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 Wall Street Journal has a good article online about the preemption battle that is being waged the FDA’s bureaucrats in the courts and in Congress.

The last line of the article says that “Some drug companies are telling plaintiffs’ lawyers that if they settle their cases now, they won’t pay as much to the plaintiffs as they would have six months ago, before the Supreme Court announced that it would hear the Wyeth case. A lawyer negotiating a settlement with one drug maker said company executives told him it wants the ‘Wyeth discount.'”

I don’t think many cases will settle for a “Wyeth discount” because both sides seem to think they will win. I cannot imagine how the court could find that there is a conflict between state and federal law in drug cases because I think federal labeling requirements create a floor for state tort claims, not a ceiling.

The California 2nd Court of Appeals issued an interesting opinion addressing the question of just how much of a plaintiff’s personal life is fair game of cross-examination in Winfred D. v. Michelin North America.

(Random comment: Can we all use first names where there are the remotest of privacy issues in question like this court does? If you are killed and your family brings a wrongful death claim or even if you are a doctor accused of medical malpractice, should someone’s Google legacy really be their name in a legal case that might include personal details? Who opposes this?)

Plaintiff suffered a catastrophic brain injury when his tire split while driving a cargo van. Plaintiff’s treating doctors testified that the accident left the Plaintiff, a college graduate, with the functional skills of a 4th grader. One of his doctors testified that Plaintiff was “incompetent” to give testimony in that “his memory is flawed,” and he says things that he believes to be true which may not be because of his brain injury. Awful, right?

The Missouri Supreme Court found last week that a truck driver not involved in a truck accident with another driver can sue for the emotional damages suffered when he saw the dead victim in the other car. I’m not sure the decision is legally wrong. But it would not fly in the court of Moral Justice court.

The Plaintiff is seeking $1,623.57 in medical bills, and past and future lost wages exeeding $45,000. This is a bogus claim alert right there. You shouldn’t lose $45,000 in wages and have such small medical bills in 99.999% of the cases. But here is what is worse: the defendant lost his two-year-old daughter because of his own negligence, which has to be the most awful feeling in the world. His emotional distress from the wreck – albeit his fault – is through the roof. Now he sues. There are some things that we can do in this life that we just should not do.

Oh, wait. It gets worse. In the lawsuit, the Defendant sought and received the following admissions:

There is an article in the New York Times today that concludes that it is best to settle most accident, malpractice, and breach of contract claims based on a recent study.

The basis for the conclusion is a study suggesting that defendants made the wrong decision by proceeding to trial, based on the offer and the outcome, in 24 percent of cases, and plaintiffs were wrong in 61 percent of cases.

right decision trial
Setting aside that these numbers do not even resemble the numbers of our lawyers – and probably 90% of the personal injury lawyers reading this – these numbers are hardly persuasive in reaching that conclusion. The reason is simple: if you bet on a horse that is a 50-1 shot and the horse has a 10% chance of winning the race; you will lose more often than you win but you are still better off making the bet (i.e., trying the case) than you are not making the bet (i.e. setting the case).

The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals decided whether a debtor’s claims for legal relief that arose after the confirmation but before the completion of his plan to pay creditors are property of the estate, under Chapter 13 of the Bankruptcy Code.

Here, after the debtors’ joint Chapter 13 plan was confirmed, the joint-debtor husband was involved in a car accident and suffered personal injuries. The bankruptcy court approved the $25,000 claim against the at-fault driver. Debtors then sought authority to settle the uninsured motorist claims arising out of the car accident without further approval from the bankruptcy court because the car accident happened after the confirmation, and the claims vested in the debtor and were not subject to the bankruptcy proceedings.

The court addressed two distinct issues: (1) whether the husband’s underinsured-motorist benefits are property of the estate, and (2) whether the bankruptcy court erred when it required both the husband and the wife to amend their schedules of assets to disclose the husband’s claim and partial settlement.

hung jury

Click to enlarge

I’m back from a jury trial in Prince George’s County that “resolved” yesterday. It was a bifurcated liability only case. My client suffered a leg amputation. Easily one of the best clients and best families we have ever represented. After almost six hours of deliberation, the jury was deadlocked on all four questions presented to them at 3-3. From talking to the jury afterward—all nice people—we could have kept them together for a week and they would not have been able to resolve it.

(How often do we have hung juries? I’ve never had one before. So I asked Google. Apparently, a study by the National Center for State Courts and National Institute of Justice found the overall average hung jury rate was 6.2 percent. I suspect the rate is lower for civil trials because the “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard ties up a lot of jurors and many states have more jurors in criminal cases than in civil cases which probably increases the likelihood of a holdout.)

The Baltimore Sun reports today the medical malpractice rates continue to fall. My favorite line from the article: “Since that deal was struck, claims payouts have fallen sharply, sparking debate over whether a malpractice crisis ever existed.” Hmmm, I hadn’t thought about that.

I’m preparing for trial on Monday and I don’t want to completely flush out this issue, but this article made me think of something. If we will offer state subsidies to doctors for their malpractice insurance – which I don’t oppose but I’m not sure I believe are necessary – couldn’t we make financial necessity a variable in the equation? Could we make a rule that a doctor who makes less than $300,000 a year be eligible for a subsidy? Would MedChi or Medical Mutual oppose this? If so, on what basis?

I have no problem with doctors making a boatload of money. By all means. They should. But if you are making a half million a year, should you be able to claim that the state should subsidize you or, far worse, that victims of medical malpractice be under-compensated to subsidize your business expenses?

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.

garrett county judicial vacancy

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.

While I was on vacation, I promised more commentary on Matsuyama v. Birnbaum, a landmark medical malpractice opinion on loss of chance from the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court.

In Matsuyama, the 42-year-old Plaintiff’s decedent, Mr. Matsuyama, saw the Defendant doctor, a board-certified internist, and his primary care doctor, for a physical in July 1995. Mr. Matsuyama’s medical records from that visit showed disclosure of complaints of gastric distress for the last seven years and that Mr. Matsuyama’s prior doctor had noted that he might need additional tests to evaluate his symptoms.

The Defendant doctor testified that Mr. Matsuyama complained of “heartburn and difficulty breathing associated with eating and lifting.” The Defendant also knows Mr. Matsuyama was a smoker at high risk for developing gastric cancer. Without further testing, the doctor diagnosed Mr. Matsuyama with gastrointestinal reflux disease.

Plaintiff’s expert testified that at this point the doctor committed medical malpractice by failing to order the right tests, and, over a year later with the same symptoms and facts available to him, he continued his diagnosis despite complaints that Mr. Matsuyama’s heartburn was worse and that he had gastric pain after eating. A year later, Mr. Matsuyama again visited his doctor and asked about moles that been developing. The doctor diagnosed “benign seborrhea keratosis.”

I’m getting deeper into the medical facts here than I would like, but you get the point. Mr. Matsuyama went back to the doctor with more symptoms consistent with gastric cancer, and his doctor failed to test more thoroughly for cancer. But in May 1999, when his symptoms went through the roof, the doctor ordered a gastrointestinal series and an abdominal ultrasound, which quickly revealed a two-centimeter mass in Matsuyama’s stomach. He died in October 2000, leaving behind a wife and child.

After a six-day trial in Norfolk County Superior Court, the jury found the doctor negligent and found that the doctor’s medical malpractice was a “substantial contributing factor” to Mr. Matsuyama’s death and awarded Matsuyama’s estate $160,000 for pain and suffering caused by the negligence. Then, in response to a special jury question, the jury awarded damages for “loss of chance.” They calculated the damages to be $875,000 as “full” wrongful death damages and found that Matsuyama was suffering from stage-2 adenocarcinoma at the time of doctor’s initial negligence and had a 37.5% chance of survival at that time. The Norfolk jury awarded the plaintiff “final” loss of chance damages of $328,125 ($875,000 multiplied by .375) for $488,125. Continue reading

Contact Information