for attorneys’ fees.

It is a great strategy by the union to get all of its money back. It is a terrible strategy for helping its workers get compensation for their injuries. Because when most lawyers see these agreements, they run for the hills unless it is a catastrophic injury case. Why? Because it is hard for both the lawyer and the client to get paid. No one wants to take a case where no one walks away happy.

When I first started doing plaintiffs’ work, I couldn’t believe the union could do this. But there is a case square on point.

Anyway, the rest of the story writes itself. He does not pay the liens nor does he interplead the funds. He ignores request after request for payment of the lien for years. He finally puts his own money into it when I guess he realized it just would not go away.

Continue reading

The Maryland Court of Appeals decided this morning Chesson v. Montgomery Mutual, a mold exposure workers’ compensation case. I don’t handle mold or workers’ comp cases. But this case has implications for any tort cases involving the question of what opinions an expert can render at trial. Experts almost always come into play in personal injury cases, but as with anything in law, there are certain rules governing their use.

Facts of the Case

mold exposure workers' compensationThe claimant sought compensation for exposure to mold that caused neurocognitive and musculoskeletal problems. The trial court in Howard County allowed testimony from plaintiffs’ expert that this mold exposure caused an injury. The expert based his opinion on a differential diagnosis, which means the process of elimination. The Claimant won at trial and the defendant insurance company appealed.

A Prince George’s County jury on Friday awarded our client $5.5 million dollars for the wrongful death of her mother because of medical malpractice. The offer to settle before trial: zero.

Here’s what happens. A woman goes in for a cardiac bypass surgery. Her surgeon and two surgical technicians successfully bypass the problematic areas of her heart with vein grafts taken from one of her legs. Right before they close her up, someone (more on that later) places pacing wires on the surface of her heart. The surgeon and techs finish everything up, and the patient goes to recovery.

Keep in mind the pacing wires are a precautionary measure. When a patient’s chest is closed, the opposite ends of the wires are left outside the body. If a doctor needs to regulate a patient’s heart rate after surgery, the ends of the pacing wires are hooked up to a little machine that stimulates the heart just enough to get it to beat regularly. When the wires are no longer needed, they are gently pulled out of the body or clipped at the skin level and left in.

So, after the surgery, everything goes according to plan. Soon, our client’s mother is out of the ICU and in a regular hospital room. She and her daughter spent Saturday evening watching a TV program with Barbara Walters about open-heart surgery, and the entire family makes plans to watch the Super Bowl together in the hospital room the next day.

Our client and her mother reflect on the past few days as they watch TV, feeling like the worst was behind them. That’s the worst feeling. You think you have made it over the hill only to find out you have not even seen the hill yet. The daughter leaves the hospital to get some much-needed rest, not knowing that she had spoken with her mother for the last time.

Continue reading

I have a theory. My theory is that under Maryland law, insurance companies have an obligation to their insureds to tender the policy limits in a case as soon as a reasonable, prudent insurance company would realize that they must do so to protect the interests of their client.

My logic is so compelling that I’m ready to bump it up from theory to hypothesis. I’m this close.

There is one flaw in my theory: I can’t get anyone else who is not a biased plaintiffs’ lawyer to agree with me.  [2020 Update: read this.] The latest blow is painful because it comes from an opinion from U.S. District Court Judge Paul W. Grimm, who I still think is one of the best judges in the country despite this infraction.
Continue reading

court opinion disabilityLast month, in Curry v. Trustmark Insurance, a Maryland District Court judge made an interesting ruling in a breach of contract case involving disability payments. The judge granted summary judgment for the defendant. While not a tort claim, this opinion deals with a lot of issues we face as personal injury lawyers regarding disability and the contractual obligation to submit to an IME in uninsured motorist cases.

Facts of Curry v. Trustmark Insurance

Here are the basic facts: Plaintiff, a chiropractor, is injured as he is attempting to perform an adjustment on one of his patients. He suffers, ironically I guess, a lower-back injury that he claims causes a permanent disability.

If you want to file a medical malpractice claim in Maryland, jump through 1,000 hoops and, if you skip even one, it might be fatal to your case. In Heavenly Days Crematorium v. Harris Smariga, we look at the loops and the hoops you have to jump through to sue an engineer, architect, or land surveyor in Maryland. It is not 1,000 hoops. But it is plenty. Continue reading

Really tough opinion for medical malpractice plaintiffs in Maryland was issued in U.S. District Court last week.

Tangent #1: Why Isn’t This Case in State Court?

maryland malpractice suits

Technicalities are abound in malpractice cases

As a preliminary matter, it is complete garbage that this case is in federal court in the first place. The plaintiff, in this case, is, euphemistically, a guest of the state of Maryland. The defendant is a Missouri corporation under contract with the state to provide health care services to inmates. No one says they should get hugs, but we can all agree our prisoners need competent medical care?

I can’t figure out why the health care providers were not sued individually. But it seems crazy that a corporation can come to Maryland and perform health care services and not be amenable to suit in state court. Couldn’t the state require corporations who are treating Maryland patients to consent to jurisdiction in state court? I realize we are talking about prisoners and most people in Maryland and too busy fuming that they get to watch cable television, but this is a larger question. Moreover, are there not any Maryland corporations who could do this work?

Tangent #2: We Butcher Our Prisoners and We Know It

Anyway, this is a failure to diagnose his cancer that caused Plaintiff to require surgery and, more importantly, a colostomy bag. That’s an actual case. You know, we – our law firm – largely blows off these prisoner malpractice cases because you usually have an unsympathetic plaintiff who, let’s be honest, is more likely to lie about what the records will show when you first speak to them on an intake. This is probably a smart move for us in terms of resources but a terrible choice in the overall arc of justice because you are kidding yourself if you don’t think prisoners are not being butchered by medical malpractice all over this country.

Okay, Let’s Talk About the Actual Case

Okay, I need to stop the tangents and get back to the case. Plaintiff filed suit in Health Care Alternative Dispute Resolution Office and filed an expert report and certificate of merit by a qualified doctor. He then waived out of arbitration, which is the customary practice, and filed suit in federal court.

The defendant moved, as malpractice defendants are wont to do, to dismiss the suit because Plaintiff’s certificate of merit and report were insufficient because it did not articulate the appropriate standard of care or detail how the health care providers departed from it.

I’m not sure that is entirely true. The expert report says:

It is my opinion that a more thorough investigation of [Plaintiff’s] complaints should have been performed in early 2005, and that had such an investigation been performed, it likely would have revealed a developing colon cancer, allowing for more prompt intervention and treatment. The delay in diagnosis also delayed treatment and allowed [Plaintiff’s] cancer to progress during the intervening period and therefore caused him some injury.

But the court agreed that a more precise statement was required and dismissed the case.

Can We All Agree Maryland Law on This Is Dumb, Right?

As a threshold, we are about to debate a dumb law that places form well ahead of substance. If justice were a part of the equation, this case is a no-brainer and the case would either go on or the plaintiff would be required to provide a more detailed report.

What I wrote about this case – and what I wish I could write – is that this kind of insanity could not be what the Maryland legislature had in mind. But, let’s be honest: it might be exactly what they had in mind. Hat tip to MedChi lobbyists everywhere. Well played. Continue reading

defensive medicineI used to write a lot on this blog about the myths that surround medical malpractice in Maryland and throughout this country.

I’ve largely jumped off the soapbox because I realized something: no one is listening. Most readers of this blog are digging into those kinds of posts they already either agree or disagree with, and I’m not changing anyone’s mind. So it just feels like a fool’s errand to keep trying.

Max Kennerly’s Blog Post

Max Kennerly didn’t get this memo and writes a really nice post (that is no longer available) today shedding more light on the reality of this epidemic, one that we have not made a real dent into despite a lot of smart people trying to help solve the problem.

One issue Max talks about is the crazy paradox of doctors saying, “The problem is defensive medicine. I order my patient tests they don’t need and might subject them to harm because I want to cover myself against lawsuits even though I have malpractice coverage.” Here is one saying almost exactly this. It seems like an unbelievably self-incriminating statement that some doctors blithely give all the time. They could at least throw us a bone and show enough self-awareness to acknowledge the insanity of it.

I believe, as Max does, that most doctors put their patients first and order the exact amount of testing and treatment they need. In fact, I think defensive medicine is a problem primarily because doctors care so much for their patients; they want what is best for them regardless of the cost. Is this a problem? Maybe on a macro-level. But we have bigger problems than the byproducts of doctors caring too much about their patients.

(2023 Update: There is better data now on the idea that doctors are performing unnecessary tests. So maybe some of my “doctors are good people who would not provide unnecessary tests of people to protect themselves” optimism may have been a bit ill-founded.)

Doctors also practice defensive medicine because they don’t want to be blamed for hurting their patients outside of the litigation fears. Forget lawsuits, can you imagine being blamed for the death of another person? Whether the accuser is right or wrong, there has to be an unbearable pain that comes with that.

Continue reading

My position has long been that speed and red light cameras at least probably save lives. Why? I’ve painstakingly dug through the research, analyzed the underlying data, and made a thoughtful and informed conclusion.

speed red light cameras marylandOkay, that didn’t happen. What I read instead was a newspaper article on a study by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety that found that traffic deaths at speed and red light intersections dropped by 26 percent. So I concluded from this that the study was unbiased (probably because the IIHS has a reliable sounding name) and took the leap of faith that all cameras must be good.

Could this be flawed logic? Of course, But this is the way the sausage gets made for all of us when we are just coming up with a random opinion where our final decision really does not matter to anyone. We all do it.

So I really don’t know the answer. But I know that public support for these cameras is now being held together with Scotch tape and the magic of children’s laughter. Why? Because everyone has inspected the studies? Get serious. The contractors who run these cameras – and the systems designed to compensate them – are fatally flawed Continue reading

Contact Information