Posted on April 16, 2012 in Personal Injury

The Court of Appeals recently ruled in University of Maryland Medical Systems Corp v. Muti, a case involving the appropriate interpretation of the Maryland’s Wrongful Death Statute found in Sections 3-901 to 3-904 of the Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article of the Maryland Code. A copy of the case can be found here.

The Plaintiffs were the widow and adult children of the decedent. The appeal arose because the Plaintiffs failed to disclose in their Complaint the existence of a stepson whom the decedent had adopted during a prior marriage. Plaintiffs asserted that they had not had any contact with the adoptive son for over twelve years and had no idea if and/or where he was living.

The hospital argued that a wrongful death claim requires that there may only be one action by all possible beneficiaries, and that action must be brought within three years. As a result, the failure to identify the adopted son was a failure by Plaintiffs to join a necessary party and the expiration of the three year statute of limitations precluded the plaintiffs from amending their claim.

Continue Reading ››

 Posted on April 09, 2012 in Medical Malpractice

Maryland Appellate Courts Weighs In On Medical Malpractice Suit Against University of Maryland Medical System Corporation (UMMS)

The Court of Special Appeals recently published an opinion concerning a medical malpractice complaint brought against University of Maryland Medical System Corporation. A copy of the Court of Special Appeals opinion can be found here.

The medical malpractice suit was brought by a minor, through his mother, and alleged that the care the child received following his premature birth was negligent. On the morning of the child’s birth, tests revealed that there was significant potential for a dangerous condition called "cord prolapse," a condition in where the umbilical cord is squeezed by contractions thereby cutting off blood flow to the fetus. The child was delivered by emergency Cesarean section shortly after these tests and remained in the Neonatal Intensive Care Unit for two months after his birth as a result of numerous medical complications.

Continue Reading ››

 Posted on April 03, 2012 in Personal Injury

In recent appellate opinion, a catastrophic injury case, Yiallouro v. Tolson, was reviewed for error concerning expert testimony. Yiallouro was severely injured in a car accident while in the scope of his employment, causing him to ultimately lose his job because he could no longer perform his previous tasks and there was no "light duty" work available. When Yiallouro brought suit against Tolson, the driver of the other vehicle, the Montgomery County jury who heard the case awarded Yiallouro $925,000.00 in damages: $32,000.88 for past medical expenses, $35,191.80 for past lost wages, $409,787.00 for loss of future wages, $224,010.16 for pain and suffering, and $224,010.16 for loss of consortium. However, after the verdict, the judge determined that the he had erroneously permitted one of plaintiff’s experts to testify because the testimony was too speculative and lacked an adequate factual basis for opinion under Maryland Rules 5-702 and 5-703. The expert in question was a vocational rehabilitation expert who testified that Yiallouro’s future lost wages were over $400,000.00. A copy of the Court of Special Appeals opinion, filed on March 2, 2012, can be found here.

Continue Reading ››

 Posted on March 21, 2012 in Divorce

The Maryland Court of Appeals will hear an appeal on a denied same sex divorce next month according to the Baltimore Sun’s March 17, 2012 report. The couple, who was married in San Francisco in 2008, were married for two years before one filed for divorce in Maryland. Their uncontested divorce was denied by the Prince George’s County Circuit Court. Judge Chapdelaine of the Court denied the divorce because he found the parties California marriage was not valid in Maryland and therefore they can not divorce in Maryland. We had previously blogged on this issue as the Courts are in limbo with the legislation being passed, but not yet in effect and in light of the Attorney General’s February 2010 opinion that Maryland should recognize same sex marriages in other states as valid in Maryland. The Sun reports that few counties have granted same sex divorces, including Baltimore City, Calvert County and Prince Georges County, in another instance. As it stands it is the Judge’s call, which is why this future ruling by Maryland’s highest Court is crucial. If the Maryland Court of Appeals upholds Judge Chapdelaine’s ruling those same sex divorces that have been granted could be then potentially nullified.

For more information on same sex divorces contact an experienced Maryland Divorce Attorney.

Continue Reading ››

 Posted on March 06, 2012 in Criminal Defense

As a full time Maryland Criminal Lawyer and former Baltimore County Prosecutor practicing exclusively in the criminal arena for almost 20 years, I have handled more Sex Offense Cases (on both sides of the aisle) than I can recall. Recently we have seen an uptick in the number of Craig’s List initiated Solicitation of Minors for Sex cases being charged, particularly in Baltimore County. Most of us are familiar with this type of sting operation from the Chris Hanson "To Catch a Predator Series" on MSNBC. These are extremely serious cases that are prosecuted aggressively by both the State and Federal authorities. It is imperative that a person charged in one of these stings immediately retain the most experienced, aggressive and influential attorneys they can find.

My law partner former Federal Prosecutor Andrew C. White who directed the Child Sex Offense of the U.S. Attorney’s Office for over 7 years, and I have teamed up to successfully resolve dozens of these cases over the past decade or so when we first starting seeing these sting operations. It is imperative to have someone very experienced and influential in the federal system as there is dual federal and state jurisdiction to prosecute these cases. We were hired by someone caught up in one of these investigations just last week. I won’t go into the specifics of any of the cases for obvious privacy reasons, but here is an outline of a typical case such as this.

Typically police conduct these investigations by entering chat rooms or more recently by posting an ad on Craig’s List. The language in the ad will say something like "I have time" or "Let’s hang out" followed by 18. An unsuspecting person will then respond to the ad and will be contacted back by an undercover detective. Eventually pictures will be exchanged and then the conversation will turn to sex. At some point the detective will message that "she" is 13 or 15 years old and ask something like "are you cool with that".

Continue Reading ››

 Posted on February 28, 2012 in Driving Under the Influence

As a Maryland DUI/DWI Attorney I am frequently asked by friends and acquaintences whether they should take the breathalyzer if they are stopped for suspicion of Driving Under the Influence . This question is almost invariably followed by the statement, "because I have always heard that you should never take it".

I am not completely sure where this idea that one should never take the breathalyzer came from, although I suspect it is simply dated advice that is still being recirculated because in my view, under most circumstances, a person who is stopped by the police should take the breathalyzer if asked to do so. Here’s why:

As most people are aware, significant changes have been made to the law regarding Driving Under the Influence over the past 20 years. For instance, 20 years ago the legal limit was a BAC of .12 as opposed to .08 today for Driving Under the Influence. In those days judges were also far more likely to give a well represented defendant the benefit of the doubt in cases where there was no breathalyzer. The administrative sanctions imposed by the MVA for refusing the breathalyzer were also far less severe than they are today. The bottom line was in those days not taking the breathalyzer gave you a better shot at being found not guilty in criminal court and did not subject you to extreme administrative penalties. It may very well have been sound legal advice to advise people to never take the breathalyzer before these changes.

Continue Reading ››

 Posted on February 24, 2012 in Divorce

Bloomberg rated Maryland the 10th worst state in the country as far as obstacles one might face in obtaining a divorce as reported by msn.com on February 2, 2012. The rankings took into account filing fees, minimum separation period, minimum length of residency, minimum waiting period after filing for the divorce, and minimum number of days for the entire process (start to finish). Bloomberg’s reasoning for Maryland’s low ranking was the one year waiting period before filing for a no-fault divorce, the minimum processing time of 360 days and the $135 filing fee.

The waiting period to obtain a no-fault divorce in Maryland has been at hot topic among the legislature as proponents seek to reduce it to six months. As stated in our April 18, 2011 blog, the Maryland legislature passed a bill eliminating the two year waiting period, which took effect October 1, 2011.

For more information about getting a divorce in Maryland, contact Monica Scherer, Esq. at 410-625-4740

Continue Reading ››

 Posted on February 24, 2012 in Family Law

As the Baltimore Sun reports, Thursday night, February 23, 2012, the Maryland Senate passed Govern Martin O’Malleys’ bill to legalize same-sex marriage in Maryland. We blogged on June 28, 2011 that New York had passed the law allowing same sex couples to wed, making it the 6th state to do so. Maryland is now the 8th state to approve same sex marriages. While it is a victory for supporters of the bill, many believe that the law will likely be up to the voters in November. If the law is passed by the voters, it will be effective in January 2013.

As expected the church has voiced their disapproval of the bill’s passing. The Maryland Daily Record reports that Baltimore’s Cardinal O’Brien states that the bill "threatens families." He has pledged that the Baltimore Archdiocese will work to overturn the law and likely will be a key proponent in making sure the voters have a say in November.

Continue Reading ››

 Posted on February 13, 2012 in Appeals - State & Federal

Experienced Maryland Criminal Attorneys do not generally make it a practice to advertise cases we lose but I had one the other day that I think merits discussion, the outcome not withstanding, both because it was an interesting case and because it offers an opportunity to discuss the ” de novo” appeal process in the District Courts of Maryland. In English, that means that if a person who is convicted in the District Court is dissatisfied with either the verdict or the sentence, he has the right to a brand new trial in the Circuit Court. That’s right, the appeal is not “on the record” such as it is in cases that are appealed from the Circuit Court to the Court of Special Appeals. Instead, the case starts all over again in the Circuit Court.

This may sound incredibly inefficient to someone who is not acquainted with the system as it sounds as if every case has to be tried twice. In practice, the exact opposite is true. Indeed, it is the very fact that we have de novo appeals that affords litigants the opportunity to take a shot in the District Court, even if the posture of the case or the judge is not ideal. If you win the case, it is obviously over but even if you lose you get another shot at it in Circuit Court. Not only that, a record now exists of exactly what the State’s witnesses will say. This is an invaluable tool in a State where criminal depositions are almost never done. In practice, most litigants accept the decision of the District Court as even the majority of those who are convicted are not sent to prison. The result of all of this is that most of the cases docketed in District Court are resolved there instead of ending up in Circuit Court. I had a case in the District Court for Baltimore County last week that, for reasons I am confident will become clear to the reader, I decided to take a shot with even though the situation was not ideal. Here are the facts.

My client was charged with making a false statement to a police officer. He initially contacted the police and reported that he was beaten and robbed by two men. Specifically, he claimed that he was walking down the street when someone struck him from behind in the head causing him to fall to the ground. He described his assailants as one black male and one Hispanic male. He provided relatively detailed physical descriptions of each but advised the officers that he did not know either man. He claimed that after being struck from behind the black male went into his pockets and stole approximately $200.

Continue Reading ››

 Posted on February 10, 2012 in Medical Malpractice

Research conducted by Johns Hopkins doctors has found that an estimated forty percent of hospital websites advertise the use of robotic surgery as superior to conventional surgery. However, there is a no evidence to suggest these statements are true. In particular, hospitals often exaggerate the benefits associated with robotic surgery while ignoring the risks.

Johns Hopkins researchers warn that the lack of candor in promotional materials is potentially dangerous for various reasons. Much of the positive advertisement is provided by the surgical robots’ manufacturers, as opposed to independent analysis by doctors or hospitals. This is a concern because the general public relies on hospitals, including their websites, to provide honest and complete information. Essentially, many would consider the material on a hospital’s website to be as if it was coming directly from a physician.

The study conducted by Johns Hopkins researches yielded startling results. Of the sample of hospital websites studied, forty-one percent described the availability of robotic surgery. Of those, eighty-nine percent (89%) indicated that robotic surgery is clinically superior over conventional surgery. Specifically, eighty-five percent (85%) said there would be less pain, eighty-six percent (86%) said there would be a shorter recovery, eighty percent (80%) said there would be less scarring and seventy-eight percent (78%) said there would be less blood loss. Shockingly, none of the websites mentioned any risks associated with robotic surgery at all.

Continue Reading ››