Maryland Injury Law Center

June 16, 2008

Average Verdict Value In Head-on Collisions

Jury Verdict Research provides median award data and verdict probabilities in head-on auto, truck and motorcycle accident cases nationally. Plaintiffs prevail and recover damages in 64% of these cases. The median award in these head-on collision personal injury cases is only $31,875.00. This number reflects the fact that 24% of the head-on collision claims in the study were for “back strains” where the average award is only $9,312.00. These are probably not the injuries we think of when we think of a head-on collision.

But here is a genuine shocker: the median head injury verdict in head-on collision accidents is only $25,000.00. If you have a head injury, typically you have a serious accident. So this data is not what I think most attorneys would suspect. If I had to guess at the head-on collision national median, I would have predicted the number would be at least six figures. I would suspect that the average – as opposed to the median – exceeds $200,000 but I could not find any data to support my hypothesis.

Why Settlement Numbers Are Likely Much Higher

June 9, 2008

False Imprisonment Cases: Median Verdicts and Settlements

by Ronald V. Miller, Jr.

The latest edition of Metro Verdicts Monthly provides numbers on false arrest/imprisonment cases.

The median legal false arrest/imprisonment verdict or settlement in Washington D.C. was $25,000.00. Virginia and Maryland have slightly higher median settlements/verdicts of $26,000.00 and $29,000.00, respectively.

I’m surprised the median verdict/settlement is this high because I would think the median case would be one with relatively insignificant injuries except for the inconvenience. There are awful exceptions to that rule, but those awful exceptions would be reflected in the averages—as opposed to the medians.

June 3, 2008

Forum Non Conveniens Opinion in Randallstown High School Shootings Case

by Ronald V. Miller, Jr.

The Maryland Court of Special Appeals ruled yesterday in Peyton-Henderson v. Evans that Baltimore City Circuit Court Judge George L. Russell, III did not err in transferring a lawsuit from Baltimore City to Baltimore County because of the May 2004 shooting at Randallstown High School.

The ruling covers no new ground, but (sort of) retired Judge Charles E. Moylan Jr. lays out the history of the Maryland case law on forum non conveniens. The court underscored the more modern Maryland trend to focus on “the interests of justice” as opposed to concentrating on convenience of the witness. With a standard as amorphous as “interests of justice” you can be sure that excluding some insane finding, the appeals court will defer to the trial judge. Therefore, I’m surprised this case was initially appealed.

Judge Moylan jabbed lightly at personal injury lawyers who forum shop, quoting now Court of Special Appeals Judge Krauser, “while home may be where the heart is, it is not necessarily where the largest recovery lies.” But, in the next breath, Judge Moylan points out that “is beside the point when dealing with the venue statute rather than forum non conveniens” because Plaintiff is well within his or her right to sue anywhere where the venue is proper.

June 2, 2008

Are High Low Agreements Admissible in Medical Malpractice Cases: Connecticut’s View

by Ronald V. Miller, Jr.

I read over the weekend an interesting decision from the Connecticut Supreme Court that came out last week. The case, Monti v. Wenkert, is an awful medical malpractice case involving a seventeen-year-old girl who presented with significant but subjective symptomology that her GP, physician’s assistant, and the hospital’s emergency room staff dismissed as psychological.

This diagnosis continued even after she collapsed at her doctor’s office with “blueish, purple” lips. The teenage girl died of acute respiratory distress syndrome caused by a viral infection. Like I said: awful. I don’t suspect this case will show up on the cover of Tort Reform Monthly soon. It is anyone’s guess how this case made it to a verdict.

At trial, after the close of Plaintiffs’ case, Plaintiff and one defendant agreed to a high-low agreement not disclosed to the other Defendant. After an adverse verdict, the Defendant kept in the dark appealed his case.

May 13, 2008

Doctor Files Medical Malpractice Lawsuit

by Ronald V. Miller, Jr.

I wrote recently about what I thought was the primary fuel to the tort reform engine: people do not expect to be the victims of an accident that results from the negligence of someone else, and they do not expect to be victims of malpractice. Statistically, they are right.

The odds were in favor of a West Virginia gynecologist when he went in for abdominal surgery last month. But after his surgery, the gynecologist developed an infection and developed severe and debilitating abdominal pain, decreased consciousness, and overwhelming septic shock, requiring mechanical ventilation and additional surgeries. The gynecologist sued his doctors and the hospital for medical malpractice, attributing his injuries to negligence.

Flashback to April 7, 2008, the day before the doctor’s surgery: What would have the doctor said about caps on medical malpractice cases on that day? What would he have said about whether litigation is the answer? Obviously, in this case, he thought litigation was the only answer, filing suit an almost unheard of one month after the alleged negligence.

May 13, 2008

Stryker Hip Implants: More Reports of Problems

by Ronald V. Miller, Jr.

The New York Times ran an article yesterday aptly titled, “It Must Be Bob. I Hear His Hip Squeaking,” discussing people with hip implants, largely Stryker hip implants, who were told to try new ceramic hip implants. Its manufacturers promoted it and its sister implants as being more durable than the previous generation of hip implants. But their hips soon squeaked, raising concerns that the noises were not just embarrassing and uncomfortable, but forebode more serious problems with these hip implants. One patient has turned to YouTube to vent her frustrations with her Stryker hip implant.

The previous generation of hip implants, before 2003, had few problems with squeaking. The Times cited a Journal of Arthroplasty study which found that 10 patients out of 143 who received ceramic hips from 2003 to 2005, amounting to 7 percent, developed squeaking. Meanwhile, no squeaks occurred among a control group of 48 patients who received hips made of metal and plastic.

Last fall the FDA warned Stryker that it failed to take the steps needed to prevent squeaking and other problems. Many patients have had surgery to replace the squeaky hip implants. Many have hired lawyers to sue Stryker, arguing that these hips never should have introduced to the market without proper testing because, as it often happens, Stryker rushed to introduce its ceramic-on-ceramic titanium hip replacement onto the market to create a competitive advantage with its competitors.

May 12, 2008

Congress Looks at Riegel v. Medtronic

by Ronald V. Miller, Jr.

On Wednesday, the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform began hearings on the reversal of the Riegel v. Medtronic holding that preempted state tort claims regarding medical devices if the FDA granted the product a pre-market approval.

Pharmaceutical drug manufacturers have been on a real hot streak of late before this conservative Supreme Court. They are looking to extend their streak by asking the Supreme Court to extend the preemption umbrella to pharmaceutical drugs in Wyeth v. Levine, which is expected to be heard this fall. Congress could cut this pro-business Supreme Court off at the knees, although I doubt they could get a bill past President Bush. Things may change in 2009.

The star-studded cast of witnesses includes Dennis Quaid (whom I imagine will speak to the heparin overdose of his twins), William Maisel, (Medical Device Safety Institute), Aaron Kesselheim (Harvard Medical School’s Division of Pharmacoepidemiology), David Kessler (former FDA head), David Vladeck, (Georgetown law professor who has written on preemption) Gregory Curfman (New England Journal of Medicine editor); Christine Ruther (drug company consultant) and State Representative David Clark (Republican state legislator from Utah, who I suspect is in favor of preemption).

May 12, 2008

Legal News/Blogosphere Week in Review

by Ronald V. Miller, Jr.

I like to blog on Monday but given my figurative post-Mother’s Day weekend hangover; I reviewed the original stories/opinions of others as opposed to venturing to offer my own:

The Baltimore Sun had an interesting article on allegations of bizarre misconduct by a Nevada judge in a bizarre story with a lot of interesting six degrees of separation subplots.

The Washington Post has a good article on legal outsourcing in India, discussing both the exponential growth and some challenges in training lawyers in India.

May 6, 2008

The Size of Plaintiff’s Personal Injury Law Firms

by Ronald V. Miller, Jr.

The Legal Intelligencer has an interesting article about the size of personal injury law firms. I have always found it interesting that personal injury law firms in Maryland and in most states come in two sizes: small and very small. Peter Angelos’ office in Baltimore is the sole exception in Maryland, largely because they have their hands around the asbestos juggernaut. Otherwise, I do not think there is a single plaintiffs’ firm in the top 20 largest Maryland law firms. In contrast, Texas and Florida seem to have much larger, successful personal injury firms. I have never fully understood why the same business model would not apply, regardless of location. But even the largest of plaintiffs’ law firms in the country are smaller than Venable’s Baltimore office.

April 28, 2008

Lawyer Questions Fairness of Baltimore Jurors After Malpractice Verdict

by Ronald V. Miller, Jr.

On Wednesday, a Baltimore City jury awarded a 78-year-old Owings Mills woman $2 million in a medical malpractice case stemming from a failed surgery that led to three successive leg amputations.

After the verdict, Defendant’s lawyer gave this quote to the Maryland Daily Record: “This reaffirms my long held view that it is extremely difficult for a physician to get a fair trial in Baltimore City, particularly where there is a bad outcome and a sympathetic Plaintiff.”

If I were the reporter, I would have asked a few follow-up questions. Do you think the people of Baltimore are not as smart and more prone to emotion then, let’s say, a Baltimore County jury? Why do you think this is? Is it just malpractice cases we cannot trust them with, or all cases? What should we do about this problem with Baltimore City jurors? Should we replace Baltimore City jurors with the right people, like the good folks in, let’s say, Potomac. If Baltimore City jurors can’t be fair on juries, should we continue to trust them to vote?