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 New York Times reports on a study by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety that found, as you might expect, that most small vehicles cannot provide the same safety protection that buyers find in bigger vehicles. Of the eight cars crash-tested, only one received passing scores on both side and rear crash tests. The Toyota Yaris, Honda Fit and Mini Cooper from BMW scored well on side tests but received low ratings on rear tests.

“A good-scoring small and lightweight car is not nearly as good as a good-scoring midsize car — that’s just the law of physics,” Insurance Institute for Highway Safety president Adrian Lund is quoted as stating this obvious fact. “If you’re really shopping for safety, then this probably isn’t your best choice.” Mr. Lund also expressed concern that only the Versa performed well in rear-end crashes because that rear-end car accident is the most common form of auto and truck accident and, while rarely fatal, can often lead to severe neck or head injuries, especially when a larger vehicle strikes it.

Putting all of this in context, the study found that the fatality rate for drivers in multiple-vehicle crashes is higher for subcompacts than for every other motor vehicle category — 83 deaths per million registered vehicles, which is more than double the average for all sizes of cars and trucks.

The Maryland Court of Appeals> overturned a lower court in a 4-3 decision in Goldberg v. Boone, a Montgomery County informed consent case.

Facts of Goldberg v. Boone

Plaintiff underwent a mastoidectomy (an operation on the mastoid bone, which is the prominent bone behind the ear, to remove a cholesteatoma (a rare condition in which skin cells proliferate and debris collects within the middle ear). During the procedure, the doctor accidentally drilled a hole into Plaintiff’s skull.

Sixteen years later, Plaintiff saw the medical malpractice defendant otolaryngologist in Rockville, Maryland. The Defendant doctor determined that Plaintiff had another cholesteatoma and performed an outpatient revisionary mastoidectomy on Plaintiff to remove the second cholesteatoma.

The day after the procedure, Mr. Boone began having trouble reading, remembering names, and recalling words. Subsequent MRI and CT scans revealed hemorrhaging and an opening in his skull.

Plaintiff’ filed a complaint against the subsequent doctor, alleging the doctor committed malpractice by negligently puncturing the Plaintiff’s brain with a surgical instrument during the revisionary mastoidectomy, causing serious and permanent brain damage. The plaintiff also alleged that the defendant’s medical doctor failed to inform him that, because of the hole in his skull, the procedure would be more complex than a standard revisionary mastoidectomy and that there was a risk of sustaining brain damage from the procedure.

The plaintiff alleged that there were surgeons more experienced available to perform the procedure in Maryland than the defendant who had performed only one revisionary mastoidectomy in the past three years.

Jury Award

After two days of deliberations, the jury awarded Plaintiff $113,000 for loss of past and future earning capacity, $355,000 for past and future medical expenses, and $475,000 for non-economic damages. The total award was $943,000.

Maryland Court of Appeals Opinion

The Maryland Court of Appeals’ opinion is long. I think two issues are of particular interest: one just for general interest; the second makes what may not be new law but flushes out the extent to which the decision on what they leave to the jury. The issues are:

(1) Where a retained expert is asked a single cross-examination question about his prior inconsistent testimony when testifying on behalf of one infamous Maryland sniper defendant, does that question warrant reversal of the denial of a mistrial motion?

(2) Whether it is a jury question on informed consent when the defendant medical doctor did not disclose his relative inexperience in performing the procedure and advising the Plaintiff that there were more experienced doctors in Maryland available to perform the procedure. Continue reading

The Dallas Morning News reports that it determined that a quarter of big-rig truck drivers faulted in fatal crashes in Texas from 2000 through 2005 had rap sheets. Their research found that of 953 fatal truck accidents where the driver was determined to be a fault, 25% were convicted of a criminal offense or received deferred adjudication before the fatal wreck. 14% had committed drug or alcohol offenses prior to the fatal truck accident. Ten percent were felons.

I am not sure what to make of this information. I believe that people imprisoned after committing crimes deserve a second chance, as do former drug addicts, for redemption. (Parenthetically, I really cannot figure out why felons cannot vote other than just pure spite. It is not like they will create a voting block. But I digress….)

Then again, I am not suggesting we should allow felons to hold positions that require, for example, knowledge of national security secrets. In the trucking industry, truck drivers are controlling extraordinarily dangerous weapons. If the data shows that ex-convict truck drivers cause an inordinate amount of truck crashes, we should make felony convictions a deal killer for getting a CDL license. I’m not arguing that we have reached that point based on one retrospective study by a newspaper. But I think as a society, it is something lawyers and policymakers should look at.

If you are a personal injury lawyer who regularly tries cases, you have encountered a witness, most likely the defendant’s medical expert, that you just cannot cross-examine even if your technique of cross-examination is sound.

After you walk back to the trial table with your tail between your legs, what do you do? I found an old 1988 ABA article that shows how one lawyer handled in closing argument the witness that the lawyer could not cross-examine at trial.

In this espionage case where “Cannon” allegedly left a container of microfilmed defense secrets in a telephone booth outside the bar that a Russian agent picked up, the defenses are alibi and mistaken identification. The witness is FBI Special Agent O’Rourke who had been staking out the bar and gave an identification of Cannon as the woman he saw in the booth. Here is the transcript of the relevant portion of his closing argument:

On Saturday, the New York Times published an informative article on trucking industry deregulation. If you are a truck accident lawyer in Maryland or elsewhere, I would suggest reading the entire article. Here are some highlights:

*In 1937, Congress set the first driving hour limits. Truckers could drive up to 10 continuous hours but were required to rest for a minimum of 8 hours. They could use the remaining six hours for other work activities, like loading, or for breaks or meals. Truckers could drive up to 60 hours over 7 consecutive days, or 70 hours over 8 days. To enforce those rules, the government required drivers to keep logs.

*In 1999, Congress created the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration in response to what lawmakers considered ineffectual regulation and high casualties. A year later, the agency proposed tighter service hour rules. They would allow long-haul drivers to work a maximum of 12 hours a day and require them to take 10-hour breaks between shifts. They also required installation of electronic devices to replace driver logs.

*In April 2003, the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration reversed gears and issued rules that increased the maximum driving hours to 77 from 60, over 7 consecutive days, and to 88 hours from 70, over 8 consecutive days. The new rules capped daily work hours at 14, which included driving and waiting for loading and unloading. The Agency also decided not to require truck companies to install electronic monitoring devices.

*During the 2000 election cycle, trucking executives and political action committees gave more than $4.3 million in donations to the Republicans and less than $1 million to Democrats. From 2000 to 2006, the trucking industry directed more than $14 million in campaign contributions to Republicans.

*The trucking industry’s donations and lobbying fees – about $37 million from 2000 to 2005 – led to rules that have saved what industry officials estimate are billions of dollars in expenses linked to tougher trucking regulations.

*The fatality rate for truck-related accidents remains nearly double that involving only cars (according to safety experts).

*The practice of falsifying truck driver hours is an open secret in the trucking industry; truckers routinely refer to their logs as “comic books.” Fines are small and the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration does not have enough staff to monitor 700,000 businesses and almost eight million trucks.

The article then tells the story of a truck driver from Virginia who claims to have been taught to conceal excessive driving hours in his truck during his training last January by his former employer, Boyd Brothers Transportation of Birmingham, Alabama. The truck driver said his orientation instructor at Boyd Brothers told his class that government inspectors were allowed to examine a monthly logbook if it was bound, but taught the truck drivers a back door. If they removed the staples, government inspectors considered the trucking log “loose leaf” and they could require an examination of only pages from the most recent seven days.

To keep inspectors off the trail, the truck driver alleged that the drivers were told to use fuel credit cards that recorded only the date, not the time, of the fuel stop. He added that the trucking company he worked for pushed him to work longer hours than permitted and that his logbooks were “adjusted” frequently to appear as if the truck driver was within the legal limits. He said he told a dispatcher several times he was too tired to make another trip, but he was still ordered to do so after just a few hours of sleep. Continue reading

A Jury Verdict Research study found that the median compensatory award for personal injury trials in Minnesota is $32,468. To the delight of Minnesota personal injury lawyers, the study also found that plaintiffs recovered damages in 67% of personal injury cases that go to trial. Both statistics are higher than those in Maryland. The median compensatory award in personal injury trials in Maryland is $12,813. Specifically, in auto accident cases in Maryland, the median verdict is $11,277. This data is arguably misleading. Many small claim type cases find their way to Maryland juries because defense lawyers in personal injury cases in Maryland can remove cases to Circuit Court if the plaintiff seeks more than $10,000 (but less than $25,000, which qualifies it for District Court), which they frequently do, primarily to increase the burden on Maryland personal injury lawyers.

The journal Spine has published an article questioning implanted hardware use in spinal fusion surgeries for back problems. The Spine study found that the implantation of hardware does not improve results. The authors also determined that the hardware carries a higher risk of complications, including infections which can occur more readily and can also be harder to see because the hardware can block a clear radiological view of the spine.

spinal fusion surgery

Decisions about surgery are tough on any patient

The hardware surviving over time is another problem.  When screws, plates, or rods break, the results can push right on a nerve and cause significant pain.

Frequently, insurance adjusters, plaintiffs’ personal injury lawyers, and defense lawyers confuse two important concepts when a defendant driver is using someone else’s vehicle: permissive use vs. negligent entrustment. I had an adjuster confuse the two last months during settlement negotiations so I thought I would write today about the differences between these two concepts under Maryland law.

Permissive Use

Permissive use refers to whether or not the driver of a vehicle had the permission (either express or implied) of the vehicle’s owner at the time of the crash. Whether the driver had the owner’s permission is an issue that affects whether the owner’s insurance company will provide insurance coverage to the driver. This issue rarely affects who should be a defendant in a claim (but may affect who has coverage for the accident).

I heard on the radio yesterday that there are four times more fatal auto accidents from drunk driving on Halloween as there are on New Year’s Eve. While statistics do not support this, drunk driving crashes cause more fatalities during Halloween than the New Year’s holiday. Four out of ten accidents today will be alcohol-related. Moral of the story: be safe and keep your kids safe tonight.

Last week, a Baltimore County jury awarded a $2.3 million jury verdict in a stroke misdiagnosis medical malpractice suit in Towson.

The trial before Baltimore County Circuit Court Judge Dana M. Levitz took six days, and the jury deliberated for seven hours before returning a verdict, according to Plaintiff’s medical malpractice lawyer.

Facts

Contact Information