Maryland Injury Law Center

February 27, 2013

Dr. Nikita Levy: Potential Lawsuits Against the Doctor and Johns Hopkins

Like the rest of the Baltimore community this past week, I was shocked to hear that Dr. Nikita Levy, a gynecologist at Johns Hopkins’ East Baltimore Medical Center, has been accused of secretly videotaping and photographing his patients.

You have heard the allegations if you have access to a newspaper or a television in Baltimore. Dr. Levy, an OB/GYN with an excellent reputation, used a pen camera and other surreptitious devices to photograph and film his female patients. Dr. Levy had worked at the hospital for his entire 25-year career until his dismissal on February 8, when a coworker blew the whistle on the alleged operation after noticing something unusual about the doctor’s examinations four days earlier.

February 25, 2013

Medical Malpractice Recovery Frequencies

by Ronald V. Miller, Jr.

Year	Childbirth Negligence	Diagnosis Negligence	Surgical Negligence	Medical Malpractice Overall
2004	43%	25%	24%	27%
2005	32%	30%	21%	26%
2006	26%	25%	28%	26%
2007	30%	30%	22%	25%
2008	41%	24%	29%	26%
2009	30%	26%	27%	26%
2010	29%	17%	22%	21%

February 21, 2013

2013 Maryland Tort Appellate Opinions

by Ronald V. Miller, Jr.

One thing I have committed to in 2013 is writing a blog post on every new Maryland personal injury-related opinion. Not just for you or for the blog traffic but to keep me abreast of ever-changing Maryland law. If you think I have missed a case, please let me know.

We have four personal injury related cases so far in 2013:

Smith v. Johns Hopkins Community Physicians: New forum non conveniens opinion from the Maryland Court of Special Appeals that I can’t say I enjoyed.

February 5, 2013

We Are Losing Our Way in Applying Venue Laws in Maryland

by Ronald V. Miller, Jr.

Last week the Maryland Court of Special Appeals upheld a trial court’s ruling in Smith v. Johns Hopkins Community Physicians.

Before we get into the facts, let’s talk Maryland venue law. Here is the most important thing you would need to know in a just world:

The moving party has the burden of proving that the interests of justice would be best served by transferring the action…and a motion to transfer should be granted only when the balance weighs strongly in favor of the moving party.

February 4, 2013

Intersection of Tort and Contract: New Maryland High Court Opinion

by Ronald V. Miller, Jr.

Last week, the Maryland Court of Appeals decided 100 Investment Limited Partnership v. Columbia Town Center Title Company. This is a business transaction case, so it is a little outside the usual purview of this blog. But it talks duty of care in tort cases which is spot on a topic of this blog and vicarious liability. It also talks about contractual indemnification which is a topic I have taught and published on it in the past. So I thought a quick write-up might be of interest. If you are looking for the usual personal injury fare, please drive through and check back tomorrow. Continue reading

January 30, 2013

Jury Award 35 Times State Farm Settlement Offer

by Ronald V. Miller, Jr.

I was expecting and got a call Monday night. My parent Laura Zois was at trial in Frederick County in a rear-end car accident case. I got word of the verdict: $291,000 and some change. A verdict exceeding the at-fault driver’s of $100,000 and the uninsured motorist policy of $250,000. This is not our first excess verdict against State Farm and it won’t be our last. But it always feels good.

State Farm claims are always a challenge to settle. More than any other insurance company, they just do not make settlement offers that entice victims to settle before trial. The settlement offer, in this case, was $8,200. I felt like we should have gotten an even larger verdict in this case. I was a little disappointed we did not. This speaks volumes of where were are, at least in Maryland, with State Farm. We can get a verdict 35 times the settlement offer and still not view it as an epic victory. Because State Farm’s offer was not even remotely between reasonable.

Another Jury Verdict Against State Farm

January 28, 2013

New Sanctions Opinion

by Ronald V. Miller, Jr.

Insurance companies are sometimes arrogant about [fill in the blank]. One phrase that fits neatly into that blank is “pretrial obligations.” The insurance company is not a party to the case and it feels at least a little outside the reach of a judge’s fist.

Judges used to the fear of that fist can get angry when their orders are brushed aside as the insurance company found out in Station Maintenance v. Two Farms, decided on Thursday by the Maryland Court of Special Appeals.

Plaintiffs, in this case, filed suit in Baltimore Court alleging that approximately 5,400 gallons of gasoline had leaked out of the defendant’s underground storage tanks at its facility on Pulaski Highway, in Baltimore, Maryland, contaminated their property. Plaintiff settled the case for $2.7 million and assigned their claims against another defendant to the settling defendant. The case proceeded along. The court ordered the parties to appear at a settlement conference and for the insurance companies to send a senior officer or employee of both insurance companies to come with settlement authority up to the full limits of its policy.

You can guess what happened next. The insurance company for one of the parties – Mid-Continent -didn’t post for one of the parties. Originally, the other defendant (now the plaintiff, really) sought attorneys’ fees and costs but quickly realized he was not reaching far enough and asked for a default judgment in the amount of one million dollars. The judge granted the motion. The question was: can the settlement judge do that? Continue reading

January 24, 2013

Subway Footlong Lawsuit

by Ronald V. Miller, Jr.

Are they really going to settle these Subway foot-long lawsuits?

Subway just got hit with a lawsuit alleging that its Footlong subs are not actually a foot long. Plaintiffs who ate what is probably an 11-inch sub, are seeking money damages for their injuries. The case was filed in New Jersey.

I stick close to personal injury related issues here. So why am I writing about a frivolous lawsuit claiming that a Footlong sub is not a foot long? Because I think it is related. Lawsuits like this – and celebrities that sue for every slight – really sends a message to people, who later become jurors, that the judicial system is rarely a place for serious justice.

So when an injured plaintiff begins a trial, she does not begin on the 50-yard line. She starts deep in her own territory. That’s not an impossible mission for a worthy plaintiff by any stretch – people flip quickly when they learn facts. But it makes the hill a tougher climb and it can change the way they value personal injury cases.

Subway says the word “footlong” should not be taken literally, as it is a trademark and “not intended to be a measurement of length.” But they are misleading people. They misled me. I thought it was a foot long till I read this story. But consumers who think like me have two reasonable choices: (1) decide not to buy the Subway subs because they are mad at the false advertising, or (2) remain annoyed but say, “Hey, Subway is not perfect, I don’t think many big companies are, but I think make a good sandwich and I am going to eat it.” (I pick the latter. Subway makes a good low fat sandwich, albeit with a ridiculous amount of sodium.).

January 14, 2013

Advice on Negotiating Car Accident Claims with Each Insurance Company

by Ronald V. Miller, Jr.

Negotiating with Insurance Companies

I’m a big fan of science. I would think there would be one best way to approach a personal injury case. But I’m always amazed at how trial lawyers with such unbelievably different approaches and styles can be successful. But it is not just trial lawyers. If you look at the best of the best among politicians, musicians, actors, athletes, mathematicians, you name it; they are all different and approach their craft differently, albeit with some common threads.

The same is true with insurance companies. They all have the same general idea: take in lots of money in premiums and pay out as little money as in claims. For example, State Farm and GEICO have unbelievably different business models for running their business… including their approach to handling personal injury car accident claims. Obviously, both companies are making money hand over fist. But there is not one correct business model when trying to reduce the amount of money you will pay out in claims. You need to know the model you are facing to figure best our how to maximize the value of the claim. All roads lead to this Rome: you need to devise the tactics to get as much money for the claim as you can whether it is a $50,000 claim or a $5 million claim.

One of my jobs here is to discuss strategy with our lawyers on the cases they are handling in litigation. It is one of my favorite parts of the job. I’m providing strategy and tactical advice without having to do the heavy lifting. Whether it is an accident or a medical malpractice case, one of my first questions is, “Who is the insurance company?” (and “What are the policy limits?). Because you have to have some idea of who you are dealing with in trying to settle or even when you know you will try the case.

State Farm and Nationwide, for example, could have different approaches to personal injury cases. At Nationwide, a verdict that exceeds the policy limits by a $1 is a federal case. Alarms go off, file audits are conducted, and the world gets turned upside down. At State Farm, they call a day like this Tuesday. It is just an ordinary thing that happens. This is a critical thing that you need to know when you are going into settlement negotiations.

Where to Find Detailed Analysis of the Insurance Company You are Facing

Below, I have analyzed the insurance companies/adjusting companies we deal with in 97% of the motor vehicle accident cases we handle. You can find it here. Jump on the first link at the top and locate the insurance company you are dealing with on your claim or just look for the box that lists the major insurers at the top of the page.

January 11, 2013

I Hate the Collateral Source Rule Today

by Ronald V. Miller, Jr.

An opinion in the U.S. District Court of Maryland last week began like this:

This case is rooted in a hunting trip in South Africa, during which Dennis Danner, Alexander Danner, and Michael Coletta, plaintiffs, each killed a “trophy quality” male lion. The lion skins and skulls (the “Lion Trophy” or “Lion Trophies,” or “Cargo”) were shipped to the United States for tanning and taxidermy, but at some point were lost in transit. The Cargo was found several months later at a warehouse in Vancouver, Canada. By that time, two of the Lion Trophies had suffered irreparable damage, allegedly due to exposure to moisture and bacteria.

Oh, my. The plaintiff’s hunting trip with his son cost $250,000. He sued the freight companies for nearly $100,000 because not bringing home these dead lions just ruined all the fun.