Maryland Injury Law Center

April 16, 2009

First Year Lawyers Starting Salaries

Mega law firm McKenna Long & Aldridge announced yesterday it has cut the starting salaries of its first-year lawyers by $20,000. (The original version of this post said: “to $20,000.” Now that really would have been news!)

There has been a delay in reducing starting associate salaries even while these large firms are laying off scores of lawyers. Why? Well, let’s say you’re a muscle head who works out at the gym 7 days a week. Then disaster strikes. You get a job or, worse still, a family. Now you can only work out 4 days a week. What do you cut out of your workout? The bench press? No, how much you can bench is the muscle head signature statement of strength.

Starting associate salaries is like the bench press for major law firms. Bizarrely, you seem to lose more street cred firing lawyers and staff than you do lowering the salaries of your first-year lawyers. That’s my take on it anyway, which is, thankfully, from a distance.

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

April 1, 2009

IME Doctors Caught on Tape

by Ronald V. Miller, Jr.

The New York Times has a good article today on Independent Medical Examination doctors, including a doctor referred to by New York injury lawyers as “Doctor Says-No.” We have several IME doctors in Maryland that must be related to him because they have the same last name.

The New York Times would not have written this story if it did not have examples of patients possessing the great weapon of the modern age: “I’ve got it on tape.” The article has examples of doctors who told the patient one thing in the evaluation – which the patient’s taped with their phones – and put the opposite conclusion in the report.

In Maryland, our lawyers are seeing a recent wave of IME doctors replacing the old guard of discredited doctors that juries stopped believing long ago. Below are a few tools to fight for your clients to get fair defense medical exams.

My colleague John Bratt is in the middle of a battle in a Montgomery County case where the expert is refusing to meet the same conditions imposed against this same expert by a judge in another case we had with him in Montgomery County. In another accident case, my colleague Rod Gaston has with the same doctor, they ordered the doctor to produce his financial records. Bizarrely, the insurance company withdrew the doctor, but he still filed an interlocutory appeal. I’m looking forward to finding out who has been paying his legal fees for all of this. My bet: the insurance company.

(Note: I have fixed the New York Times link, as requested. Thanks to all for bringing it to my attention.) 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.

March 11, 2009

Defendants’ Truck Accident Lawyer’s Tricks to Avoid Paying Claims

by Ronald V. Miller, Jr.

Bob Franklin, a well respected Maryland lawyer who defends trucking companies for Franklin & Prokopik, wrote an article on defendant truck accident cases advising defense lawyers on handling plaintiffs’ truck accident lawyers’ vicarious liability arguments entitled. “But I Didn’t Do It!” Expanding Theories of Vicarious Liability, 58 Fed’n Def. & Corp. Couns. Q.347 (2008). You can’t deny it is a catchy title.

Trucking companies will clearly do anything to avoid compensating victims.

It is a well-written article advising defense lawyers how to combat different theories of vicarious liability conjured up by plaintiffs’ truck accident lawyers. But, obviously, it is also a suitable read for lawyers bringing truck accident cases looking for coverage in the event of serious injuries.

Franklin offers one piece of advice I found interesting:

With rising insurance costs and tight operating ratios for motor carriers and private fleet operators, many have limited excess insurance coverage or none at all. That trend coupled with ever increasing jury verdicts and settlements means there is frequently not enough insurance available to satisfy a potential or actual judgment.Such a scenario may put the fleet operator’s assets at risk if and when there is an excess judgment. Many fleet operators, particularly smaller ones, would do well to take advantage of recent changes in the law, particularly the Graves Amendment, which effectively precludes liability from being imputed simply by virtue of ownership of a vehicle that was involved in an accident. Having a separate corporate entity own the trucks (usually the operator’s most valuable asset) and lease them to the operators may effectively shield the vehicles from potential excess exposure if the proper procedure is followed.

Set up another company to avoid liability. They are telling us how they will get over on us and they are doing it in open view. It is like a shoplifter who looks at the security camera and smiles. Or like this.
Continue reading

February 11, 2009

Circuit Court Removal by Insurance Companies in Maryland Car Accident Cases

by Ronald V. Miller, Jr.

There is a battle now in the Maryland state legislature about whether Maryland should increase the minimum jurisdictional amount before a defendant can remove a case from District Court to Circuit Court. Defense lawyers for State Farm and Allstate, the two largest auto insurance providers in Maryland, routinely “bump up” District Court claims to Circuit Court if the amount in controversy is more than $10,000.

So what happens is we have an enormous volume of cases where insurance defense lawyers in Maryland are seeking jury trials in cases that do not belong in Circuit Court. Why? Do they think a jury will give them a more fair trial? Ironically, for the jury-hating insurance companies who continue to argue that juries are out of control, trust in juries is at least one reason insurance companies seek jury trials in Maryland auto accident cases (at least in some Maryland counties where juries are more conservative).

But the primary reason insurance companies seek jury trials in smaller auto accident cases in Maryland is because it tortures Maryland auto accident lawyers. The insurance companies do this, not motivated by spite—well not primarily anyway, but because it is a good global tactic. A significant number of auto accident lawyers in Maryland are reticent to sue. The threat of getting a small case going through the Circuit Court ringer is even more daunting to many Maryland injury lawyers. I’m not saying it should be. But it is for those seeking the path of least resistance.

December 16, 2008

Closing Arguments: Something to Remind the Jury in Serious Personal Injury Cases

by Ronald V. Miller, Jr.

I recently read a closing argument in another lawyers’ medical malpractice case. In his final thoughts to the jury, he reminded the jurors of what I always remind jurors of when I’m delivering a closing: the memories of the victim will fade for you and for me, but this person will live with these injuries for the rest of his/her life.

The jury got the message and awarded $5.8 million for the wrongful death of a 47-year-old lawyer whose untreated mole turned into a skin cancer that spread to his brain. The jury awarded $3 million in non-economic damages, including $1 million each to Plaintiff’s widow and to his estate and $500,000 each to Plaintiff’s two children.

That portion of the award will be reduced to $812,500 due to Maryland’s cap on non-economic damages in medical malpractice cases with at least two claimants. We expect the plaintiff to appeal [update; they did and lost] arguing the unconstitutionality of Maryland’s cap on damages and the specific portion of the cap that applies to medical malpractice cases.

December 11, 2008

Attention Maryland Lawyers Handling Snow and Ice Slip and Fall Cases (Assuming There Are Any Left)

by Ronald V. Miller, Jr.

On Monday, the Maryland Court of Special Appeals decided Allen v. Marriott Worldwide Corporation, a Montgomery County slip and fall on ice case. The case sends a clear message to most ice slip and fall cases will not get to a jury. [2019 Update: The court walked back this law in 2011.]

This is just a slight step forward—the court eradicates a potential factual distinction between black ice in the naked eye and white ice. But after Morgan State University v. Walker, it is hard to expect a good slip and fall opinion from Maryland’s appellate courts absent compelling circumstance where the injury victim really had no choice – defined nearly literally – but to be where he or she was at the time of the fall.

Snow and Ice Slip and Fall Case