Baltimore Injury Lawyer Blog

Medicare liens are a topic of concern for most competent personal injury lawyers. It looks like Medicare is set to begin enforcing a federal law requiring reporting on injury claims made by individuals receiving Medicare.

The key thing about this law for injury lawyers is that if you fail to protect Medicare's interest, Medicare can go after anyone in the process to recover the payments made: the Medicare recipient, their personal injury lawyer, the defendant, the defense lawyer, or the the defendant's liability insurer. And lets face it- we all know that the client and the defendant won't have the money by the time Medicare comes looking. The feds are good at protecting themselves, and here they are doing it by putting a target on lawyers and insurers, which should not be a big problem as long as we are doing our jobs the right way.

Our practice at Miller & Zois is to discern early on in the client intake process whether the client is a Medicare recipient (or Medicaid,or state Medical Assistance). This lets us contact Medicare to put it on notice of the injury claim, and to request an itemization of the payments made by Medicare and a statement of Medicare's claimed interest.

Most of this ultimately operates for the protection of the client. First, the billing for the treatment is at the lower, Medicare rate. Once we have Medicare's itemization, we can make sure that the treatment listed is actually related to the case. It is not uncommon for a client who is in a car wreck and then suffers an unrelated injury a short time later, to have treatment for the second injury show up on a Medicare lien if the CPT codes for the treatment are similar. We also then have the opportunity to negotiate with Medicare to compromise the lien. Plus, if you don't do this stuff, not only is the client looking at Medicare coming after them to get the money back, they may find themselves with no coverage, or their Social Security benefits could be docked to recover the payment.

As part of serving on the board of the Maryland Association for Justice, I plan and speak at a fair amount of CLE seminars. These sorts of lien issues are always a concern because of the broad reach of Medicare's right to repayment. They are also a hot topic on our email listserve. I recommend that all lawyers do what they need to educate themselves on this issue, so they know the proper steps to take to protect their clients' interest and avoid committing malpractice. It looks like Maryland is heading towards implementing a mandatory CLE requirement, which should help raise awareness in this area.

From the "good neighbor" file: A Canadian family has gotten a bill from State Farm to repair a bumper that was damaged when a car ran over their dog, killing it.

Sixty days after having her dog die in her arms, Kim Flemming got a letter from State Farm demanding that she pay $1,648.95 (U.S.). When asked for comment, The Farm said "[t]hey could have made sure their dog wasn't free on the roadway."

Awesome! Legally accurate, perhaps. Awful public relations, certainly. I just love it when heartless corporate scum reveal themselves to be who they are.

Thanks to Walter Olson at Overlawyered for making my morning.

I arrived at the office this morning only to find that we had no power. So then I walked the ten flights up to our office suite. Once I could breathe without feeling like I was going to throw up, I made some notes that became this blog post.

It has been awhile since my last post, so I will bring you up to date.

The week before last I was out with Laura Zois mediating a serious injury product liability case. Our client was crushed by an unsafe product, leading to bilateral skull fractures and emergency brain surgery. Our efforts at settlement did not work out, so we are getting ready for a long trial that should start in six weeks. It is a lot of work, but that is what we do here, and it is the fun part!

Then last week I had a four day trial in an auto accident case in the Circuit Court for Charles County. It involved a low property damage collision, where my client’s doctors concluded that she had developed a chronic pain syndrome secondary to a minor cervical spinal cord contusion. This is a tricky case to try, because juries typically put a lot of stock in vehicle photos, and because the injury sustained was of a type that often does not appear on diagnostic studies like MRI’s, and did not in this case. Ultimately, this was a tough case that resulted in an unfortunate defense verdict. The jury just was not persuaded that the car accident caused the client’s injuries.

You cannot imagine how much I just hated writing that. Perhaps like most trial lawyers, I am very competitive. I can’t help but believe that if I am smart enough and work hard enough, I can control the uncontrollable. I think I am supposed to win every time. But nobody wins every time. OK, nobody but Gerry Spence wins every time. Our saying around the office is that if you never lose, you aren’t trying enough cases. That is another way of saying we try to be aggressive- just because the odds are against something is no reason not to try. Plus, from a client’s perspective, a personal injury lawyer who is afraid to fight is of very little value.

As I write, I am looking at a print of Muhammad Ali standing over Sonny Liston after knocking him out to defend the championship Ali won in his first fight with Liston, a fight Ali was picked to lose. If you never fight, you never win.

Then I spent Friday and Saturday with all of the other lawyers in our office attending a trial skills seminar taught by jury consultant David Ball and noted trial lawyer Don Keenan. I learned trial techniques based on groundbreaking new research, and left excited and ready for the next fight. A great way to stay motivated and to share ideas with a group of talented lawyers, including the five M&Z lawyers I work with every day.

So that brings you current on what I have been up to the last two weeks. Did you miss me? I knew you did.

I am working on a few cases involving corporate defendants of various sizes. One of the most effective discovery devices around for these kinds of cases is the corporate representative deposition.

Md. Rule 2-412 allows a corporation or other organization to be deposed through a designated representative. The way it works, is that the party seeking the deposition sends a notice, where they "describe with reasonable particularity the matters on which examination is requested." Then the corporation must designate one or more people who will be prepared to testify regarding those matters "known or reasonably available" to the corporation.

This is a powerful discovery tool because the answers given by the corporation's deignated representative are binding. The entity is under an obligation to have the designee review the areas upon which the examination is requested, and be prepared to give answers that will be binding. There is law saying that once a designee testifies, the corporation may not later present affidavits or other evidence in contradiction to the answers given by the designee. Under some circumstances, even an "I don't know" can be binding on the corporation when said by its designee.

There is a great resource for preparing for these kinds of depositions produced by the National Institute for Trial Advocacy called The Effective Deposition. I started out trying cases as the only lawyer in charge of the civil docket for a small Baltimore firm concentrating in serious criminal defense. I worked with two outstanding criminal lawyers who were a great resource on trying cases generally, but not so much on civil cases. This means that to a large degree, I am self-taught, and early on The Effective Deposition was the main resource I used for preparing for depositions of all types. My subsequent experience has taught me that the advice in the book is right on the money.

I didn't include cites, but all of the statements I made above are supported by either Maryland case law, or federal law interpreting the corresponding federal rule. Because the Maryland Rules are largely patterned on the federal rules, in the absence of controlling authority, Maryland courts look to interpretation of the federal rule for guidance.

This is true for all of the Maryland Rules, not just those pertaining to depositions. This is a very useful rule to know. If you deal regularly with procedural issues in discovery, you know that there are often not a lot of Maryland appellate cases on point. First, discovery issues are not appealable until the end of the case, so if you get a verdict it may never be appealed. Second, by then the economic realities of the case may not allow for an appeal. Finally, even if there is an appellate issue and there is the will and economic ability to appeal, the standard of review that will be applied is the very deferential "abuse of discretion" standard.

However, there is a very large body of law interpreting the federal rules, because federal trial court decisions are often reported. These may be found either in F.Supp., or in the Federal Rules Decisions. So when you have a thorny legal issue involving Maryland pretrial procedure, don't forget that federal law may be very valuable in providing guidance. This is particularly true when you can locate and rely upon opinions authored by well-known local federal judges. I have found that Maryland trial court judges will place great weight on evidence and discovery opinions decided by Hon. Paul W. Grimm, for example.

So once you are prepared on the strategic and factual considerations involved, and know where to look for the law if you have a problem, the corporate representative deposition is a great way to learn facts and get binding answers in cases involving corporate defendants. Have fun!

Last night, the Maryland General Assembly passed a bill to put a contitutional amendment on the ballot in November raising the jury prayer amount in civil cases. Currently, in any civil case filed seeking more than $10,000.00, the defendant has a right to a jury trial. This provision does not have an escalator allowing it to rise along with the cost of medical care and wages lost.

This bill will permit a Constitutional amendment raising that amount to $15,000.00. Because this law relates to a constitutional amendment, it needed a 2/3 majority to pass. It will now appear on the ballot in November's general election, where it will hopefully be approved by the voters.

This is an important issue for car accident lawyers in Maryland. As an example, consider a typical soft-tissue injury case. There is an emergency room visit with X-rays and a bill from the ER physician. That's about $800, conservatively. The client needs 8 weeks of follow-up physical therapy. That's about $4600. Then include two weeks missed from work, at about $1400 total. That's $6800 in out of pocket losses. If the client needs an MRI to rule out a structural problem, you are looking at $8,000 in out of pocket damages for a relatively uncomplicated sprain/strain case. Filing for $10,000 does not really provide the potential to make a recovery to adequately compensate that client. But filing for more means that the defendant may pray a jury trial and delay the case for up to a year waiting for a trial date in Circuit Court, and requiring expensive, time consuming discovery. The plaintiff may need to miss even more time from work to appear at a deposition, a court-ordered medical exam, and a settlement conference.

If the voters approve the proposed change, that case can be filed in District Court for $15,000.00 and it will stay there. This is a good change. It will keep less serious cases from clogging the Circuit Courts, and will relieve our jurors of the burden of appearing to hear these cases. A jury demand is also used tactically by defense attorneys and auto insurers in cases in this value range.

In a county with a conservative jury pool, any case over 10k will almost always result in a jury demand. This means expensive discovery, delay, and the prospect of trying the case before a panel of jurors who may very well believe their time is being wasted on a case of that size. These cases can also be more difficult to try before a jury because of the nature of the injury claimed. A muscle strain can be very painful, and can take a few months to resolve. It also does not show up on an X-ray or MRI. Even if you achieve a satisfactory result for the client, you have taken a year to do what should have been done in six months. Of course, in counties where the jury pool is perceived as being more plaintiff-friendly, jury demands are much less common.

Hopefully Maryland's voters will make the right choice. In the context of a modern economy, $15,000 is not the huge sum it once was. The change will allow the District Court to fulfill its purpose of resolving less serious cases in a fair and expedient manner with as little cost as possible.

Look for more on this issue as the November election approaches.

Today the Court of Appeals of Maryland issued an opinion addressing the extent to which expert witnesses who are retained solely for litigation may be forced to produce documentation of the amounts they earn providing expert witness services.

There are actually two cases, which were consolidated on appeal. The first is Falik v. Hornage, No. 60; the second is Falik v. Holthus, No. 90. They are both Miller & Zois cases. Rod Gaston was trial counsel in Hornage; I am trial counsel in Holthus, and I was privileged to brief and argue both cases in the appellate court.

In each of these unrelated cases, the defense retained the same neurosurgeon as an expert witness. Insurance companies and defense attorneys tend to use the same doctors as expert witnesses over and over. Because these witnesses are being paid, they may have an economic interest in continuing to serve as an expert witness, or they may have economic ties to particular lawyers and insurance companies. Obviously, an economic interest in the litigation may lead the witness to have a bias in favor of their employer, whether conscious or not.

Economic bias of this type is fair game for cross-examination in discovery and at trial. But where the problem comes in is in finding out whether the witness has told the truth. I have had doctors say they do not know what they make in a year for serving as an expert witness, or that they do not know how many times they have been retained by a particular lawyer, law firm, or insurance carrier. Or they will give an answer, but it sounds suspiciously low. I even had one doctor tell me that he did not know what he was being paid in the case he was testifying in, and that he could not tell me who would know.

Continue reading "Appellate Opinion On Expert Witness Financial Bias" »

HB 825 is a bill being considered by the Maryland House of Representatives this morning. What the bill does is raise Maryland’s mandatory minimum auto insurance requirements. As I write this, I am listening to the debate on the House floor.

Currently, Maryland requires drivers to purchase insurance coverage with limits of at least $20,000 per person and $40,000 per incident. This has been the requirement since 1972, when the mandatory insurance law was passed. That amount has never been changed.

HB 825 would raise the minimum limits to $30,000 per person or $60,000 per incident.
This is a change that is well overdue.

The bill has a positive fiscal note, which includes sample premium increases for drivers insured by the Maryland Automobile Insurance Fund (MAIF). These are the only numbers available, because private insurers are not required to provide this information, and refuse to do it voluntarily. In fact, I was at the committee hearing on this bill, and the insurer’s lobbyists were asked this question, and responded that they “did not have” that information.

MAIF is the state’s insurer of last resort, required by statute to cover drivers who have been turned down by at least three commercial insurers. These are Maryland’s riskiest drivers to cover, who consequently pay the most to purchase car insurance. MAIF drivers who face the biggest increase in premium would have to pay about 9.3% more, about $14.50 per month.

So what we have is a 37 year-old insurance requirement that has never been raised. The bill will cost the state nothing, and will result in only a modest premium increase even for the state’s worst drivers.

Consider what a dollar bought in 1972 (thanks to Jim MacAlister, Esq.):

Continue reading "Why HB 825 Is A Good Bill (And The Sun Is Wrong)" »

Last week I spent three days trying a car accident case in the Circuit Court for Charles County. There were two defendants- the driver who caused the accident, and my client's insurance carrier. There was a direct suit against the insurance carrier because the defendant driver had the minimum insurance permitted in Maryland (20k per person, 40k per incident), and we alleged that the plaintiff's damages exceeded the defendant's policy limit. So we brought in my client's insurance company as a defendant, because there were underinsured motorists' benefits available to cover the damages that exceeded the defendant driver's policy.

When you are litigating against the tortfeasor and the UM/UIM carrier, there are two legal issues you should expect to address before the trial begins.

First, it is a near-certainty that the insurance company will make a motion to allow it to try the case without being identified to the jury. This makes sense from their perspective, because they do not want the jury to know that any damages will be paid by an insurance company, or that the Plaintiff was forced to sue his own insurer.

The only problem is that Maryland law on this issue is exactly the opposite. There is a 2004 case from the Court of Special Appeals of Maryland that is directly on point. It is called King v. State Farm. When the insurance company is a party to the lawsuit, it may not remain anonymous. The insurance company may be identified to the jury, and the jury may be told why the carrier is a party to the case. I keep a copy of this case in my desk drawer, and bring it to court whenever I am trying a UM/UIM case. Normally, once this controlling authority is presented to the trial court, the insurance compnay's motion to stay anonymous is quickly denied.

The second legal issue is that when it comes time for jury selection, the two defendants will ask the court to award them each separate peremptory challenges. In a civil jury trial in Maryland, generally each side gets 4 peremptory challenges, plus one for the alternate juror. What typically happens is that the tortfeasor and the UM/UIM carrier ask to be awarded separate sets of peremptory challenges. This would be bad for the Plaintiff, since it would give the defendants twice as much control over the makeup of the jury.

All Maryland personal injury lawyers who handle these kinds of cases need to know about Md. Rule 2-512(e). Under the rule, joint defendants are considered to be a single party for the purposes of awarding peremptory challenges unless the trial judge determines that there are "adverse or hostile interests" between the defendants AND that the nature of those interests justifies granting them separate peremptory challenges. In a typical UM/UIM case, separate strikes should not be granted because the two defendants have identical interests with respect to the plaintiff- defending on liability and damages. Even where tehre is a cross-claim between the defendants, normally their interest against the plaintiff will be identical, and therefore they should share a single set of challenges. See Kloetzi v. Kalmbacher, 65 Md.App. 595, 501 A.2d 499 (1985).

So before you head to court to try a UM/UIM case, always be ready to address these two issues. If you try a lot of car accident cases, I recommend doing what I do. I keep the authority on these two issues in a folder in my file cabinet, and bring it with me for all of my UM/UIM trials. Since the law is generally favorable to Plaintiffs on these points, it is nearly malpractice to be unprepared to present it to the court.

I have been away from the blog for a few days because I have been preparing for oral argument in the Court of Appeals of Maryland. See, when I ignore you readers it is only because I have been doing big, important lawyer-type things.

Yesterday I argued two consolidated appeals where the issue is the scope of discovery that lawyers can obtain into the financial bias of retained expert witnesses. Nearly every Maryland personal injury case involves some type of expert testimony.

Generally this falls into two categories. First are treating doctors who are drawn into cases simply because they happened to treat a patient who was injured in a way that later became the subject of litigation. These are not the people I am concerned with. Second, are experts who are only involved in the case because they are sought out by one side or the other to give opinion testimony for money, specifically for the purpose of litigation. The way this mostly comes up in what I do, is the defense side on an auto or trucking accident case hires a doctor to examine the plaintiff and to testify to one of the following: 1) There is nothing wrong with them; 2) There is something wrong with them, but it is not as bad as they say it is; or 3) There is something wrong with them, and it is as bad as they say it is, but it was caused by anything other than the accident.

What I see is the same group of doctors being used repeatedly by certain defense attorneys, law firms, and insurance companies. Many of these doctors are very well compensated for giving testimony. I have encountered doctors who have billed as much as a million dollars in one year for doing this type of work.

We want to put this information before the jury to show that the witness is biased in favor of those who are writing his very large paycheck. Often, the witness will not tell us how much they are paid for working as a professional witness, or will greatly under-report their earnings. So we subpoena financial documentation to see if we are being given a straight answer.

The Court of Appeals is expected to address the scope of the documentation we are able to obtain, and the means for obtaining it. The opinion could have broad implications for all Maryland lawyers handling injury cases. I think the oral argument went pretty well. If you are interested and have the free time, you can see the argument here. They are cases No. 60 and 90.

I am not sure how long it will take the court to issue an opinion, but I expect to wait at least a few months. I will post the opinion when it comes out. I am hoping the court will come down on the side of our juries having accurate information about the self-interest of the witnesses presented to them.

The way people think and speak about time is a recurring issue in personal injury lawsuits, particularly those involving auto and truck accidents. All drivers are constantly required to judge speed and distance simply to get where they are going. This leads to the perception that drivers and witnesses are able to accurately estimate time, speed and distance. However, scientific studies by professional accident reconstructionists confirm that eyewitnesses are most often wrong when they try to estimate these factors.

Often, people speak in a very non-literal way about time. A minute is seen as a very short period of time by most people. A minute is about 1/1400th of a day. When a witness says something took “about a minute” they very rarely mean that it took 60 seconds. More frequently, they mean “not very long.”

This can be extremely important in intersection cases. It may arise in the context of how long the plaintiff or defendant had to see and react to oncoming traffic. Or where a vehicle was when a light changed, or how long it took for a vehicle to travel from point A to point B.

Witnesses never realize that when they are asked to estimate time, it is rarely simply because the questioner wants to know about how long something took. You see, time/speed/distance is really just a three-sided math problem. If you know any two elements, finding the third is a simple calculation.

Continue reading "Don't Let Time, Speed or Distance Sink Your Case" »

Probably the most common question I (and most personal injury lawyers) get from clients is “I haven’t heard from you in a while, what’s going on with my case?”

Generally, the reason you haven’t heard from me in a while is because there is nothing going on with your case. I know, that’s kind of a flip answer.

I think the reason behind the question is that most clients do not have a detailed understanding of the life cycle of a personal injury case. After intake, and during the client’s medical treatment, not a whole lot goes on. This is particularly true in terms of personal interaction with the lawyer. We generally follow up with treating clients every three weeks. We have a staff member whose title is “treatment monitor,” who keeps track of the client’s medical progress and makes sure we are aware of all current medical treatment so that we can secure documentation. It just isn’t efficient to have a lawyer handling all of these communications.

So there is not a lot of direct contact between lawyer and client during this period, but that is because there are few legal issues that arise during this phase of the case. Once treatment is complete, there is much more personal involvement by the lawyer in addressing settlement issues and if needed, litigation.

So there you go. Don’t get worried. We are on top of your case. We just need to get you better before we can move the case along to the next stage.

You know why? Because reform is supposed to make something better, not worse. I am stealing the phrase "tort reform" back from those who would destroy injury victims' rights for the sake of simple economic expediency. So here are John Bratt's proposals for Maryland tort reform.

First, do away with the antiquated "contributory negligence" standard. In Maryland, if you are even a teensy, eensy bit negligent, you can never make a recovery in tort. "But wait", exclaims a chorus of the uninformed, "that's not fair- if you are negligent it is your own fault." Oh really? What about a pedestrian who looks left, but not right and then a drunk driver runs him down? His fault, huh? Good thing Donte Stallworth ran that guy over in Florida, not Maryland. In our state, there is a good chance that guy loses his case against the drunk driver. Maryland should abandon this unfair standard and move to a contributory negligence system such as those in use in 44 other states.

Second, our legislature should appeal the "actual malice" standard to recover punitive damages. What this means is that in order to recover ounitive damages, you must prove that whatever the defendant did was not only intentional, but done out of specific ill will toward the injured person. There is a great illustration in the news right now. A 20 year old college student, a pedestrian, was run down and killed by a repeat drunk driver, who then left the scene. It turns out, he was captured on various cameras driving erratically throughout the city before the fatal collision. That poor young woman's family will not be able to recover punitive damages. Is that fair? This is a case where allowing punitive damages is not only morally right, but would provide a benefit to society by showing that this conduct will not be tolerated n the community.

Finally, the big one. I would abolish all arbitrary damages caps. Damages caps are unfair, un-American, and deprive citizens of their right to have their damages determined by a jury. Juries are kind of a big deal in America. It's in the Constitution and all. Juries decide whether people live or die, go to prison or go free. But when it comes to some doctor or insurance company's pocketbook, we don't trust them anymore. That's stupid. The whole point of our system of government is that it puts the ultimate power in the hands of the people. Arbitrary damages caps take that power away from our juries.

Laura Zois and I had a trial this summer where we were representing a young woman whose right leg was crushed by a gas tanker that ran a red light. Our Baltimore City jury awarded her $63,000 in medical bills and $1,000,000 in non-economic damages. Because of Maryland's arbitrary cap on non-economic damages, the verdict was automatically reduced to $729,000. When we told the jury about this, they were mad. They put a lot of time and effort into arriving at a fair verdict, only to have it undone by a law they were not allowed to be told about during the trial. That's not fair. They intended their verdict to compensate my client for the rest of her life for her permanent injuries, not two-thirds of it.

These three tort reform proposals would do an immense amount of good for injury victims in Maryland. They make sense, and promote fairness in our civil justice system. On the other hand, the only real argument against them is an economic one, made by those who stand to lose the most- wrongdoers and their insurers.

Connecticut has outlawed the practice of using "runners"- when crooked lawyers pay third parties to solicit injury plaintiffs either in person at hospitals or by going through police reports. These injured folks are then steered to crooked doctors, and the crooked lawyer helps them recover on the trumped-up claim.

Of course, I am sure that there are also genuinely injured people who are ensnared by these "runners" as well. The problem there is that they end up with the lawyer who uses runners, rather than with the most competent lawyer for their kind of case.

This is one of the few things that reputable personal injury lawyers, insurance companies, judges and legislators all agree on. This is a practice that is a harm to society, and brings the legal system into disrepute. Thankfully, this practice has been illegal in Maryland for many years.

Thanks to Walter Olson at Point of Law for the link.

Today is October 14. Each month the Maryland Board of Physicians posts on its website a report of sanction proceedings against the physicians and other medical professionals it regulates. The sanctions for September, 2009 were just posted today.

This is a big deal. That list of sanction proceedings is pretty much the only way for Marylanders to know if there has been a proceeding against their doctor’s license. Here is a great example to show why this is important, and why the Board of Physicians gives mere lip service to the safety of Maryland patients.

I have a client who was injured in an accident on January 1, 2007. She did what most people would do. She had a visit at the ER, and then followed up for treatment with her regular doctor. She was treated by her primary care doctor from January 20, 2007 to December 12, 2007. The doctor prescribed medications, physical therapy and chiropractic treatment. That all sounds great, right? Perfectly appropriate.

Until I tell you that this doctor had her license suspended effective September 30, 2006 for failing to resolve a state tax lien. On January 22, 2008, the Board finally realized that the doctor had been practicing without a license since October 1, 2006. They only found out because someone made a complaint. In February, 2009, the Board finally got around to sanctioning the doctor, with a $25,000 fine and imposing conditions for reinstatement.

So, all of the treatment my client got was done by a doctor with no license.

Continue reading "The Maryland Board of Physicians Puts All Marylanders At Risk (Except Bad Doctors, They Seem to be OK)" »

I just finished a two-day jury trial in the Circuit Court for Cecil County. Based solely on the preceding sentence, any experienced Maryland personal injury lawyers reading this probably have an idea where this post is going.

I was trying one of the most difficult types of cases to present to a jury. A rear-end collision with no visible damage to the vehicles involved, allegations of a fairly serious injury, and venue in a rural, conservative county with a (well-deserved) reputation for not being plaintiff-friendly.

The defendant driver claimed that she merely took her foot off her brake pedal a little too early while stopped at a traffic signal, and drifted into the back of my client's car. The photos of the vehicle damage supported this version of events- there was no damage visible.

My client felt pain in her neck, and was transported by ambulance to the local emergency department, where she was diagnosed with a cervical strain and told to follow up with her primary care doctor in 3-5 days if it did not improve. It didn't, so she did. Ultimately, she was diagnosed with a herniated disc at C5-6. This was confirmed by MRI, and the client's shoulder radiculopathy was confirmed by EMG.

At trial, the client's primary care doctor testified that he had been her doctor for many years, and that she had never had a neck problem before this accident. Her neurologist also testified that the herniated disc was caused by the accident. He testified that the vehicle damage photos did not change that opinion.

There was no defense medical expert.

The jury awarded $2,500.00 of the claimed medical bills, and $500.00 for non-economic damages.

I can't say this was an unexpected result on these facts in that jurisdiction. I tend to be more aggressive than most in trying low property damage cases. This is because I believe people do get injured in low-impact collisions and they deserve to have a lawyer willing to fight to get a jury to do the right thing; and because I look at these kinds of cases as one of the biggest challenges for plaintiff's accident lawyers.

Here, an ambulance crew transported my client to a hospital, the hospital diagnosed a neck problem, and two local physicians testified as to the medical causation issue. I am not sure what more evidence could have been produced linking the injury to the accident. I wonder whether any amount of evidence would have been enough to overcome the "nobody could have gotten hurt in this accident" defense.

This one is now stored in the "Get 'Em Next Time File." I am still mad, though. When I lose and don't care, I will quit doing trial work.

I was just having a conversation with a former colleague who works defending against personal injury cases, mostly auto and truck collisions. We were discussing a trial he had recently finished, and he had remarked to me that he thought the plaintiff was poorly prepared for his testimony at trial. Basically, he thought that the jury would have awarded the plaintiff more money if he had been better prepared.

This confirms my own experience. Client preparation is something many personal injury lawyers do not do very well. I'm not sure if this is because of the time pressure created by a busy practice, or because of a simple lack of awareness of how important client prep is to success at trial.

At Miller & Zois, one of the fundamental principles of our personal injury trial practice is that we strive to get the most out of the portions of our case that we control. Perhaps the biggest thing in a trial that you have some degree of control over is the presentation of the client. The old saw that a personal injury trial is a "beauty contest" is true. If the plaintiff is not credible and likeable, it will be very tough to get a good result.

The client should never hear a question at trial that has no been gone over in prep. This is a twofold challenge. The client needs to understand the goals and structure of their counsel's direct examination, and also needs to be ready for questions to be expected in cross-examination. I generally do at least one mock direct and mock cross with each client. The client needs to be aware of any prior injury claims, or any medical problems to the body parts at issue. The client needs to be familiar with their deposition testimony, and the answers to interrogatories. I make sure the client has copies of the following: all medical records and bills, answers to interrogaotries, deposition testimony.

At a minimum, the client should know and be able to relate the basics of the injury, its effects, and the medical treatment. I have found that clients who are well prepared get better results at trial. Generally the time spent is worth it.

We are always hearing about these evil, un-American frivolous lawsuits that threaten the very fabric of our society. OK, I get it. I dislike frivolous lawsuits as much as anybody. They devalue the claims of the truly injured, diminish the reputation of the plaintiff's bar, and waste time and money.

But what about meritless defenses that are made against non-frivolous lawsuits? Two great examples today.

First, Eric Turkewitz writes about a New York defense attorney making the argument that pain is not a "personal injury." Riiiiiight.

Next, Walter Olson at Overlawyered blogs about attorneys defending a hotel against a negligent security case. The plaintiff alleged that the hotel's negligent security led to her violent rape. The geniuses defending the case withdrew the defenses that the woman was contributorily negligent, careless, and that she failed to mitigate her damages. Good call guys. Blaming the victim may not be the best defense strategy in a rape case. Last time I checked, women were 50% of the population, and most likely the jury pool. As an aside, I like Walter's blog because he calls out stupidity where he perceives it, on both sides.

So, tort reformers, take note. Beware of frivolous defenses that do nothing but burden the judicial system, cost everyone money, and set up unfair roadblocks to justice for innocent victims.

I have now resurfaced after a hard-fought four day trial in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City. This is the case that Ron Miller references here.

Laura Zois and I were privileged to obtain a verdict of $1,063,807.37 for our client, who was a 22 year old mother of a one year old at the time of the accident.

This was a hotly contested liability case. Our client contended she was injured when the Defendant, driving a full gasoline tanker, ran a red light. The defendant claimed he had a green light, and that our client must have had the red light. The accident happened at the intersection of Pennington Avenue and Church Street in Baltimore City. Our client's car was totaled, and the gas tanker was damaged, which caused a gasoline spill. Our client had her one-year old son in the car when the crash happened and had to watch him scream for his mom in a stranger's arms while our client was trapped in her car due to her badly broken leg.

There were liability witnesses on both sides. The pivotal witness was a young neighborhood boy was eleven years old at the time of the accident. He testified that he saw the gas tanker run the red light. The primary witness for the defense was a man who had been having a few beers that afternoon on a front porch near the scene of the accident. He testified that the gas tanker had a green light as he went under it. Based on conversations with the jurors after the verdict, the jury was persuaded by the young boy's testimony. He is a very bright young man who made an excellent witness.

Our client had a horrific right leg injury. She fractured her tibia and fibula, and required two surgeries. Now she has a plate and eighteen screws in her leg, permanent scarring, and walks with a limp. Her treating doctor testified at trial that her injuries are permanent, and that she will need a fusion surgery in the future. She was 25 at the time of trial, and her life expectancy is 52.8 more years. She lost nearly a year of her life recovering from this accident.

Our trial judge was the Hon. Sylvester Cox. Judge Cox is a former Baltimore City prosecutor who has tried many, many jury cases as a lawyer before being appointed to the bench. Appearing before him was a pleasure. His rulings were fair, although they did not always go in our direction. He was attentive to the arguments of the lawyers, and he was great at putting the witnesses and jurors at ease. He was a stickler for details and expected excellence.

Cases like this remind me of why I chose to become a lawyer representing injury victims. It is a great feeling to represent people who need our help. Our client is a remarkable young woman who, in spite of adversity, stayed upbeat and kept her faith that everything happens for a reason and that in the end justice would be served. During the three years between her accident and the trial she stayed focused on her job, her education and her son and did not let anything keep her down.

This case should remind us all that our justice system works. Our lawyers believe that helping a person who has a terrible injury as a result of someone else's negligence is always a case worth pursuing, even in a contributory negligence state like Maryland. The only settlement offer in this case was $25,000.00, and that did not come until two weeks before trial. That is less than the client's medical bills of $63,807.37 (which must be repaid to her health insurer). This was a case that had to be tried. Laura and I are very thankful that after a lot of hard work and worry, we were able to achieve a great result for a deserving client with a tremendous need for the justice the jury delivered.

I just finished a one-day jury trial in Anne Arundel County Circuit Court, and I got killed. I am forcing myself to blog about this because I think it is dishonest for attorney bloggers to only write about the wins. Nobody wins all of the time.

This outcome was surprising to me for two reasons. First, I had what I considered to be a great case for the kind of case it was. Second, I had a very credible client and damages witness.

This was a damages case. The defendant driver was on his way home from work, and switched lanes to get oput from behind a box truck. Without seeing what was in the lane he changed into. He rear-ended my client who was stopped for a red light, and pushed her into the vehicle in front of her. Good photos of the vehicle damage.

She had bruised ribs and a sprained left hip. Went to the hospital by ambulance, and followed up with a private doctor and physical therapist. Ten weeks of treatment overall, no fractures, no permanency. I also thought the non-economic damages claim was pretty compelling. The client was on her way to her oldest daughter's wedding dress fitting and missed it because of the accident, and was in pain for the bridal shower the next weekend and the wedding two weeks later.

Economic damages were $168.00 car rental. The medical bills were $5125.00, and tehre was a $1400.00 lost wage claim for two weeks off of work. I liked this case a lot. The jury gave the rental bill, the medicals, and $2100.00 for non-economic damages. Total verdict $7,123.00. That is less than the last settlement offer of $10k. I was shocked.

My client was a very nice, college educated African-American lady who works as a computer technician, and the damages witness was her long-time friend, another African-American lady who works at the Johns Hopkins Applied Physics Lab.

I wonder whether race had a subconscious effect on my all-white jury. I don't think anyone would intentionally be influenced by race as a juror, but I always wonder in these situations if there is a more subtle bias that affects the outcome. I wonder if any studies have been done about this? I will have to look to see if I can learn more about the topic.

I also wonder how much the economy has been affecting jury verdicts. I think it is possible that jurors are more reluctant to make damages awards because so many people are facing hard times with no help available. Is a juror who just had a family member laid off, and who is missing a day of work to be on jury duty going to be disposed to making a good damages award? I don't think so.

Obviously, I hate to lose. This is when I remind myself that Ted Williams is generally regarded as the greatest hitter in the history of professional baseball. He is in the Hall of Fame. He also failed to get a hit 60% of the time.

Did you have a good weekend? Me too. Busy, but good.

I spent the majority of the weekend working on trial preparation for a serious traumatic brain injury case that goes to trial in Mongomery County Circuit Court at the end of the month. I was a big L.A. Law fan in my youth, and I don't remember ever seeing Susan Dey spending the weekend summarizing deposition testimony and medical records. If CSI can make forensic lab tests seem dramatic by playing "science music" in the background, why don't lawyer shows ever show the boring but neccesary stuff that leads up to the fun part?

I got a good break Saturday by getting in touch with my Baltimoron roots at Honfest. I enjoyed watching the crowd, especially the people dressed up as "Hons", and the people not dressed up as "Hons" (and the two were not that easy to tell apart). Apparently Honfest is an irony-free zone. This costuming issue also spawned a detailed discussion of whether a passerby was a man dressed up as a 1950's Baltimore Housewife, or just a poorly outfitted transvestite. A great way to spend a pretty summer afternoon enjoying a cool beverage. I did think it was strange that the only beers for sale were Heineken, Newcastle Brown Ale and Miller Lite. How can you celebrate the glorious quirkiness of the biggest small town in America with no Natty Boh? That ain't no Bawlmer, Hon.

This morning I was back in my old stomping grounds, Baltimore City Circuit Court for a hearing on a defense Motion for Summary Judgment in a slip/fall on ice case. I was before the Hon. Lynn K. Stewart for the motions argument. I had never appeared befpre Judge Stewart before in a civil case, but I had been in her court many times on criminal cases (in another life I ran the civil department at a Baltimore law firm specializing in criminal defense, so in the course of "helping out" I was before Judge Stewart many times). I have always loved being in that court because Judge Stewart is always prepared and on top of the issues, moves the docket along promptly, shows a quick sense of humor and does not suffer fools.

Slip/fall cases are always tough to prove, and have only gotten tougher recently with the Court of Special Appeals' opinion in Allen v. Marriott. The defense contended that I had no proof of notice of the dangerous condition because the area of my client's fall was inspected four times that day and no ice was discovered. I opposed the motion by arguing that since the temperature was never below freezing the day of the fall, the ice had to have been present, but not discovered, during each of the four inspections.

This argument did not change my opinion of this particular judge. She was familiar with all of the issues raised in the parties' motion papers and cut directly to the issue at the heart of the motion. I won the hearing, and my case will now go to trial. Moreover, our 10 a.m. hearing started at 10:03, and I was back in the car on my way to the M&Z mothership in Glen Burnie, Maryland by 10:39. That's how a motions hearing should work!

Continue reading "Monday Thoughts" »