Posted on May 20, 2008 in Medical Malpractice

The family of a man killed last week in an Illinois nursing home fire has filed a lawsuit alleging that staff at the Hampton Plaza Health Care Centre were not equipped to handle the fire. Investigators have not yet determined the cause of the fire.

Fires involving elderly or disabled people are horrifying. We are currently handling a product liability case in which an home hospital bed, provided by Johns Hopkins and distributed by Sunrise Medical, caught fire causing a wife/mother to burn to death. It is a tragic case.

I also have handled cases in involving fires that start during surgery. In my cases, the patient caught on fire because the surgeon did not keep the cautery device away from the oxygen that was being given to the patient during the surgery. Doctors and hospitals have long known how to prevent surgical fires, yet they still occur. I would say that any time a patient catches on fire during surgery it is a clearly due to medical malpractice.

Continue Reading ››

 Posted on May 20, 2008 in Medical Malpractice

An Indiana jury has reached a verdict requiring a doctor to pay $4.45 million to the family of a man who died of an abdominal aortic aneurysm approximately 12 hours after being discharged from a hospital with a misdiagnosis of kidney stones. According to attorneys, the man’s death would have been prevented if the doctor had ordered a routine CT scan. A copy of an article regarding the case can be found here.

An abdominal aortic aneurysm is a weakness in aorta, the largest blood carrying vessel of the body. An abdominal aortic aneurysm – otherwise known as a "Triple A" – can be a medical emergency if it reaches certain size, due to the danger of rupture. Once the aorta ruptures, there is an extremely high death rate, especially if the person is not in the hospital when it happens. The standard test used for diagnosing an abdominal aortic aneurysm is a simple CT scan.

Continue Reading ››

 Posted on May 20, 2008 in Medical Malpractice

An Ohio jury has awarded $22.6 million in damages to a woman whose baby suffered permanent brain injuries after it became stuck in her birth canal for over 13 hours. Jurors found that a doctor and practice group were negligent in the medical care that led to the baby’s injuries. Approximately $16 million of the award has been allocated to future medical bills and future loss of ability to perform the usual functions.

Birth trauma cases like this are some of the most difficult cases that Maryland medical malpractice attorneys pursue. They are extremely complicated cases, usually involving multiple expert witnesses, such as obstetricians, neonatologists, pediatric neurologists, placental pathologists, life care planners and economists. This means that they are extremely time-consuming and expensive to pursue. Nevertheless, these cases are extremely important to pursue, so that compensation can be obtained for the parents and child, in order to provide the child with best medical and other care that the child can have, so as to maximize the child’s abilities and comfort. Nothing is more important.

Continue Reading ››

 Posted on April 30, 2008 in Medical Malpractice

Maryland is one of the many states that cap, or limit, certain types of damages in medical malpractice cases. Under current Maryland law, medical malpractice damages for pain, suffering and emotional distress are capped at $650,000. That cap will not change until the end of this year (December 31, 2008), when the cap is scheduled to begin increasing $15,000 per year. A jury can award whatever it wants for pain, suffering and emotional distress, but if it awards more than the cap, the judge is required to reduce the verdict to no more than the cap.

The type of damages that are capped in Maryland medical malpractice cases – pain, suffering and emotional distress – are called non-economic damages. Economic damages, on the other hand, such as past and future lost wages, past and future medical expenses, and lost household services, are uncapped in Maryland.

The Maryland statute that sets forth the cap on medical malpractice cases specifically states that the jury shall not be told about the cap. Thus, everyone in the courtroom knows about the cap except for the jury that is making the decision on damages.

Continue Reading ››

 Posted on April 29, 2008 in Personal Injury

Maryland uninsured/underinsured motorist statute is intended to protect innocent victims from the nelgigent conduct of irresponsible drivers who drive without insurance. Maryland courts have demonstrated a tendency to liberally construe the uninsured/undersinured motorist statute to ensure that, when appropriate, the victims of automobile accidents are adequately compensated for the personal injuries they may suffer as a result of such accidents.

Historically, insurance companies have attempted to thwart Maryland’s policy of protecting innocent victims in automobile accident cases. For example, previously, an injured person who made a claim for the limits available under an at-fault party’s liability policy was prevented by his or her uninsured/underinsured motorist carrier from giving the liability carrier a full release of the claim. As a result, the injured person usually became caught in a situation where the liability carrier would not give them the limits of the at-fault party’s policy without a release and the uninsured/underinsured motorist carrier would not allow them to give a release. The innocent party usually got stuck between a rock and a hard place since they were effectively prevented from recovering a settlement from either carrier. This problem caused unnecessary delays in settlement and hurt those injured as a result of the irresponsible and negligent acts of others.

Continue Reading ››

 Posted on April 24, 2008 in Federal Crimes & White Collar Crimes

U.S. District Judge J. Frederick Motz today imposed a sentence of five-years probation in a Child Pornography possession case in United States District Court for the District of Maryland. Federal Sentencing Guidelines had called for a sentence of between 57 – 71 months incarceration. Federal prosecutors had argued that the client should be jailed for 57 months. STSW attorneys Andrew C. White & Susan Q. Amiot were able to convince Judge Motz to not follow the sentencing guidelines and impose a non-jail sentence because of the client’s extraordinary rehabilitation since the offense and his strong family support. This case is a significant success story and reflects how a well-crafted sentencing presentation focusing on post-offense rehabilitation and strong family support can result in tremendous success in federal court.

Continue Reading ››

 Posted on April 17, 2008 in Driving Under the Influence

Having an experienced Maryland DUI Attorney who really knows the members of the Maryland District Court Bench as well as the Maryland Circuit Court bench can be as important, if not more important than having a Maryland DUI lawyer who knows the law. Having a Maryland DUI Lawyer who is both experience and knowledgable in Maryland DUI Law and knows the bench is of course the best choice.

For example as an experience Maryland DUI lawyer who knows both the law and the bench I knew my clients were in a bad situation yesterday when their cases landed in front of a particular judge in the District Court. One client was a second offender who had caused life threatening injuries to his girlfriend in a serious car accident. He was arrested and blew a .16. The second client was a third offender. There were no aggravating facts but a third offender is always in serious jeopardy of lengthy incarceration. As I said, this case ended up in front of a judge whom I know to be particularly harsh on Maryland DUI offenders. Because I was aware of this particular judge’s propensities on these cases, I removed the cases to the Circuit Court and both of my clients walked out of the door (as opposed to being led out in handcuffs by the bailiff) at the end of their respective hearings.

Continue Reading ››

 Posted on April 17, 2008 in Criminal Defense

Maryland Criminal Defense Attorney with experience in cases of sexual child abuse will be needed by defendant arrested for sexual child abuse yesterday in Anne Arundel County Maryland. http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/local/annearundel/bal-md.ar.molest17apr17,0,7442671.story
Experienced Maryland Criminal Defense Attorney can help craft a defense for father of 15 year old child whom he is accused of abusing sexually. Maryland Criminal Defense Attorney and help mitigate or reduce the possible sentence this defendant may serve even in the event that there is no substantive defense.

Continue Reading ››

 Posted on April 16, 2008 in Driving Under the Influence

Under Maryland law, a breath reading .08 or above is per se guilt of driving while under the influence of alcohol. You will need to consult a skilled Maryland DUI lawyer immediately to protect your rights. A Maryland DUI attorney will help you prevent the MVA from suspending your license and help you in Maryland District court to avoid points, jail and other punitive measures.

A Maryland DUI breath reading under .08 may still require the assistance of a Maryland DUI lawyer because you still face MVA penalty of up to 8 points and a possible suspension of your drivers licence for DUI.

Continue Reading ››

 Posted on April 16, 2008 in Personal Injury

Under Maryland personal injury law, the driver of an "emergency vehicle" cannot be sued in his or her individual capacity for damages resulting from negligent conduct committed while operating an emergency vehicle in the course of providing "emergency service." An "emergency vehicle" includes police vehicles. "Emergency service" includes responses to any emergency call or the pursuit of a suspected criminal. This shield from a personal injury lawsuit does not apply to malicious acts or acts of "gross neligence."

The fact that a police officer is operating a vehicle without emergency signals, such as lights or siren, does not mean that the officer is operating a "non-emergency vehicle." Under Maryland personal injury law, even under such circumstances, a lawsuit still may not be brought against the driver for negligent conduct committed while providing emergency service.

This shield of immunity for the negligent acts of the operator of an emergency vehicle does not apply to the owner or lessee of the emergency vehicle in question. In other words, a personal injury action may be brought against the owner or lessee of the emergency vehicle, but such liability is limited to the amount of the minimum coverage provided for in the applicable insurance policy.

Continue Reading ››