Posted on March 12, 2011 in Personal Injury

A Tour Bus travelling back from the Mohegan Sun Casino in Uncasville, Conn., to Chinatown, New York City crashed on I95 near the exit for the Huntington Parkway. News reports have confirmed at least 13 dead with many others injured, some critically. A spokesman for the New york State Police indicated that he expected the death toll to rise as several of the critically injured appeared to be in grave condition.

At least one report to 911 claimed that the bus was cut off by a tracker trailer that then left the scene. Police are interviewing witnesses and reviewing video to try to determine the accuracy of that report and if true, to locate the truck and its driver. The investigation should be helped by the fact that the driver of the bus has apparently survived the accident although he was injured. Police expect to interview him soon and expect the interview to be very helpful in determining the cause of the accident.

If the report of the 18 wheeler causing the accident turns out to be credible, serious questions will need to be answered by the truck driver and his employer. Among those questions will be was the driver in compliance with federal law in terms of the number of hours he had been behind the wheel. As we all know, fatigued truck drivers have been the cause of many tragic highway accidents over the years. Studies have concluded that fatigued drivers pose as much if not more risk to others on the road as do intoxicated drivers.

Continue Reading ››

 Posted on March 10, 2011 in Family Law

The legislation pending to allow same-sex couples to marry is scheduled for a final vote this Friday, March 11, 2011 in the Maryland House of Delegates as reported by the Baltimore Sun. The legislation has already passed the Maryland Senate and the House Judiciary Committee. The passage of the bill, if signed by the Governor, would allow same-sex couples to marry in the State of Maryland. The passage of this bill would not afford same-sex couples who chose to marry more rights than those of their heterosexual counterparts. The bill would solely extend the civil protections already afforded to married couples to same-sex couples who chose to marry.

For more information, contact Monica Scherer, Esq. at 410-625-4740

Continue Reading ››

 Posted on March 09, 2011 in Medical Malpractice

An Indiana jury has awarded a $2.5 million verdict to a former police officer who claimed that his doctor committed medical malpractice by failing to diagnose his colon cancer in 2004. The verdict will be reduced to Indiana’s cap of $1.25 million on medical malpractice cases. The man claimed that he complained of rectal bleeding and other gastric complaints to the doctor, who failed to order either a sigmoidoscopy or colonoscopy to rule out colon cancer, although an upper G.I. test was ordered due to some other complaints. The man later moved to another state and went to another doctor several years later with the same complaint of rectal bleeding. That doctor ordered testing in 2006 that found the cancer was at Stage 4 and incurable. The man now is 42 years old and has been given a prognosis of less than a year to live. A copy of an article regarding the case can be found here.

Continue Reading ››

 Posted on March 07, 2011 in Family Law

The same sex marriage bill passed at the House Judiciary Committee on Friday, March 4, 2011 by a 12-10 vote as the Baltimore Sun reports. This means that the bill will move to the full House of Delegates for debate, which is scheduled to start as early as this Tuesday, March 8, 2011. As we previously blogged, on February 25, 2011 the bill if passed into law would allow same sex couples to wed. Delegates who had previously opposed the bill have expressed that they will vote to pass the bill as they believe it should ultimately be up to the voters to decide. As the Sun reports, if the bill passes in the House of Delegates, "Gov. Martin O’Malley has said he will sign the legislation if it reaches his desk. Opponents could then gather the roughly 55,000 signatures needed to petition the new law to referendum, where voters in the 2012 presidential election will decide whether to repeal it or leave it on the books.

For more information, contact Monica Scherer, Esq. at 410-625-4740

Continue Reading ››

 Posted on March 06, 2011 in Family Law

There is currently legislation pending before the Maryland General Assembly that would create a rebuttable presumption that joint legal and physical custody to each parent for equal periods of time is in the best interest of the child in certain custody proceedings. You can find the pending legislation at the Maryland General Assembly’s website. This bill would require parties in custody proceedings to overcome the statutory presumption that joint custody is in the child’s best interest. This would mean parties would enter a custody hearing on equal footing with respect to having the child in their shared custody and the Judge would have to find that one of the parties met their burden of overcoming the presumption in order to award a party sole physical or legal custody. The presumption aligns with the rights of parents without a custody order, in that parents have equal rights to their children, without a custody order stating otherwise. However, there is currently a great debate among family law attorneys over this pending legislation. Those who propose the bill support fathers’ rights, believe that parents may fight less over custody if the presumption is in place, and believe this takes such an important decision out of the court’s hands. Those who oppose the bill believe that the parties who have to take their custody case to trial should not be the ones who have a presumption of joint custody because they can not get along. Further, they do not believe that this decision should be taken out of the court’s hands, that the other best interest factors will not be considered if the presumption is in place, that those who are awarded joint custody who can not communicate will be back in court again and again, and that the current system is working well.

Continue Reading ››

 Posted on March 04, 2011 in Medical Malpractice

The surviving family of a 37 year old Alabama man has won a $3 million jury verdict from a local hospital. The man died a few days after surgery for a duodenal ulcer. The family claimed that the man bled to death after negligent surgery, and negligent follow-up care after discharge. Specifically, the family alleged that the man’s ulcer, a perforation in the first section of the small intestine, was large and not treatable by the standard surgical procedures. The family also alleged that the man was sent home after surgery with a very low blood count and was not adequately examined by his doctor before being discharged. A copy of an article regarding the case can be found here.

I have handled many negligent surgery cases. The key to success in such cases is obtaining all of the relevant medical records, reviewing them carefully, getting a good expert witness and backing the case up with medical literature where appropriate. Also important in such a case is reviewing the medical records to make sure the post-operative care is within the standard of care and not negligent. Usually, this is done by checking the patient’s vital signs (heart rate, breathing rate, blood pressure and temperature), and drainage.

Continue Reading ››

 Posted on March 02, 2011 in Medical Malpractice

A Montana woman and her four children have been awarded a $1.7 million verdict in a medical malpractice / wrongful death case arising from the death of her husband. The family alleged that a doctor failed to properly treat the woman’s husband for a known heart valve condition, commonly referred to as a leaky valve, and that the doctor should have referred the man to a heart specialist after he started having chest pain. Instead, the family alleged that the doctor misdiagnosed the chest pain as a torn muscle. The man died approximately one year later because he did not receive a replacement valve. A copy of an article regarding the case can be found here.

The failure to timely diagnose and treat a heart condition can be a catastrophic event. As an experienced Baltimore, Maryland medical malpractice lawyer, I have handled a number of medical malpractice cases involving failure to timely diagnose heart conditions. Some have involved malpractice in failing to timely diagnose heart attacks, and malpractice relating to the failure to timely diagnose congenital heart deformities. The key to cases like this is to obtain all of the medical records, and have the records reviewed by a competent cardiologist to determine whether the standard of care was met and, if not, whether any major injury resulted. To see some of the cases I have handled, click here.

Continue Reading ››

 Posted on March 02, 2011 in Medical Malpractice

Nine Maryland hospitals face financial penalties for having far too many patients contracting preventable medical conditions such as infections, pneumonia and bed sores. Those hospitals committing medical malpractice are Prince George’s Hospital Center, Doctors Community Hospital, Laurel Regional Hospital, Union Hospital in Cecil County, Montgomery General Hospital, Civista Medical Center in Southern Maryland, Shady Grove Adventist Hospital, Washington Adventist Hospital and University of Maryland Medical Center. The penalties were handed down by the Maryland Health Services Cost Review Commission, which sets rates that hospitals can charge. The evaluation and penalties are designed to improve patient safety and lower health care costs by linking hospital performance with their payments.

This is an important study because it shows that there is significant malpractice at many of Maryland’s hospitals. It also shows that even some of the best hospitals in the state, such as the University of Maryland Medical Center, still have far to go to improve quality of care and reduce the incidence of medical malpractice and wrongful death. In fact, it is interesting to note that, at the same time that this study came out, members of Congress were trying to further limit the rights of victims of medical malpractice by trying to limit damages to $25,000.

Continue Reading ››

 Posted on March 01, 2011 in Federal Crimes & White Collar Crimes

I recently had a criminal case in federal court where the Assistant US Attorney was arguing that the bouncing of checks by the defendant constituted federal bank fraud.

The Law:

18 U.S.C. § 1344 states that a person commits bank fraud when she knowingly executes, or attempts to execute, a scheme or artifice:

1. To defraud a financial institution; or
2. To obtain any of the moneys, funds, credits, assets, securities or other property owned by, or under the custody or control of, a financial institution, by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises.

Federal Case Law:

To obtain a conviction for bank fraud, the government must prove the following elements:

1. Defendant knowingly executed or attempted to execute a scheme or artifice to defraud a financial institution,
2. Defendant had the intent to defraud a financial institution, and
3. The bank involved was federally insured.

Continue Reading ››

 Posted on March 01, 2011 in Personal Injury

Although we are based in Maryland, our attorneys are often retained to handle wrongful death cases all over the United States. Below is a detailed discussion on the status of the wrongful death law in Massachusetts:

Questions Presented: (1) Who can bring, and benefit from, a wrongful death action under Massachusetts law? (2) What damages can be recovered for wrongful death? (3) Is there a cap on non-economic damages?

Discussion:

(1) Who can bring, and benefit from, a wrongful death action under Massachusetts law?

The entire statutory scheme for wrongful death recovery in Massachusetts is contained in G.L. c. 229. The basic principles for liability for wrongful death are set forth in G.L. c. 229, § 2, which provides:

A person who (1) by his negligence causes the death of a person , or (2) by willful, wanton or reckless act causes the death of a person under such circumstances that the deceased could have recovered damages for personal injuries if his death had no resulted, or (3) operates a common carrier of passengers and by his negligence causes the death of a passenger, or (4) operates a common carrier of passengers and by his willful, wanton or reckless act causes the death of a passenger under such circumstances that the deceased could have recovered damages for personal injuries if his death had not resulted, or (5) is responsible for a breach of warranty . . . which results in injury to a person that causes death, shall be liable [for] damages. . . .

Continue Reading ››