Maryland Injury Law Center

July 9, 2009

New Maryland Appellate Opinion on Survival Actions

The Maryland Court of Special Appeals found Monday that the trial court erred in excluding the estate of a five-year-old drowning victim from presenting a survival action for conscious pain and suffering of the child while drowning. You can find the opinion here. I first blogged about this case two years ago after an Anne Arundel County jury awarded $4 million in a wrongful death action brought by his parents. The trial court dismissed the survival claim for lack of evidence that the boy suffered before he died.

The lawyers in the case on both sides did exactly what lawyers should do: make the best arguments for their clients. I would do the same. But it is haunting trying to explain this to your client in a wrongful death/survival action case. “No one knows for sure whether your child (or parent or sibling) suffered awfully before he/she died. But the likelihood is high because (fill in your own awful means of death). So we will argue that he/she endured unbelievable suffering that neither of us can ever imagine.” You don’t say it quite like that. But it is awful, and it makes you want to get another job.

After I frame the issue, the client almost invariably wants to win the argument. This is understandable. But the victim’s family finds themselves in the position of rooting that someone who has never met the person they love finds there was horrible suffering before the person’s death. But they hope and pray that it is not true. It is a grotesque paradox.

Defense lawyers have it worse on some level. I don’t know who the lawyer was in this case but what are the chances that the lawyer went home to their spouse at the end of the day proud of their victory in the trial court? “Honey, I won this argument today where I argued this little boy drowned and didn’t suffer because there is no proof the child suffered because he died – I’m so proud of my victory.” Do you think the lawyer does not know that child suffered? Don’t you have to sadly admit this as you explain the story of your “victory”? Again, I’d make the argument if I was the defense lawyer. Then I would go home and shower. Continue reading

May 12, 2009

Workmen’s Compensation Uninsured Motorist Setoff: New Opinion for the Maryland Court of Special Appeals

by Ronald V. Miller, Jr.

The Maryland Court of Special Appeals in a 2-1 decision today affirmed a Frederick County trial court’s grant of summary judgment to Erie Insurance in an underinsured motorist lawsuit.

The nutshell: State Farm paid its $100,000 liability policy in a serious injury car accident case. Plaintiff sought payment under his $250,000 uninsured/underinsured motorist policy with Erie Insurance. Erie claimed that it was entitled to a workers’ compensation setoff of $246,305.66, representing the workers’ compensation benefits the car accident victim received because he was working at the time of the accident. The Plaintiff claimed the setoff should be $27,396.28 because this was the amount of the workers’ compensation lien. Continue reading

May 11, 2009

“Relates Back” Lawsuit Reinstated: New 1st Circuit Opinion and Maryland Law

by Ronald V. Miller, Jr.

The 1st Circuit Court of Appeals wrote a helpful opinion in Morel v. DaimlerChrysler AG for product attorneys who get the name of the defendant wrong when filing just before the statute of limitations expires. The court elevated substance over form in finding the claim “relates back” under federal law.

The page was updated in 2023 to give people the Maryland law on the relation back doctrine they were looking for when they found this page.

What Is “Relates Back” All About?

The “relates back” doctrine refers to a legal principle that allows an amended complaint to relate back to the date of the original complaint for statute of limitations purposes. In other words, if an amended complaint is filed after the statute of limitations has expired, the amended complaint can still be considered timely filed if it relates back to the original complaint.

Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Maryland Rules, an amended complaint can relate back to the date of the original complaint if the claims in the amended complaint arise out of the same conduct, transaction, or occurrence as the claims in the original complaint. In addition, the party being sued must have received notice of the claims in the original complaint within the time required by law.

For example, if a plaintiff files a complaint alleging that a defendant negligently caused a car accident but later discovers additional evidence that the defendant was tried to hit the defendant’s car because of road rage, the plaintiff may file an amended complaint adding a claim for punitive damages based on the intentional act. If the amended complaint relates back to the original complaint, the plaintiff may still be able to pursue the claim for punitive damages even if the statute of limitations for that claim has expired.

Facts of Morel v. DaimlerChrysler

This is every parents’ nightmare. A four-year-old boy got into his grandfathered unlocked 1987 Mercedes-Benz 300 SDL. While playing in the car, the vehicle rolled backward, pinning his six-and-a-half-month old brother under the vehicle. The infant died later that day.

The plaintiffs’ product liability lawsuit alleged that the design of the Mercedes-Benz caused the child’s death, alleging a “gallimaufry” of product liability theories against Daimler-Chrysler Corporation. The gist was that the Plaintiffs claimed they defectively designed that the Mercedes and that it lacked adequate warnings. They claimed that the car was defectively designed because it did not have a key shift interlock (KTSI), brake shift interlock (BTSI) or push-button gear shift lever, all of which, plaintiffs alleged, would have prevented the child’s death.

The family filed a wrongful death lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico, naming Daimler-Chrysler as the defendant. Daimler-Chrysler moved for summary judgment on the ground that it had never manufactured or sold Mercedes-Benz vehicles, and that the plaintiffs had sued the wrong party. The plaintiffs then amended their complaint to substitute Daimler AG as the defendant, but Daimler AG moved for partial summary judgment, asserting that the adult plaintiffs’ claims were time-barred. The district court applied Puerto Rico’s relation-back rule and determined that the amendment did not relate back, and granted Daimler AG’s motion. The plaintiffs appealed.

Continue reading

May 5, 2009

Medicare Liens

by Ronald V. Miller, Jr.

We can hold hands and agree with the Drug and Device Law Blog on few things related to drug and medical device litigation but this is one: we hate Medicare liens and the government is making life even more difficult for parties on both sides of the v. As usual, they have a very complete post laying out this issue, focused on the defense lawyers’ perspective but much of it applies to plaintiffs’ lawyers.

May 5, 2009

New Tort Against Medical Malpractice Doctors : Should Courts Force Doctors to Confess Their Own Negligence to Their Patients

by Ronald V. Miller, Jr.

University of Baltimore law professor Richard W. Bourne wrote an article published this year in the Arkansas Law Review articulating the theory that there should be an independent tort claim when a doctor destroys evidence or when a doctor fails to disclose to the patient that there has been a breach of the appropriate standard of care that causes injury. Professor Bourne would limit this tort to cases where (1) the wrong is serious, and (2) failing to reveal is intentional.

Professor Bourne also quotes Harvard evidence professor Charles R. Nesson on the inherent problem in making the punishment for spoliation of evidence “assuming that the spoliators … destroy the evidence because it [is] damaging to their case, none of these sanctions puts the spoliator in a worse position than he would have been in had he produced the evidence.”

If the document or evidence shows the worst scenario, the defendant has nothing to lose, except possibly inflaming the jury by destroying the evidence. In Maryland medical malpractice cases, there are ostensibly ramifications with the Maryland Board of Physicians for doctors destroying medical records. But as this blog recently underscored, the Maryland Board of Physicians does not appear to be an effective enforcer of medical ethics.

April 17, 2009

GEICO

by Ronald V. Miller, Jr.

Warren Buffett’s Berkshire Hathaway took a bath this year. But in Buffett’s annual letter to shareholders, he seems pumped about how GEICO is faring in the car insurance market. Buffett noted that under GEICO chief executive Tony Nicely, GEICO did its part to keep Berkshire Hathaway profitable, increasing GEICO’s market share to 7.7% of the auto insurance market last year (over 19% in Maryland). Buffett makes clear in his report that he is bullish on GEICO:

As we view GEICO’s current opportunities, Tony and I feel like two hungry mosquitoes in a nudist camp. Juicy targets are everywhere.

This is a funny quote but, then again, everything sounds a little funnier when coming from a billionaire.

April 13, 2009

Value of Wrongful Death Cases in Maryland Where Victim Is 65 or Older

by Ronald V. Miller, Jr.

Lawyers handling wrongful death cases encounter an awful argument from defense lawyers in cases where the victim is 65 years-old and older: you have to discount the value of your claim because the victim was old, anyway. The argument is so callous no lawyer would directly make this argument to a jury, especially in a jurisdiction like Maryland where there is a meaningful cap on wrongful death and survival action damages.

The “victim was old anyway” argument is offensive and cold… but not entirely untrue when you look at jury verdicts. There is some measure of truth to it. Once you get past how awful it sounds, the differences make sense. The money damages awarded in a wrongful death claim with a young victim having 70 more years of expected life should be higher than with an older victim having only 20 more years of expected life because the victim’s family will be without them longer and the victim missed out on a lot more life.

The reason the argument is so offensive is not the underlying premise—older victims get less—but the “How big was the loss, really?” way in which they pitch it. Juries still place actual values on these losses. According to Metro Verdicts Monthly, juries have over the last 22 years awarded an average verdict in Maryland wrongful death cases of $1,337,824 involving victims 65 and older. Washington, D.C.’s average is slightly higher, $1,443,818. Incredibly, and this really underscores jurisdictional differences, Virginia’s average verdict in wrongful death cases involving victims 65 and over is an abysmal $685,535, less than half that of the District of Columbia. Continue reading

March 31, 2009

Lawsuit Against Maryland Malpractice Lawyer by Referring Lawyer

by Ronald V. Miller, Jr.

They wrote an opinion of interest to attorneys who receive referrals from other Maryland lawyers in malpractice cases.

This case involves a Maryland lawyer who referred a cancer misdiagnosis case involving an allegedly misread mammogram to a lawyer that handles medical malpractice cases, agreeing to a fee split. Before referring the case out, the original lawyer filed the malpractice lawsuit.

The Defendant sought summary judgment, claiming the statute of limitations had tolled because the alleged failure to diagnose cancer occurred over three years after limitations had passed. Plaintiff prevailed on summary judgment. The opinion does not say, but I assume it was a discovery rule issue—the patient did not know of the malpractice until after it had occurred.

Then things got interesting. The malpractice case settled the claim for $225,000, far less than the referring lawyer had hoped. Allegedly, the medical malpractice lawyer sold the clients on the settlement by “deliberately misle[ading] the [Plaintiffs] into settling by telling them limitations remained a ‘serious concern’”; “telling them that they had been victims of malpractice by [the referring lawyer]”; and “suggesting to them that they sue [the referring lawyer] for malpractice.” Continue reading

March 24, 2009

Maryland Auto Accident Cases: A New “Amount in Controversy” Law Passes the Maryland Senate

by Ronald V. Miller, Jr.

Maryland Senate Bill 468 passed today in the Maryland Senate. It increases – from $10,000 to $20,000 – the maximum amount in controversy in a civil action in which a party may not demand a jury trial. Defendants would only be able to “bump up” cases between $20,000 and $30,000 from District Court to Circuit Court.

Any case pled in District Court for more than $10,000 can be bumped up to a jury trial. This practice, which is mostly done by insurance companies in personal injury car accident cases, leads to massive numbers of car accident cases before Maryland juries in cases that should be streamlined into District Court trials.

In fact, auto insurance companies are the problem in getting this bill passed; small businesses, for example, did not oppose this bill. Why are auto insurance companies opposed to this bill? It saves them legal costs to be sure. Is it because insurance companies get better results in front of juries than judges? No. The motive is much more nefarious: they want personal injury lawyers to spend time and resources in accident cases if the lawyers and their clients refuse the insurance companies’ below market settlement offers in smaller cases.

March 19, 2009

Nursing Home Abuse in Maryland | Getting Worse, Not Better

by Ronald V. Miller, Jr.

Maryland’s nursing homes had an “off year” according to Jay Handcock’s blog for the Baltimore Sun.

The Government Accountability Office reports that citations in Maryland for inflicting residents with “actual harm” or putting them in “immediate jeopardy” were given to 17% of Maryland’s 234 nursing homes last year. This is more than a 100% increase from last year.

There is a bill in the Maryland House of Delegates that would require Maryland nursing homes to give people the choice of installing cameras to monitor their loved ones. What would that cost these assisted care facilities? Nothing. The patients or their families would pay for the camera themselves.