Baltimore Injury Lawyer Blog

Yesterday I spent the morning in the District Court of Maryland for Baltimore City. I was there for a trial on an injury case from a Baltimore car accident. The defendant driver was a Russian immigrant who did not speak English. His defense attorney from Geico Insurance had done what she was supposed to do- file a request for an interpreter with the court. In fact, she had done it three times, because the first two times the court sent the request back to her, even though she had done it correctly. Ultimately the case got postponed because the interpreter the court selected had car trouble and wasn't able to get to the courthouse.

But the problems defense counsel had getting the interpreter scheduled in the first place got me thinking about how efficiently different Maryland courts are administered. For example, the District Court of Maryland is a statewide unified system. There are District Court locations in all of Maryland's counties and Baltimore City, but the system itself is funded and administered at the state level. This is great in that all of the locations have similar procedures, and share a common set of forms and rules.

But on the other hand, I think most experienced Maryland lawyers have shared my experience that some of these courts seem to work more efficiently than others. For example, in a multi-defendant case, some locations automatically continue a trial date when a new summons is requested for an unserved defendant, while others do not. This can be really confusing if you often practice in a variety of locations. At Miller & Zois, we practice in every locality in the state. This means we have to pay close attention to the procedures each locality uses in setting cases for trial.

It also seems like the procedures for specially setting cases varies by district. In some counties your case will be set on its own docket, in a particular courtroom. Other places, specially set means more than one case will be on the docket, but the docket will be only specially set cases. I have also had specially set cases that were for some reason left on the regular afternoon docket.

I can't figure out why there are so many differences in what is essentially a unified court system. It would have to be more efficient if these kinds of things worked the same statewide.

Posted by John Bratt | Permalink | Email This Post | Comments (0)

Posted In: Car Accidents , Law- General , Personal Injury , Trial Strategy

Bookmark:

I just finished writing an amicus curiae brief on behalf of the Maryland Association for Justice. The name of the case is Grady v. Brown, which is pending in the Court of Appeals of Maryland. This is a Boulevard Rule case.

The Boulevard Rule is the name of a legal doctrine in Maryland and elsewhere governing the right of way of drivers at intersections. Certain roads are favored, and any traffic entering those roads must stop and yield the right of way.

The issue in the case is that the defendant driver entered the favored roadway, but only to a degree that he didn't think would interfere with the flow of traffic. He was wrong, and there was an accident.

The trial judge in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City allowed the question of the defendant's negligence to go to the jury, despite the Boulevard Rule. The appeal is on the issue of the court's denying the Plaintiff's Motion for Judgment on the issue of the defendant's negligence. Plaintiff contends that the defendant was negligent as a matter of law.

The plaintiff in the case is represented by my colleague and fellow MAJ member Irwin I. Weiss, of Baltimore County. The defendant is being represented by Mark Brown of H. Barritt Peterson & Associates, also in Baltimore County. Talented, hardworking lawyers on both sides. I am involved in this case as counsel for the Maryland Association for Justice.

Because the resolution of this issue may affect the rights of car accident injury victims across Maryland, the MAJ petitioned for and was granted permission to file a brief as a "friend of the court." This means that I wrote a brief for the court's consideration addressing the policy implications of this decision for all drivers in the state.

I have done this before- I have served on the MAJ's Amicus Committee for three years. I also wrote the amicus brief in Mundey v. Erie Insurance. I love appellate writing, and writing as amicus often allows a little more creativity than representing one of the parties to the case. Plus, this is a way to directly affect the development of the law in my primary area of practice.

The trick in writing an effective amicus brief is to remember that you have a different goal than the attorneys representing the parties. The parties are stuck with their facts, good or bad. You're not. Amicus have the ability to change the facts or argue hypotheticals in order to illustrate to the court the potential policy implications of the matter before them.

For example, in Mundey, the issue was a requirement that an insured must "physically reside" in the covered household in order to be eligible for uninsured motorists benefits. Unfortunately, the plaintiff in the case had bad facts. He had been kicked out of his parents house for getting in trouble with the law, and other misbehavior. I argued in my brief that the court should ignore the reason the plaintiff was temporarily not residing in his parents household. I argued that what was important was that the decision would affect other people who were temporarily absent from their households for a variety of beneficial reasons, and that it wouldn't be fair to issue a decision making all of those people uninsured. In order to do this I contacted the Peace Corps, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, and the Marayland National Guard. They were more than happy to send me statistics showing the number of Marylanders who were temporarily absent from their households for national service, religious missions, or military service. I included these statistics in the Appendix of my brief. I think this was effective because even though Mundey lost his case, the Court of Appeals of Maryland limited its holding to the facts of that particular case.

In writing amicus briefs it is also important to remember to avoid filing what is called a "me too" brief. The court's time and attention is valuable. It doesn't help them to read a regurgitation of the arguments and analysis made by the parties. Brevity is key.

I think it is a lot more difficult to write an amicus brief where the parties are represented by quality appellate counsel. In the Grady case, Mr. Weiss did such a good job that there were policy arguments I avoided entriely in the amicus brief, simply because they had been ably addressed, and I didn't think there was value in telling the court "yeah, what he said."

The only part of writing as amicus I don't like is that under the Maryland Rules, only the parties get to present oral argument to the court. I am not sure exactly when this case will be argued, but I will be watching closely for a decision because this is an important issue in determining the rights of Maryland drivers.

Posted by John Bratt | Permalink | Email This Post | Comments (2)

Posted In: Car Accidents , Law- General , Personal Injury

Bookmark:

For the last two weeks I've been working on several written projects involved in different stages of personal injury cases. I'm working on a Motion for New Trial, a Response to Motion to Dismiss, and an Amicus Curiae brief to the Court of Appeals of Maryland. Because this has occupied a big chunk of my time lately, I have a few thoughts on legal writing in general. Beware, these aren't presented in any organized form.

First remember that punctuation marks generally go inside the quotation marks. I am constantly messing this one up. Not because I don't know the rule, but through a combination of habit and poor proofreading skills. It doesn't help the every time I miss one of these, Ron Miller makes fun of me.

Don't use the phrases "the case at bar", "the instant case" or the like. It's "this case." This one comes to you straight from Justice Scalia's book, once again filtered through our friend "call me Ron" Miller.

One book you should have is the hated Bluebook. I think the concept of a several hundred page manual on citation is ludicrous, but it's really useful for citation forms you may not use every day. For example, I last used it to figure out the rule on the capitalization of court names. I don't know how much trial and appellate courts in Maryland care about this stuff as opposed to the content of the argument, but I am convinced getting it right makes you look better than getting it wrong.

The Motion for New Trial I am working on centers on the application of a few of the Maryland Rules. A fantastic resource on this topic is the book Maryland Rules Commentary, by Paul V. Neimayer and Linda M. Schuett. Both of the authors were heavily involved in the drafting of the Maryland Rules, so their commentary and practice tips carry great weight with the Maryland courts.

Courts value brevity. Trial and appellate courts are required to digest a staggering volume of paper. Oftentimes a compelling argument can be made concisely. There's no value in repetition, particularly if the court gets annoyed that you didn't think they understood your argument the first three times you made it.

An amicus brief isn't just a chance to regurgitate the arguments already made by the party whose viewpoint you favor. The value of an amicus brief is that you aren't limited to the facts of the case in the way the actual parties are. This is a great chance to tell the court all of the public policy reasons behind the position you advance, and to run out the parade of horribles that will happen if the opposite position is accepted. I like to use the amicus brief to show the court in real terms what possible effect its decision can have. This is also a good chance to try and limit a prospective decision to its own facts, if you can show that slightly different facts would mandate a much different result. I also like using these to show how the particular area of law has developed historically, especially where its a concept with long historical roots. I like the phrase "since 1854 (or whatever) it has been the law in this state that...." Then follow it up with something like "Appellants are asking this Court to depart from one hundred and fifty years of settled law and countenance a new exception which would result in (very bad things)."

I also am not a fan of the shotgun approach where every argument that can theoretically apply is made. I like to pick the best two or three arguments and put all my weight behind them.

Posted by John Bratt | Permalink | Email This Post | Comments (0)

Posted In: Law- General , Personal Injury , Trial Strategy

Bookmark:

I just finished a trial in a car accident injury case in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City. This was a case involving a really nice lady who had suffered a soft tissue injury in a car accident. She was (I swear) just leaving church with her daughter when she was in a car crash.

There were two sides to this story, however. The defendant alleged that the accident was my client's fault, claiming she deprived him of his right of way. He retained his own personal injury lawyer and countersued, claiming his own injuries of comparable severity.

Well, the upshot is that I lost this case. The jury just thought the other side of the case seemed more likely. I'm not sure what I could have done differently that might have affected the outcome. I am going to keep thinking though. I think the property damage pictures influenced the jury's view of the mechanics of the accident.

Because of the counterclaims, there were four lawyers if this case- a plaintiff's lawyer and a defense attorney representing each side. A lot of people would say the likelihood of an experience being disagreeable is proportional to the number of lawyers involved. Actually, all counsel were people I like and found enjoyable to work with, and were experienced, competent attorneys. Everyone was civil and respectful, and did their best to do their job.

Nobody likes to lose. I hate it. I have a hard time getting past a bad result, turning it over in my mind trying to assess what went wrong, or what I could have done differently to change the outcome. But, at the same time you'll never win a fight if you're scared to take a punch.

In the end, I think I'd rather be the kind of lawyer who takes a hard loss too seriously than the kind who doesn't care.

My colleague Rod Gaston always says that only the tough cases get tried, but I can't help feeling like Reese Bobby- "If you ain't first, you're last."

Posted by John Bratt | Permalink | Email This Post | Comments (0)

Posted In: Car Accidents , Personal Injury , Trial Strategy

Bookmark:

I was thinking about this topic because Monday morning I found myself in a very unusual place for a personal injury lawyer- United States Bankruptcy Court. How did I end up there?

I have an auto accident injury case pending in the Circuit Court for Charles County. I represent a plaintiff who was injured when another driver rear-ended her. During the course of that litigation, it came out that the defendant had a pending bankruptcy claim.

Defense counsel filed a Suggestion of Bankruptcy in the state court case. Pursuant to federal law, that case was stayed until resolution of the bankruptcy. This would be a bad thing, because it would mean that my injured plaintiff would be waiting more or less indefinitely to get her case moving.

There's a way around this problem. Upon proper motion, the bankruptcy court may lift the stay, where the loss is covered by insurance, up to the limit of the policy. This is because under those circumstances, the claim has no potential impact of the bankrupt estate. Once the bankruptcy court enters an order lifting the stay, the thing to do is file a motion in the state court asking that the action no longer be stayed, and that if needed, the court amend the scheduling order to account of all the time that went by due to the bankruptcy stay. Hopefully that will get my case moving again.

The experience got me thinking about appearing in unfamiliar courts in general. I'm no bankruptcy lawyer. Over my career, I've set foot in a bankruptcy court precisely one other time. So what I did Monday is what I do every time I have to appear in a court I don't know very well.

First, I got there early. This lets me get the lay of the land, and allows for a trip to the clerk's office if I need help figuring out what room the hearing is in (which in this case, I did). Second, I get into the courtroom as early as possible and check in with the clerk. I do this for two reasons. It lets me tell the clerk that I am there, and inform them as to the nature of my appearance before the court. This matters, because in terms of docket efficiency, the court will often take uncontested or preliminary matters at the beginning of the docket. Most importantly, this is my chance to ask the clerk how the court is run. What does this judge need? Where am I to stand? Are there any procedures particular to this court?

Court clerks always seem happy to help polite and respectful attorneys with this sort of "scouting report". It really does help, as I was able to get my matter called second on the docket, I knew the court's preferred procedure, and I found out that in the future, if the motion was uncontested, I could call ahead and the matter would be handled with no need for me to appear. It ended up being a very useful five minutes talking with the clerk. I recommend doing this any time you have to appear in a court you don't know very well.

Posted by John Bratt | Permalink | Email This Post | Comments (0)

Posted In: Car Accidents , Personal Injury , Trial Strategy

Bookmark:

Yesterday, The Daily Record had a feature asking local attorneys their opinion on the biggest way technological advances have impacted the practice of law. Also, last Friday, my colleague Rod Gaston attented the Maryland Trial Lawyers Association's Technology Seminar. This got me thinking about some of the ways we use technology at Miller & Zois to make our personal injury trial practice more efficient and successful:

Case management- we use a program called TimeMatters for case management. This allows us immediate access to just about all of the information that would be contained in a paper file. This puts us on an even footing with the insurance adjusters, who usually work from a detailed claims database. We can collate client data, emails, documents, medical records and bills, and pleadings all in the same place, and have it all available instantly. This program also allows us to more easily keep track of litigation deadlines. This is a big advantage in keeping a busy practice running smoothly.

Off-site access- we use www.gotomypc.com. This allows our personal injury lawyers and staff to have full access to our office systems from home or wherever we happen to be. All I have to do is log in, and I can do nearly anything I can do at the office. Our lawyers also all carry Blackberries, meaning we are nearly always reachable by phone and email.

Using these systems means that we can accomplish our tasks without lugging a mountain of paper everywhere we go. It also lets us work collaboratively, by sharing documents and ideas instantly, no matter where we are. This makes it easier to be successful using a team concept. One of the things Ron Miller is always talking about is maximizing the skills we have in the office to get the best results for our clients. Using technology, we can involve all of our team members when needed, and quickly and efficiently take advantage of the built-in knowledge we all have in different areas. I think being able to work together quickly is a big advantage in the fast-moving world of personal injury litigation.

Posted by John Bratt | Permalink | Email This Post | Comments (0)

Posted In: Personal Injury

Bookmark:

Regular readers, assuming there are some, may recall my July 30, 2008 post on an Uninsured Motorist injury case I tried in the Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County.

Yesterday, I received a comment to that blog post from Mark Brown of H. Barritt Peterson & Associates, who was defense counsel in the case. This is a firm of attorneys who are employees of State Farm Insurance, and do nothing but defend State Farm and its insureds when they become involved in litigation. I deal with these folks all the time. They are one of the better staff counsel offices out there. They fight hard, but are generally reasonable in conducting litigation and easy to get along with. Mark is a nice guy and a talented lawyer who did an excellent job in this case.

I'm talking about this for two reasons. One- my personal belief is that if I am going to put myself out there and take stances on legal issues and my cases I should be prepared to stand by those positions. I could have elected to leave Mark's comment "unpublished", but I don't think that's fair. Two- I strongly believe that there are two sides to every story and that considering and discussing viewpoints that differ from my own can lead to good insights. You don't learn much discussing issues with people who already agree with you.

At Miller & Zois, we are glad defense attorneys and insurance adjusters read our blogs. We think this shows the quality of the information we provide, and that the legal community knows we will try cases and do the best we can for our clients.

Mark's additional information about the case is all correct. The client did have $60,000.00 in medical bills, including a spinal fusion surgery. I agree that the result was clearly a compromise verdict, since it awarded the medical bills only, and nothing for wage loss or pain and suffering.

I don't really see where Mark is coming from with the "editorial" comment. The fact is that State Farm did argue my client was contributorily negligent, did argue that the surgery was unrelated to the accident, and did hire a doctor to write a report saying that.

On the other hand, if Mark was talking about the part where I described State Farm as "an insurer known for its hardball tactics and low settlement offers." I agree that's "editorial." I also stand behind my comments. Ask 100 Maryland personal injury lawyers if what I said is accurate comment, and see how many disagree.

I still don't understand the settlement offer originally made. State Farm offered $7,000.00 to settle this case before trial. Even if the real value of the case at trial was just the $60,000.00 in medical bills, how on earth is $7,000.00 a reasonable settlement offer? (I am in no way trying to imply that was Mark's call, by the way.) Moreover, an offer of the amount of the medical bills would have settled the case well prior to trial.

Let's just pretend State Farm can call this one a win because the verdict didn't include all of the claimed damages. Think about that. The jury verdict is 8.57 times the amount of the settlement offer, without even awarding all of the damages claimed. This is what injury plaintiffs and their attorneys are up against.

This is similar to the experience Ron Miller wrote about in his Maryland Injury Lawyer Blog. Ron got a verdict three times the settlement offer in his case, but still "lost".

Obviously these offers are made because people take them. Ron is correct that a lot of the time clients take offers that are too low because they wish to avoid the process of going through the trial. I settled a case with State Farm today in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City under such circumstances. But, on the other hand, more lawyers should try these cases when the client is willing. Maybe this would lead to offers more in line with the actual value of cases at trial.

If you are an injured person considering hiring a personal injury attorney, ask the lawyer you are considering how many injury cases they have taken to trial in the last year. The answer will tell you a lot about the quality of the representation you will get.

Posted by John Bratt | Permalink | Email This Post | Comments (0)

Posted In: Car Accidents , Personal Injury , Trial Strategy

Bookmark:

Today I had a trial in an auto accident injury case. My case was in Montgomery County District Court. It was what I call a "left turn" case. The defendant driver made a left turn across my client's path, causing a pretty forceful collision.

The crash was bad enough that my guy wasn't able to tell the responding paramedics where he was or what time it was. He did know what day it was. Later he suffered from nausea, believed to be from a concussion. While he was in the hospital (2 days), he needed help from an occupational therapist to use the bathroom and to brush his teeth. Ultimately, he needed about a month of medical treatment. He was treated by the hospital's attending orthopedist and got physical therapy from a therapist that the orthopedist referred him to.

The insurance carrier contested liability at trial. The defendant driver said in his interrogatory answers that my guy was contributorily negligent because he was speeding.

At trial, he testified that he was making left turn on a yellow light. He said that he looked both ways and saw no oncoming traffic. He also said that his view of oncoming traffic was obscured, and that once he was halfway through his turn, all of a sudden Plaintiff's truck was there and there was a collision. He never said anything about my client's speed.

My guy testified that he was heading straight at about 30 miles per hour. He said that he looked up and saw the green light overhead when he was about 100 feet from the intersection. That's the last thing he remembers until he wakes up in the hospital.

In Maryland, the law is that a driver who enters an intersection on a yellow signal may lawfully proceed through the intersection, even if the light subsequently changes to red. It's also the law that a vehicle making a left turn must yield the right of way to oncoming traffic.

My theory of the case was that using the defendant's admissions, I could prove liability even though my client had no idea what happened. I thought it was likely that the light was the same for both the defendant and my guy since they were going in opposite directions on the same road.

So I subpoenaed a traffic control engineer from Montgomery County government to testify about the timing of the light. He brought a set of timing diagrams with him, and was ready to testify that if the defendant had a yellow light when he entered the intersection, so did my client. I pointed him out to defense counsel before trial, and she spent a few minutes taking to him as well. I let her know that I would be calling him to testify about the timing of the light.

This is the funny part. Then the defense attorney looks at me and says that I really didn't need to subpoena the witness, that she would stipulate the light was the same both ways. I told her its funny how when the witness shows up, everyone wants to stipulate! There's a lesson there, which is that its always more convenient to stipulate to something YOU WERE ALREADY PREPARED TO PROVE. Trust me, it doesn't work the other way around.

I won the case, because if they both entered the intersection, even on a yellow light, the defendant still had a duty to yield the right of way. Our complaint asked for $30,000.00, and the verdict was $27,000.00. That's a good result.

I actually think that the defense would have had a better shot on damages in this case if liability was admitted. For a few reasons. One, counsel could have eliminated lengthy cross-examination on liability and used that time for a detailed cross examination on damages. Two, I think the attempt to avoid fault made the defendant (an otherwise nice young guy) look bad so the court didn't have any pangs of regret making a damages award.

I'm not going be one of those guys who wins every case they blog about. "In my last triumphant victory, I blah, blah, blah…." I hate it when lawyer blogs do that. I'm going to write about the cases that end up in the loss column too. There's always something to be learned from trial experience.

Posted by John Bratt | Permalink | Email This Post | Comments (0)

Posted In: Car Accidents , Personal Injury , Trial Strategy

Bookmark:

I just returned to the office from the District Court for Baltimore County. I had a car accident injury case set for trial today.

I love appearing in Baltimore County because I went to high school in the area, I know pretty much everyone in the legal community there, and mostly because I get to stick my head in and say hi to my Mom, whose office is across the street. I had time to say hi to Mom today because my case settled a few minutes before the trial was to begin.

The way this went down got me thinking about the way defense counsel and insurance carriers evaluate cases for settlement. This was a 2006 accident. Suit was filed in March, 2008. The carrier was Liberty Mutual.

This client had medical specials of about $8,600.00 and missed four days from work, so there was a wage loss claim of roughly $1,000.00. The pre-suit offer was $14,300, made in December, 2007.

The day before yesterday, defense counsel contacted me and made an offer to settle of $15,000.00. This was easy, since the client had already rejected the first offer, and this was only another $700.00, so she rejected the offer out of hand.

Yesterday at about 3:45 p.m., counsel called me back with another offer of $17,500.00. The problem with that is that by then, it was too late in the day for our settlement processing staff to verify the balances due to the treating medical providers, so I wasn't able to give my client an exact figure on what she would net. The case settled this morning for $18,000.00, mostly because I didn't like my odds on beating that by very much at trial.

This scenario makes me think that not very many of these defense attorneys or adjusters really understand what a competent personal injury lawyer needs to do to properly advise a client regarding a settlement proposal. The day before the trial is almost always too late to properly break down and evaluate an offer. This is particularly true where it has been nine months since the initial offer. All of the medical balances and the attorney expenses need to be verified and computed in, since there's a very good chance those factors have changed since the offer was originally processed.

If this offer was made two weeks ago (or nine months ago when it should have been made), this case could have been resolved more efficiently and cheaply for all concerned.

My client could have avoided losing a day of work to go to court. The same goes for the Defendant driver, who also lost a day of work because his insurance carrier couldn't act in a timely fashion. I could have avoided the lost productivity of being out of the office all morning. The court could have had one less case docketed this morning, or could have added a case that really needed to be tried. Defense counsel still gets to bill the time, so I guess he wins either way, but Liberty Mutual could have avoided paying counsel to attend a completely needless court appearance.

Not only that, but these late settlement offers really rub injured plaintiffs the wrong way. I have had a lot of clients reject what I considered fair offers, just because they were made the day before or the day of trial. People resent being dragged through such a lengthy process, only to have an offer made late in the game that finally pays the value that should have been paid when the case was the adjusting phase. Nothing about this case changed since the original offer in December, 2007. Why did it take Liberty Mutual until fifteen minutes before trial to put together an offer that paid fair value?

This is something for defense counsel to keep in mind. If you want to settle the case, do it. But don't wait to the last minute, because it actually hurts the likelihood of a successful agreement to wait, especially when Plaintiff's counsel is prepared to take the case to trial.

Posted by John Bratt | Permalink | Email This Post | Comments (0)

Posted In: Personal Injury

Bookmark:

Recently, we have been seeing more and more problems in trying injury cases involving Maryland uninsured or underinsured motorists.

Md. Insurance Code Ann. § 19-511 states the procedures that must be followed in settling UM/UIM claims. We call it the "pay to play" statute. Basically, it says that once the liability carrier tenders a policy limits offer, the UM carrier has 60 days to decide whether to consent to acceptance of the offer. If the UM carrier says no, they have to pay the inured person the amount of the settlement offer.

Essentially, this gives the liability carrier 60 days to decide whether to waive subrogation. If they don't waive, they have to pay the amount of the liability offer to the claimant, but the UM carrier retains its subrogation rights.

That's all well and good. The problem comes in when the liability carrier tenders the policy limits within 60 days of the trial date. The statute gives the UM carrier a mandatory 60 days to decide what to do. What has been happening is that when the liability policy is offered 60 days or less from trial, UM carriers have been objecting to postponement requests to allow for the completion of the 60 day period.

This has the effect of depriving the plaintiff of the amount offered. The plaintiff cannot accept the liability offer without the consent of UM, while the UM carrier has the entire 60 period to decide, and is simultaneously objecting to a continuance to allow for the statutorily required period. This clearly frustrates the intent of the statute and renders it ineffective in these factual circumstances.

There has to be a solution to this problem. I can think of a few possible ones. Maybe we will get an appellate opinion directing administrative judges to allow continuances to comply with the statute. This would require some judge to abuse their discretion and deny a continuance in such a situation. That shouldn't be too hard, since I understand several judges in Maryland are doing exactly that. Or perhaps the UM carrier's actions in trying to have its cake and eat it too will be determined to be indicative of a lack of good faith.

Probably the best way to fix the problem would be to amend the "pay to play" statute to fix this loophole. This could be a good issue for the Maryland Trial Lawyers Association's Legislative Committee to take a look at.

Posted by John Bratt | Permalink | Email This Post | Comments (0)

Posted In: Personal Injury

Bookmark:

The New York Times has an interesting article about the use of expert witnesses in court cases. Essentially, the article explores the idea that expert witnesses are inherently biased towards the side who retained them.

As a personal injury lawyer (something I'm proud of, by the way) I have quite a bit of experience dealing with expert witnesses. My experience is that there is some truth to what the article says, but it isn't fair to paint every expert witness with the same brush.

In Baltimore injury cases, there are several kinds of expert witnesses who may come into play. Most often you see medical experts, as well as economists, life-care planners, vocational rehabilitation experts and car crash reconstructionists.

As far as medical expert witnesses go, on the plaintiff's side normally the expert presented is one of the treating physicians. Generally these are not "hired gun" experts hired specifically for litigation, but simply the treating doctor who testifies about the injuries sustained, the medical treatment, and the reasonableness of the medical bills.

On the defense side, the reverse is true. Normally we see the "usual suspects"; doctors who are repeatedly retained as witnesses by the same insurance companies and defense firms. Often these doctors are designated as expert witnesses by the defense before they even know anything about the case, the injuries claimed, or the plaintiff. Could it be that the insurance companies have some idea what these doctors will say? Common sense tells us that if they were not providing the opinions the insurance companies want, there would be very little repeat business.

In Maryland injury cases, the defense has no right to a medical examination of a plaintiff. Such an examination can only be obtained by a court order, or if both sides agree.

At Miller & Zois, we make it a point to aggressively protect our clients' interests during this process. A forced medical examination is one of the greatest invasions of privacy imaginable. We do our best to make sure that this process is conducted in a way that is fair. Sometimes this means forcing the defense to obtain a court order to examine the plaintiff if we are not able to arrange acceptable terms through negotiation. We also go after these witnesses aggressively by obtaining the information needed to conduct an effective cross-examination. Often this means subpoenaing financial information to show that these witnesses make a lot of money testifying for insurance companies, so we can show the jury the financial interest these doctors have in providing opinions that are favorable to the insurance companies that hire them.

All plaintiff's lawyers should review their practices regarding defense medical exams. Our Attorney Help Center has examples of sample correspondence and pleadings directed at this issue.

Posted by John Bratt | Permalink | Email This Post | Comments (0)

Posted In: Personal Injury

Bookmark:

The Maryland Daily Record's website reports that Attorney General Doug Gansler held a press conference to address the issue of dogfighting in our communities. The article notes that this is most prevalent in Baltimore City.

As a mascot, he brought in a pitbull terrier named Kane as an example of the kinds of animals commonly used for this brutal, offensive excuse for a "sport".

Baltimore injury lawyers see a lot of children injured as a result of vicious or unsupervised dogs. These injuries usually lead to moderate medical bills, but significant emotional trauma and scarring. Occasionally children are permanently disfigured or killed.

It is important to make sure to contact the appropriate authorities. They will conduct an investigation, and sometimes a hearing to determine what to do about an animal that causes this kind of injury. These hearings are recorded, and can be useful in presenting a claim for injuries from a dog bite.

Posted by John Bratt | Permalink | Email This Post | Comments (0)

Posted In: Personal Injury

Bookmark: