In a Maryland personal injury action, the plaintiff may seek damages for economic and non-economic losses.  Non-economic damages may include compensation for pain, suffering, emotional distress, and loss of enjoyment of life, among others.  Unlike economic damages, which are based on objective evidence of the monetary loss and expenses incurred from an injury, non-economic damages are determined subjectively.  In a July 1, 2020 decision, the Maryland Court of Special Appeals reviewed a jury verdict awarding the plaintiff $250,000 for non-economic damages in a car accident case.

The defendant in the case was involved in a motor vehicle accident while operating a truck owned by his employer.  A piece of the truck’s drive shaft flew off in the accident and bounced into the road, striking the plaintiff’s windshield and landing in her passenger seat.  The plaintiff was treated for a soft tissue sprain injuries.  She was also treated for anxiety, depression, and other emotional issues related to the accident.

The plaintiff filed a personal injury suit claiming emotional distress, mental anguish, and pre-impact fright.  At trial, the defendant sought to introduce evidence of the plaintiff’s personal history and prior assault conviction, arguing that those issues were the source of emotional distress for which she sought counseling.  The trial court allowed the defense to cross-examine the plaintiff and other witnesses about other causes of her emotional distress, but excluded evidence of the conviction itself.  Following deliberations, the jury awarded the plaintiff $250,000.00 for non-economic damages.

Continue reading

In Maryland, surviving family members may have the right to take legal action against those responsible for the death of a family member.  These types of actions are known as Maryland wrongful death claims.  In a recent case, the wife and children of the decedent filed a lawsuit against the doctor who had treated him and the medical practice where he sought medical care.  At trial, the lower court dismissed the plaintiffs’ wrongful death claims.  In a June 22, 2020 opinion, the Maryland Court of Special Appeals reviewed whether dismissal was appropriate.

The decedent had visited the defendant in February of 2013 because he had been experiencing dizziness and pain in his tongue and ear.  At that visit, the decedent received a tongue scraping biopsy.  Although the biopsy results indicated that the sample was benign, the report also stated that the biopsy was fragmented and small, which limited its findings.  When the decedent continued to experience pain over the following year, the defendant performed a second biopsy in July of 2014, which revealed that he had cancer.  The decedent underwent various treatments, but eventually succumbed to complications related to oral cancer.

The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants were negligent by failing to properly diagnose the decedent’s cancer when he first sought treatment.  At trial, the plaintiffs called a medical expert who testified that if the decedent been diagnosed at the time of the first biopsy, the survival rate would have been between 70 and 80 percent, instead of 50 to 55 percent.  The defendants then argued that the plaintiffs had only established a loss of chance of survival, not that the defendants’ negligence caused the decedent’s death.  The trial court agreed and dismissed the plaintiffs’ claims without a jury verdict.

Continue reading

“Phantom vehicle” is a term that refers to a vehicle that causes personal injury or property damage without making any physical contact with the person or car.  Accidents involving phantom vehicles may be problematic when filing a claim with your insurance company, as illustrated in a June 18, 2020 Maryland injury case.

The plaintiff in the case was stopped in his car at a red light, when his vehicle was struck from behind by a car driven by the defendant.  The plaintiff brought a personal injury claim against the defendant, seeking damages of $25,000.  The plaintiff also filed a claim for uninsured motorist benefits against his own insurer, arguing that his auto policy covered damages caused by a phantom vehicle that did not remain at the scene of an accident, as alleged by the defendant in the case.

In a hearing before the trial, the defendant admitted that she caused the accident, eliminating any possibility that the jury would find that a phantom vehicle caused the accident.  On the morning of trial, the court severed the plaintiff’s claims against his insurance company, so that those claims would be decided in a separate trial.  As such, the only issue for the jury to decide at trial was the amount of damages that the defendant caused to the plaintiff.  The jury returned a verdict awarding damages of $1,560.  Because that amount was within the liability limits of the defendant’s insurance policy, the court entered a directed verdict in favor of the insurance company on the plaintiff’s remaining claims.  The plaintiff then appealed to the Maryland Court of Special Appeals.

Continue reading

Personal injuries arising out of negligent heath care providers may be subject to the Maryland Health Care Malpractice Claims Act.  A Maryland medical malpractice attorney can guide you through the requirements and deadlines of the Act.  In a June 17, 2020 case, the Court of Special Appeals considered whether the plaintiff’s delay in filing a medical malpractice complaint against a nursing home was grounds for dismissal.

The plaintiff in the case was admitted to the nursing facility for rehabilitation following his hip replacement surgery.  He alleged that he developed pressure ulcers in several areas of his body during his stay there, which became infected and ultimately led to a below-the-knee amputation of his right leg.

Almost three years after he left the nursing facility, the plaintiff initiated an action under the Maryland Health Care Malpractice Claims Act.  The defendant waived arbitration, which triggered the 60-day window in which the plaintiff must file his complaint in circuit court.  The plaintiff missed the deadline, however, and did not file the complaint until five months later.  The defendant moved to dismiss, arguing that the delay was inherently prejudicial.  The circuit court granted the motion, and the plaintiff appealed.

Continue reading

A Maryland wrongful death action may be brought by the decedent’s surviving family members against the party or parties who are liable for their death.  In a June 16, 2020 wrongful death case, the decedent died at the age of 21 as a result of cardiac arrest following an acute asthma attack.  His parents and estate filed suit, asserting wrongful death and related claims against the county, as well as the paramedic and emergency medical technician (EMT) who assisted him.  The case came before the Court of Special Appeals of Maryland after the lower court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants.

Shortly before his death, the decedent began experiencing difficulty breathing while at a friend’s house.  Responding to the 911 call for the decedent, the emergency medical service providers arrived on the scene and transported the decedent to the hospital, where he later died.  The decedent’s survivors brought their wrongful death claim based on the defendants’ timing and propriety of their response.  The defendants then filed a motion for summary judgment on grounds of immunity, which the circuit court granted.  The appeal followed.

In Maryland, there are two laws that may provide a basis for immunity for paramedics and EMTs.  Under the Good Samaritan Act, a person is not liable for any act or omission while giving medical care if they were not grossly negligent, the medical assistance was free, and it was provided either at the scene of the emergency, or through communications with someone providing emergency assistance.  Under the Fire & Rescue Companies Act, the employees of a rescue company are immune from civil liability for any act or omission in the course of performing their duties.

Continue reading

Presenting sufficient evidence is crucial for a plaintiff to establish a Maryland personal injury claim.  Generally, the trial court will determine whether evidence is admissible, and therefore permitted to be shown to a jury.  In an April 16, 2020 opinion, the Court of Special Appeals of Maryland reviewed some of the disputed evidence in a lead paint case.  The appeal arose from a lawsuit filed by the plaintiff, who alleged that the defendant’s negligence resulted in her exposure to lead paint.  After a trial, the jury returned a verdict finding the defendant not guilty of negligence.  The plaintiff then sought review regarding the admissibility of certain evidence in the case.

The plaintiff in the case had lived at a property owned by the defendants from her birth in 1996 until 2008.  Her mother testified that the plaintiff had learned to sit, crawl, and walk at the property, and would put thing in her mouth that were on the floor, including paint chips and things with paint chips on them.  She also testified that the plaintiff had difficulty in school, specifically problems with focusing and concentrating.

At trial, the plaintiff sought to admit a lead testing survey report relied upon by her expert witness.  The defendant objected in that the report was prepared by someone whom the expert had trained.  The trial court ruled that the expert could testify about the data in the report, but that the report could not be admitted or given to the jury for their interpretation.  At the close of trial, the jury found in favor of the defendant.  One of the issues argued by the plaintiff on appeal was that the trial court had erred by not allowing the lead testing survey report.

Continue reading

A Maryland personal injury claim may be based on the intentional or negligent conduct of another person.  Bringing a legal action against law enforcement officers for injuries may require specific considerations.  In a June 2, 2020 opinion, the Maryland Court of Appeals reviewed a case brought by the estate of an individual against a city police officer.  The matter had been tried before a jury, which awarded damages to the plaintiff after finding the police officer used excessive force during the encounter.  The Court of Special Appeals subsequently overturned the jury’s finding, and the plaintiff sought review from the Maryland Court of Appeals.

The decedent in the case had been pulled over by the officer after driving on the wrong side of the road.  A surveillance video showed the decedent exiting his vehicle and approaching the officer, but did not show whether the decedent was armed.  Testimony revealed that the officer fired four shots at the decedent, who was unarmed.  The decedent was treated for his injuries but died due to causes unrelated to the incident, and his estate filed the action against the officer on his behalf.

In a Maryland excessive force case, the plaintiff has the burden to establish that the law enforcement officer exceeded the level of force an objectively reasonable officer would use under the same or similar situation.  To determine whether a police officer has used excessive force, the jury must consider circumstances such as the severity of the crime at issue, whether the suspect posed an immediate threat to the safety of the officers or others, whether he was actively resisting arrest or attempting to evade arrest by fleeing, and that law enforcement officers are often forced to make split-second judgments in situations that are tense, uncertain, and rapidly evolving.  A law enforcement officer may only use deadly force when the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a threat of serious physical harm, either to the officer or others.

Continue reading

The Maryland Health Care Malpractice Claims Act governs medical malpractice actions in Maryland.  To file a claim under the Act, a plaintiff must follow the requirements provided therein.  In a May 26, 2020 case, the Court of Special Appeals of Maryland analyzed whether the plaintiff had complied with the certification requirements under the Act.  The issue came before the court on appeal by the plaintiff, who had filed a negligence claim against a hospital.

The plaintiff in the case alleged that he suffered injuries as a result of the defendant’s employees negligently dropping him into a chair during the course of his recovery from back surgery.  In accordance with the Act’s requirements, the plaintiff filed a Certificate of Qualified Expert and Report.  The certificate was completed and signed by a registered nurse.  The plaintiff then filed an election to waive arbitration and proceed in circuit court, which was granted.

In circuit court, the defendant filed a motion to dismiss based on the ground that the certificate was deficient because it was signed by a registered nurse, and not by a medical doctor.  The trial court agreed with the defendant, finding that the certificate was deficient and dismissed the plaintiff’s complaint.  The plaintiff brought the subsequent appeal.

Continue reading

Although medical expenses and other losses resulting from a car accident may be covered under more than one insurance policy, as a general rule, you cannot recover duplicate benefits for the same incident.  A Maryland injury attorney can help by pursuing the maximum benefits allowable under the facts of a specific case.

A March 18, 2020 case involving a pedestrian-auto accident illustrates some issues that may arise when multiple sources of coverage may be available.  The plaintiff in the case was on foot and about to enter his company vehicle when he was struck by a car.  He sustained injuries as a result of the accident, which he alleged caused damages of approximately $90,000 to $100,000.

The driver’s insurance company agreed to pay the $30,000 policy limit to the plaintiff.  Because the accident occurred while the plaintiff was working, he filed a claim for workers’ compensation benefits, for which he received almost $46,000.  The plaintiff was also covered under the insurance policy for the company vehicle, which provided underinsured motorist coverage up to $50,000 per person.  The plaintiff filed suit against the insurer of the company vehicle to recover underinsured motorist benefits.

Continue reading

Employers and landowners generally have a duty to keep the property safe for individuals hired to perform work on the premises.  In a May 12, 2020 Maryland personal injury case, the plaintiff sued the owners of a manufacturing plant after falling into a trench on the property.  After the circuit court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants, the case came before the Court of Special Appeals of Maryland on appeal by the plaintiff.

The plaintiff in the case worked for an independent contractor, who was hired by the defendants to renovate the floor and trench system of their manufacturing plant.  One day, the plaintiff’s supervisor instructed him to see someone working in a different building of the plant.  Once the plaintiff entered the building, he saw someone struggling with a piece of plywood and went to assist him.  The plaintiff picked up one end of the plywood and as he stepped forward, he fell into a two-foot trench.  The plaintiff filed a personal injury suit against the plant owners, alleging negligence.

In Maryland, employers of independent contractors must adhere to the safe workplace doctrine.  Under the doctrine, the employer must warn the employee of any concealed or latent dangers, of which the employer knows or should know with the exercise of ordinary care.  However, an employer or premises owner can discharge their duty to warn employees of an independent contractor by notifying the independent contractor or his supervisory employees of the latent danger.

Continue reading

Contact Information