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.

Yesterday I was in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City for a hearing on a motion for summary judgment filed by a defendant in a products liability case.

I think the way the hearing went down contains a lesson for defending against summary judgment motions.

My primary argument in opposition was a legal one. Without getting into the facts of the case, I thought I had a pretty strong legal argument that even if the facts were undisputed, the motion could not be granted because the defendant was not entitled to judgment as a matter of law. That was the primary argument I made in the motion papers and at the hearing.

The only problem was that it soon because apparent that the hearing judge hated this argument.

Luckily, I was able to shift to the backup argument- that the defendant had failed to show that the material facts of the case were undisputed. I was able to show the court inconsistencies between the defendant's corporate representative's depostion testimony and the facts he swore to in his affidavit in support of the defendants motion.

Ultimately, the hearing judge was persuaded that these inconsistencies were sufficient to preclude the entry of summary judgment.

I think the lesson here is that a defendant needs two things to get summary judgment- undisputed facts and a right to judgment as a matter of law. If you have arguments to make on both of these points, make them. The facts and the law work together, so you need to be prepared to use both in opposition.

I think it is generally best to lead with your strongest argument. But where you have more than one good-faith argument to make, do it.

Yesterday I received an order from the Court of Appeals of Maryland scheduling oral argument in two cases I am handling. Really, it is one argument, but relates to two cases that have been consolidated on appeal.

The first case is a case my colleague Rod Gaston had for trial in the Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County. The defendants named a neurosurgeon as an expert witness. Rod obtained an order compelling him to produce certain financial records in an effort to find out how much he is paid for testifying in general, and for the defense attorneys, defense law firms and insurance companies involved in the case specifically. The doctor has appealed that order.

The second case is a truck accident case I am handling in the Circuit Court for Montgomery County. That case has been stayed in the trial court pending the outcome of the appeal. There, the trial court entered a similar order, only with a strong confidentiality provision protecting the privacy of the records to be produced. The doctor has appealed that order as well.

It's the same doctor in both cases. The evidence is clear that he is a "professional witness." We also have him as a retained defense medical expert in a few other cases we have in the office. He has been ordered to produce financial information in other cases as well, and I understand more appeals will be forthcoming. It appears to be the doctor's position that all of the judges in various counties across Maryland who have ordered him to produce this material are wrong, and have abused their judicial discretion.

The issue before the Court of Appeals is whether the trial courts' orders were an abuse of discretion under the Maryland Rules and the relevant case law, including Wrobleski v. DeLara.

These cases may have broad implications for how expert witness bias discovery is conducted in Maryland auto and truck accident cases. Miller & Zois believe that juries are entitled to know if the professional witnesses put before them have a financial interest in testifying, or in testifying for any particular lawyers, firms or insurance companies. And what the extent of that financial interest is.

The Court's opinion in these cases is likely to significantly affect plaintiffs' lawyers' ability to find evidence of bias so that juries have the facts they need to determine whether they should believe the witnesses put before them.

So if you are interested, circle 1/12 on your calendar. The argument will be broadcast live on the web from the Maryland Judiciary website.

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.

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.

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.

There's an old saying that you should never put anything in writing that you don't want to see as an exhibit someday. There is a lot of wisdom in this.

Yesterday I was taking a deposition in a collateral dispute related to a car accident injury case. I was cross examining a witness about a very strongly worded letter he had sent to one of the people involved. The witness was not happy to be asked about every intemperate thing he had said in the letter, and whether he had any factual basis to say those things. Maybe it will not ultimately affect the litigation, but it sure made him look bad.

Write this down: don't write correspondence when you are mad! Now, you will most likely do this anyway, but do it in a way that doesn't cause harm or embarrassment. If you write angry, don't mail angry. Let it sit for a day and then reread it. Or show it to a colleague to see if it should be toned down. Angry missives seldom contribute to a real resolution of anything, and can be embarrassing when you have to explain them in a deposition or respond to them as exhibits to a motion.

Be especially aware of email. People tend to write email very conversationally. Don't email something you don't want to see again.

Every personal injury lawyer I know has a pile of stories about the outrageous things that happen at depositions. This is the part of the pre-trial discovery process that is most subject to abuse. I think this is because it happens face to face, often in front of the client, and without a judge to play referee.

I was in a deposition in a car accident injury case this morning. The case is pending in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City. My client is a nice 25 year-old woman who was in a pretty serious accident with a gasoline tanker truck. Her right leg was more or less destroyed in the acccident.

The female defense attorney for some reason found the following questions appropriate:

"You had an abortion 2 weeks before your accident?"

"Did that upset you?"

"How far along were you?"

"Who was the father?"

Needless to say, I instructed my sobbing client not to answer these questions. The ostensible reason these were proper questions was that if my client were upset from the abortion two weeks prior, perhaps that emotional upset caused her to run the red light. What a pile of garbage.

I am confident that there isn't a judge in the state that would order my client to answer those questions.

I believe I was justified in instructing the client not to answer. In Maryland, the Discovery Guidelines of the State Bar are reprinted just before the section of the Maryland Rules pertaining to discovery. They are not part of the Maryland Rules, but are generally given the force of law by trial court judges.

Guideline Eight addresses instructions not to answer at depositions. It states that an attorney should not question a deponent in a manner "he knows or should know would serve merely to harass or annoy the deponent." Guideline Eight also says instructions not to answer are presumptively improper unless "the question is completely irrelevant or intended to embarrass the witness." I think the line of questioning I described is exactly what I am supposed to be preventing by instructing the witness not to answer.

I hope this results in the filing of a motion to compel. I want to see defense counsel try to justify this to a judge.

Yesterday I blogged about the special challenges inherent in conducting a deposition through an interpreter.

This is an important skill for Baltimore City injury lawyers. Historically, Baltimore City has been home to many generations of immigrants. This trend has continued, with Baltimore City's latino population rising. The jurisdictions surrounding Baltimore City also have many residents for whom English is a second language, notably Montgomery County and Prince George's County. There are also increasing Spanish-speaking populations on Maryland's Eastern Shore. So taking and defending cross-cultural depositions is an important skill for personal injury lawyers.

Injury lawyers preparing for depositions using interpreters may want to take a look at A Lawyer's Guide to Cross-Cultural Depositions. Nina Ivanichvili sent me this article in response to yesterday's blog post. Her article provides a number of useful thoughts on this topic. For example, she speaks about how important it is to have some idea of the deponent's cultural assumptions in order to get the required facts from the deposition. Nina also has a blog called Translation for Lawyers.