Baltimore Injury Lawyer Blog

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" »

The Maryland Accident Lawyer Blog provides a good tip for Maryland accident lawyers trying to serve out-of-state defendants in car accidents in Baltimore.

In the Maryland Accident Lawyer Blog, Laura Zois recently discussed the value of cases involving an injury to an ear. Laura talks about how it's not really possible to lump all ear cases together because of the variety of ways in ahich they arise, and the varying severity of the possible injuries.

A case where the injury is a burst eardrum that heals with no hearing loss will be valued much differently that a case where the physical injury to the ear resulted in a permanent imparment. You tend to see ear injuries fairly often in carr accident injury cases. I think this is because often the force of the collision will slam the side of the head into a door pillar or window, or because of the force of an exploding airbag.

I am handling a case now in the Circuit Court for Prince George's County involving an ear injury. My client was involved in an auto accident, and now suffers from permanent tinnitus (ringing in the ears). She has recieved 25k from the liability insurer. I don't think this is enough to cover her damages, so I am waiting to see what value the jury places on a permanent, irritating, ringing in the ears.

The best way to attack a defense medical witness’ testimony is to conduct an effective cross-examination. One of the ways we do this is by exposing the doctor’s financial interest in acting as a professional witness.

Maryland law allows discovery of how much a professional witness earns from testifying, as well as what percentage of his overall income is earned from working as a paid witness. At Miller & Zois, we don’t take the doctor’s word for it. Our practice is to issue a subpoena for the financial records that document the amounts the DME (Defense Medical Exam) doctor is paid by insurance companies and defense attorneys.

The doctors do not like this very much. Usually the response we receive is a Motion for Protective order from the doctor’s attorney asking that the records not be produced. If the court orders that the financial records be produced, usually that is the last you see of the DME doctor. Doctors will generally refuse to testify before producing these records.

I had a hearing on one of these motions filed by an DME doctor last week in the Circuit Court for Montgomery County. The doctor lost. He was ordered to produce the 1099 and other tax forms showing how much he has been paid in the last two years by insurance companies and defense attorneys. I am waiting to see if he appeals or just bails from the case. Every time this particular doctor has been ordered to produce these records, he has either appealed or withdrawn.

The doctors and the defense bar think we do this because we know that if the records are ordered to be produced the doctor will refuse to testify. Obviously that makes my job as plaintiff’s counsel easier. The truth of the matter is that we subpoena these records because it is the only way to ensure a good cross-examination. Otherwise the witness can make up any number that he thinks won’t make him look bad, or claim not to know the answers at all, because some mysterious “bookkeeper” has that information. I don’t think it’s my fault that these doctors will refuse to testify before they admit the extent to which their opinions are bought and paid for by the insurance industry and the defense bar.

On April 10, 2009 the Court of Appeals of Maryland denied certiorari in the case of Allen v. Marriott. You can read the opinion of the Court of Special Appeals here.

This is a bad case for injury victims and personal injury attorneys. My reading of the opinion is that it greatly broadens the scope of the doctrine of assumption of the risk in slip and fall on ice cases. Now, a Plaintiff cannot avoid the assumption of risk defense merely because they fell on ice they never saw.

Essentially, if it is February, and wet, you assume the risk of falling on ice because it is common knowledge that the temperature goes below 32 degrees in February and that water turns to ice when it is that cold. I think this is ridiculous. Using this analysis, shouldn't those factors mean that property owners are on inquiry notice of a dangerous condition (ice) under those facts? I doubt we will see an apellate court in Maryland make such a holding.

With this coming so close to the Court of Appeals' opinion in Grady v. Brown, this is not shaping up as a good spring.

I am starting to believe that whatever can go wrong will. I also just learned that the proposal to raise the amount for jury trial prayers to $20,000.00 died in the General Assembly's House Judiciary Committee.

It seems like the burden of proof is a burden that just gets heavier. This all underscores the need for injury claimants to secure experienced trial attorneys to guide them through these legal minefields.

Also, we are extending a big M&Z welcome to John Cord. John is an attorney who will be working with us on mass torts, medical malpractice and auto negligence cases. He hasn't made it to the profiles page yet, so remember you heard it here first.

Today the Court of Appeals of Maryland issued its opinion in Grady v. Brown. This is a case involving the application of the Boulevard Rule. The Boulevard Rule is the traffic rule that states that traffic traveling on the favored roadway (or boulevard) has the right-of-way over traffic entering the boulevard from a side street.

I have written about this before. This case happened in Baltimore City. The plaintiff was driving his motorcycle down Falkirk Road, when the defendant emerged from an intersecting alleyway. There were cars parked along both sides of Falkirk Road, and the defendant testified at trial that he exited the alleyway only to the edge of the parked cars, so he could see if there was oncoming traffic. The jury found the defendant not to be negligent.

The Plaintiff moved for a directed verdict that the defendant was negligent as a matter of law due to the application of the boulevard rule. This motion was denied, and that denial was the basis of the appeal.

It looks like the Court of Appeals is holding that the defendant produced enough evidence to generate a jury issue as to his negligence, despite the boulevard rule. I haven't had a chance to read the full opinion, but I will. So hold your breath to see what I think of it.

Disclaimer: I am not objective. I wrote the Amicus Curiae brief in Grady on behalf of the Maryland Association for Justice. The plaintiff was represented on appeal by Irwin I. Weiss, who is a smart guy and presented a well done brief and oral argument.

The defendant was represented on appeal by Sara Deriu and Mark Brown of H. Barritt Peterson & Associates (State Farm Staff Counsel). I read their brief, and watched their argument. Sara and Mark did a good job.

This opinion surprises me though. I thought this should have been a dead-bang win for the plaintiff on appeal. Instead, it was a close 4-3 vote where the plaintiff lost. Judges Raker, Murphy, Battaglia and Greene were the majority, with the opinion written by Judge Raker. Chief Judge Bell, and Judges Wilner and Harrell dissented.

I will check back in after a thorough reading of the opinion.

Representing very seriously injured clients is the most rewarding part of my practice. Like most personal injury lawyers, one of the services we offer for those who need it is a home or hospital visit. I always feel strange doing these, like I am feeding into the "ambulance chaser" stereotype. I even have an uncle who calls me an ambulance chaser. He pretends it's funny, and I pretend I don't want to kill him.

Last week, I did a hopsital visit for a client at the R. Adams Cowley Shock Trauma Center. This unfortunate gentleman was in a motorcycle accident at high speed and was very badly hurt. In fact, he is lucky to be alive. Despite wearing all of the appropriate protective gear, he has several broken ribs, a broken wrist, a broken thumb, a broken leg, and a concussion. In addition, he has "road rash" over half his body, including a spot on his leg where you can see down to the bone.

I was called from the hospital by this man's brother. Our firm had handled his wife's auto accident injury case, and he was so impressed (particularly with how responsive Lisa Miller was to his wife's needs) that we were his first choice when his brother was seriously injured. So off I went to Shock Trauma to meet with the client and his family.

There are a few layers of security to get in. Once I actually obtained a visitor's badge and got upstairs, I was stopped by a nurse as I looked for the room. I told her who I was there to see, and she asked if I was a family member. I sheepishly replied that no, I was a lawyer. She gave me a look that said I might as well have told her I carried the SARS virus, and then showed me to the room.

You know what? These people were happy to see me. They repeatedly told me how grateful they were that I was willing to take the time and come right to the hospital to help them out.

It is actually hard to describe what it felt like for me to stand in front of this man, listening to a heart monitor mark each heartbeat while blood still drips from his wounds, and have him and his family thank ME for taking time out of my day to come and meet with them. They were happy to see me, and that we were going to try to help them.

I'm never going to feel ashamed doing a hospital visit again.

I am filing a lawsuit in a Prince George's County, Maryland car accident injury case. Although the accident took place in Maryland, one of the defendants is a Washington, D.C. corporation that owned the other vehicle involved, and may have employed the defendant driver.

The following link allows you to look up the resident agent of D.C. corporations for service of process:

http://mblr.dc.gov/corp/lookup/index.asp

If the resident agent cannot be located, or there is no resident agent, substitute service may be made on the Superintendent of Corporations, 1-202-442-4432. They will need 2 copies of all documents, a check for $15.00, and an affidavit of the reasonable efforts made to locate and/or serve the resident agent.

This would be valid substitute service under Md. Rule 2-124 (d) because the Superintendent of Corporations is "expressly or impliedly authorized to accept service of process."

Here in Maryland, we have a procedure that allows a Plaintiff's medical records and bills to be admitted into evidence without the tesimony of a medical provider. This requires service of a list of the records to be offered at least sixty days before trial. This procedure is available in any case filed in the District Court of Maryland, or any case in a Maryland Circuit Court that is filed within the jurisdictional limit of the District Court, presently $30,000.00.

The defense also has the ability to admit a medical report using the same procedure. Often, insurance company lawyers will hire a doctor to review the medical records of the Plaintiff and other documents and then create a "peer review"report. Usually this report says something like the plaintiff treated for an unreasonable period of time, the palintiff's injuries are less severe than claimed, or the medical bills are unneccessary, unreasonable, or not related to the accident.

In cases in the District Court, these reports are easy to address because judges are used to seeing them and are usually familiar with how they are created. It gets trickier when the case is to be tried before a jury (usually when the defense requests a jury trial). Here are some tips for attacking these kinds of reports in jury trials.

I ignore these reports in opening. I never mention these reports in opening statements. What if the defense attorney doesn't put it into evidence? I wasted my time. Plus, the jury will never see this report until they go into the jury room to deliberate, so there isn't any real reason to address it at the beginning of the trial.

The best time to address such a report is in rebuttal argument to the jury. This is when I have already made my primary closing argument, and the defense attorney has given his closing using the report to attack my damages case. I then have an opportunity to give rebuttal argument. What's great about this is that you can really go after the report, and the defense doesn't get another opportunity to contradict anything I say.

The first thing I do is read the jury the address where the report was sent. This is always the defense attorney's law firm, and often it is directed to the attorney personally. Then I read the first sentence which says something like "thank you for the chance to review the medical records on [Plaintiff]." Then I point out that the next sentence says the doctor reviewed the medical records that the defense attorney sent him. I tell the jury this means that the defense attorney picked out a doctor, who then reviewed the records that the defense attorney selected and sent to the doctor.

Sometimes these records include photos of the damage to the vehicles. When this happens I tell the jury I hurt my back a few years ago moving a bed, went to the doctor, and wouldn't you know, my doctor never asked to see a picture of the bed I was moving even though he was sure that was how I got hurt.

Also make sure that he defense doctor is accurate in his review of the records. In my last trial, the defense doctor said the client had two MRI scans that were normal, and went on to say that the MRI's were unneccesary. Problem was, those MRI's both showed bulging discs at multiple levels.

I also point out that the doctor doing the records review never examined or treated the plaintiff, and that the defense is asking the jury to accept his opinion instead of that of the treating doctors.

In that last trial the last thing I did was read the jury the last two sentences of the report, which state: "I appreciate the opportunity to evaluate these files. If I can be of additional assitance, do not hesitate to contact me." Then I told the jury this means "thank you for hiring me to do this work for you, and please call me if you would like me to do some more work for you."

I told the jury that people don't get a lot of repeat business if they are not providing the customer with what they want.

The key is that in a case like this you can expose the report for what it is- biased and not credible, and the defense never gets a chance to counter your argument.