Posted on August 11, 2008 in Personal Injury

The driver of a tractor trailer was tragically killed on Sunday morning when his 18-wheeler plunged into the Chesapeake Bay. According to an article in the Baltimore Sun, the accident occurred on the east bridge when a Camaro and the truck collided. The tractor trailer spun out of control, hit the jersey wall and plunged into the Chesapeake Bay. The driver of the tractor trailer was killed and two passengers in the Camaro were flown to University of Maryland, Shock Trauma.

The accident occurred during a time of two-way traffic. In this case, the west bridge was closed for repair so traffic traveling in opposite directions were using the west bridge. Authorities are still investigating the accident and the cause is still undetermined.

Lawyers in our law firm who regularly handle trucking accidents advise me that the investigation may take weeks. The driving and cargo logs of the truck must be reviewed. In addition, the investigation will also look into whether the tractor trailer was in compliance with numerous Department of Transportation (DOT) regulations.

Continue Reading ››

 Posted on August 11, 2008 in Medical Malpractice

A new study has found that most personal injury plaintiffs who decided to pass up a settlement offer and went to trial ended up getting less money then if they settled their injury case prior to trial. A copy of an article regarding the study can be found here.

While the results of that study may hold true for many lawyers, my experience as a medical malpractice lawyer in Maryland and the District of Columbia has been the opposite. For almost 20 years, I have been a civil trial lawyer handling complex litigation. Most of the matters I work on are catastrophic injury (medical malpractice, wrongful death, product liability, major collisions) and business litigation matters. I handle approximately a dozen such litigation matters a year. In the overwhelming majority of these cases, I have been successful for my clients. During my entire career, a few clients’ cases have been thrown out of court and have lost a few trials (I can recall approximately three defense verdicts), but I have been successful in more than 90% of the cases that I have pursued. This includes many trials where the defense offered either nothing prior to trial or a minimal settlement offer, resulting in my taking the case to trial and getting a million dollar plus verdict. A list of some of my verdicts can be found here.

Continue Reading ››

 Posted on August 11, 2008 in Medical Malpractice

A California jury has awarded $8.5 million to the widow of a man who died on the day a surgeon was going to discharge him from the hospital. Because of limits on medical malpractice cases, the woman probably will receive only $1.6 million of that amount.

The 49-year-old man broke six ribs in a motorcycle accident in 2002. At the trial, his wife’s attorneys argued that a doctor should have more closely monitored him after x-rays showed he had one gallon of liquid backed up in his stomach four hours before he died, and he had previously been resuscitated. The man died after choking on his own vomit.

I have successfully handled a number of medical malpractice / medical negligence / medical error cases in Baltimore and other counties in Maryland involving premature hospital discharge / improper discharge from a hospital. These cases have ranged from failure to properly diagnose and treat infections / sepsis, failure to diagnose and treat pulmonary embolisms, failure to properly diagnose and treat surgical complications, failure to diagnose and treat heart attacks, failure to diagnose and properly treat brain injuries, etc. Sometimes these cases arise soon before discharge or right after. These cases are always tragic because the patient and family trust the doctor and hospital to do the right thing and, as a result, they are usually given a false sense of security in the planning of the discharge or the actual discharge itself. Many times, the patient and/or family’s concerns are dismissed and they are reassured that everything will be fine and the patient will get better. A death within days of a planned or actual discharge should always be carefully investigated.

Continue Reading ››

 Posted on August 11, 2008 in Medical Malpractice

A New York trial judge has ordered a new trial on damages in the malpractice case of a businessman left permanently paralyzed after a stroke. The plaintiff was awarded $5 million in April after a jury trial. The judge, however, set aside the verdict last week with respect to damages, finding that the award was too low. The judge then entered judgment for approximately $18.4 million. Specifically, the judge found that the jury’s award of $1 million each for past and future pain and suffering to the plaintiff and his family deviated materially from what would be fair compensation, and thus increased the award to $5 million each. The plaintiff contended in the case that doctors at a hospital failed to diagnose what they called "classic symptoms" of a brain aneurysm that led to the stroke.

In Maryland, whether in medical malpractice cases or otherwise, it is possible for judges to increase or decrease a jury verdict, but it is very rare that judges increase such verdicts. It is practically unheard of for judges to increase a verdict so much.

Continue Reading ››

 Posted on August 01, 2008 in Medical Malpractice

A Missouri jury awarded $2.58 million this week to a couple in a medical malpractice case where a retiree got a staph infection and lost his right leg, part of his left foot, a kidney and some hearing. The jury than awarded $513,000 to the wife of the man, who quit her job to help care for her husband for the last four years. The jury found the doctor and the hospital liable for causing the man to suffer 15 surgeries, 84 days in hospitals, 137 visits to doctor’s offices, brain damage and having to learn to walk again with a prosthesis.

The man had a pacemaker installed and then was discharged several days later. The next month, he became sick and was diagnosed at another hospital with the infection. The infection led doctors there to remove the pacemaker, at which time they found golf-ball size masses of infection in his body. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant doctor installed the pacemaker even though there was redness on the right wrist of the patient from an IV, and the installation became the conduit for the infection to spread.

Continue Reading ››

 Posted on July 30, 2008 in Personal Injury

It’s a familiar, but fallacious argument. A favorite of defense counsel and insurance companies in automobile accident cases: "There was a minor impact, therefore there can only be minor injury, if any injury at all." Defense lawyers often try to introduce into evidence distorted, grainy or out of focus photographs of minimal property damage without providing any expert testimony about the causal relationship between the amount of property damage and the victim’s injuries. The purpose of this tactic is to disprove by false implication what has been proven by medical evidence; to rebut the testimony of a licensed physician that has reached an opinion to a reasonable degree of medical certainty that the victim’s injuries were caused by the accident in question. There is no mention of the sudden and very high energy forces that are transmitted through the vehicle in the milliseconds after the impact. No mention of the fact that most modern cars are built to withstand a 10-15 mile per hour rear impact without suffering significant property damage, particularly if you’re dealing with an SUV or truck.

Continue Reading ››

 Posted on July 29, 2008 in Personal Injury

Under Maryland law, an individual or company that entrusts a motor vehicle to another person with knowledge that such person has a propensity for negligent or reckless driving may be held liable for injuries subsequently caused by that person in a motor vehicle collision. For example, a parent that has given a vehicle to a child as a birthday gift (or even if the parent has simply permitted the use of a family vehicle) with knowledge that the child has reckless driving habits may be held liable for personal injuries caused by the child in a motor vehicle collision. The child’s youth, maturity and inexperience behind the wheel may be relevant factors to consider in the appropriate case. Typically, in order to recover under a theory of negligent entrustment it must be shown that the supplier of the vehicle knew or should have known that the driver would operate the vehicle in a manner that posed an unreasonable risk of harm to others.

In some instances, this theory of recovery may apply to an employer that provides an employee with permission to use a company vehicle with knowledge that the employee-driver would be incompetent or reckless behind the wheel. A key component to this theory of liability is the degree of control over the vehicle exercised by the supplier of the vehicle at the time of the accident. The more control exercised by the supplier the better the chance for succeeding on a negligent entrustment claim. In certain circumstances, negligent entrustment can dramatically expand the opportunity to fully and adequately compensate a victim of personal injury.

Continue Reading ››

 Posted on July 28, 2008 in Personal Injury

Police in Boston and the local district attorney’s office recently defended their decision to hand over a possibly faulty ventilator to the manufacturer to let it examine the device that shut down during a power outage and led to the death of a 15-year-old. There is serious concern that sending it back to the manufacturer, Pulmonetic, without any independent oversight could result in evidence not being preserved or possible destroyed. The machine appears to be one of more than 10,000 machines that were recalled by the company in 2004 because of the potential for the backup battery to fail.

Normally, when there is potential or actual litigation in a product liability case, a potentially defective product is not examined without all sides to the litigation being present, to ensure that everybody agrees on how to examine the product, to make sure that no testing is done that could destroy evidence. Whenever I have been involved in a case involving a defective medical device or other product, I make sure that someone from my office and/or my expert witness is present at the testing to ensure that there is no destruction of evidence.

Continue Reading ››

 Posted on July 24, 2008 in Medical Malpractice

The Massachusetts Supreme Court issued a written decision yesterday in a medical malpractice case, finding that doctors can be held liable for medical negligence that reduces a patient’s chance of survival, even if the patient’s probability for recovery was already less than 50 percent. The Massachusetts Supreme Court’s ruling came in a closely watched medical malpractice case. In 2004, a jury awarded $1 million to the family of a man whose cancer was overlooked by a doctor. The court upheld the jury’s award in its decision, ruling that Massachusetts law is such that if a doctor’s negligence reduces or eliminates the patient’s chance for recovery, the doctor still is liable for damages. A copy of the article regarding the case can be found here.

In Maryland medical malpractice cases, the law is different than in Massachusetts. In Maryland, in a case where a plaintiff seeks to prove that a doctor or hospital’s negligent failure to diagnose and/or treat cancer case has or will cause them to die, the plaintiff must prove that the doctor or hospital’s conduct caused them to go from having a probability of surviving the cancer (something greater than 50 percent) to having a probability of not surviving the cancer (something less than 50 percent). I have had many such cases. But if a patient only had a 40 percent probability of surviving the cancer before the malpractice, and now due to the malpractice the patient only has a 20 percent chance of surviving the cancer, that is considered a "loss of chance," which Maryland does not recognize.

Continue Reading ››

 Posted on July 24, 2008 in Personal Injury

Experienced Maryland plaintiff’s personal injury lawyers know to sue the employer when its employee commits an act of negligence causing personal injury. Often times the injured victim can recover damages from the employer if the tortuous act was committed by an employee acting within the scope of the employment relationship. In Maryland, this is called the doctrine of respondeat superior.

The doctrine of respondeat superior, in Maryland, allows an employer to be held vicariously liable for the tortuous conduct of its employee when that employee was acting within the scope of the employment relationship. With regard to the negligent use of motor vehicles in a respondeat superior claim, the State of Maryland recognizes that a master can be held liable for the negligent operation of a servant’s motor vehicle if the master expressly or impliedly consents to the use of the automobile, and……had the right to control the servant in its operation, or else the use of the automobile was of such vital importance in furthering the master’s business that his control over it might reasonably be inferred. Thus, the doctrine of respondeat superior may be properly invoked if the master has expressly or impliedly, authorized the [servant] to use his personal vehicle in the execution of his duties, and the employee is in fact engaged in such endeavors at the time of the accident.

When the plaintiff’s lawyer can properly establish this relationship between the employer and the employee, a personal injury victim can collect for damages against the employer. For more information on this topic, please contact an experienced Maryland personal injury lawyer.

Continue Reading ››