Maryland Personal Injury Blog

Maryland Court of Appeals Rules Medical Records Were Properly Disclosed to Jury in Car Accident Case

May 8, 2018 | by Foran & Foran, P.A.

When pursuing a lawsuit for personal injury damages arising out of a Maryland car accident, the plaintiff must prove the amount of loss caused by the defendant’s negligence. The defense can present its own evidence and witnesses to rebut the plaintiff’s proof. In a February 2, 2017 decision by the Court of Appeals of Maryland, the primary issue was whether the trial court erred by allowing the jury to view medical records used by an expert witness in giving his opinion.

The plaintiff in the case was a passenger in a vehicle that was rear-ended by the defendant. Over the next three years, the plaintiff was treated for a variety of health issues, including her shoulder. She filed suit against the defendant, alleging that the defendant’s negligent driving caused her injuries. While a rear-end accident is almost always caused by negligent driving, the main focus at trial was whether all of the plaintiff’s alleged injuries were caused by the accident.

During the trial, the defendant presented his expert witness, an orthopedic surgeon who had examined the plaintiff pursuant to the litigation. The expert testified that, based on his examination of the plaintiff and a review of her medical records, he believed many of the plaintiff’s injuries were not caused by the accident but instead were results of preexisting or unrelated conditions. Although the plaintiff had not introduced some of her prior medical records into evidence, the defendant moved to enter them into evidence. The trial court ruled that since the expert had relied on them in forming his opinion, the records could be admitted into evidence and shared with the jury.

Plaintiffs Assert Circumstantial Evidence to Support Maryland Asbestos Lawsuit

May 7, 2018 | by Foran & Foran, P.A.

Exposure to asbestos-containing products is associated with serious illnesses such as mesothelioma and asbestosis, particularly in people who have had occupational exposure. In a November 20, 2017 wrongful death action before the Court of Special Appeals of Maryland, the issue was whether the plaintiffs had produced sufficient evidence to create a question of fact for a jury to decide. After the trial court had granted a summary judgment motion in favor of the defendants, the plaintiffs appealed.

The decedent in the case had worked at a shipyard for many years as a machinist and mechanic. His duties frequently involved removing and replacing insulation, which often contained asbestos, on large commercial and military ships. The decedent filed a complaint in 2004 against the defendants, an asbestos company and an asbestos settlement trust. When he passed away in 2013, the case was amended to include a survival action claim and a wrongful death claim on behalf of his spouse and son.

The plaintiffs did not present direct evidence of the particular insulation companies that worked closely with the decedent. They relied on the inference that the sheer number of ships on which the decedent had worked in close proximity to employees with known exposure to asbestos dust, combined with evidence that the defendants had a presence at the shipyard, was sufficient to allow the case to survive a summary judgment motion.

Maryland Plaintiff Objects to Admission of Expert’s Testimony in Medical Malpractice Appeal

April 27, 2018 | by Foran & Foran, P.A.

In a civil lawsuit, opposing parties are required to share some information related to their claims and defenses during the discovery process. If a dispute arises, the parties are expected to resolve the matter between themselves and turn to the court for intervention only as a last resort. A January 17, 2018 case before the Special Appeals Court demonstrates how these issues may come up in a Maryland medical malpractice claim.

The plaintiff in the case alleged that the defendants were negligent in performing an upper endoscopy procedure that was necessary to treat the decedent’s esophageal cancer. During the procedure, the decedent’s esophagus was perforated, which the doctor treated with a stent. Two weeks later, the doctor had to perform a second surgery to repair the perforation. In the six months following the surgeries, the decedent suffered from a variety of health problems. She had a preexisting history of chronic pancreatitis that worsened and required surgery on her pancreas. During her recovery from the pancreatic surgery, the decedent developed complications, including sepsis, and died six days later.

The plaintiff filed suit against the hospital, alleging that the doctor was negligent and breached the standard of care when he perforated the decedent’s esophagus and that this breach started the decline that ultimately caused her death seven months later. Following a trial, the jury returned a verdict in favor of the defendant. The plaintiff appealed and challenged the trial court’s decision to admit the defendant’s expert witness and certain evidence into trial. Specifically, he argued that the defendant made an expert witness designation that was not complete and also failed to identify physical exhibits in a timely manner.

Maryland Plaintiff Successfully Appeals to Bring Some Negligence Claims Against Nursing Home

April 26, 2018 | by Foran & Foran, P.A.

Although the Maryland Health Care Malpractice Claims Act (HCA) covers most injuries arising out of medical malpractice, some injuries seemingly overlap with ordinary negligence. In a January 19, 2018 case, the Court of Appeals of Maryland examined whether claims for negligence and other related causes of action alleged a medical injury within the meaning of the HCA.

In the case, the plaintiff and her husband sued a nursing care facility for injuries the plaintiff suffered during her stay there. The plaintiff’s injuries were caused when she fell from her bed, allegedly caused by the defendant’s failure to properly secure her mattress to the bed frame. A mechanical lift was used to raise the plaintiff from the floor, but the lift released and dropped her again onto the floor instead of returning her to the bed.

The lawsuit was dismissed by the trial court for failure to file with the Health Care Alternative Dispute Resolute Office (ADR Office) first. The plaintiffs appealed the decision. The basic question on appeal was whether the plaintiffs’ claims were medical injuries. If the claims alleged were found to be medical injuries within the HCA, they were required to file them in the ADR Office as a condition precedent to their court action. If not, they were free to bring their claims as a non-medical negligence case in the circuit court.

Maryland Car Accident Victims Sue Insurer After Claim Denied Under Policy Exclusion

April 25, 2018 | by Foran & Foran, P.A.

Disagreements between victims and an insurance company regarding coverage for a car accident are common. In some instances, legal action is taken to address the dispute. In a January 8, 2018 case, the plaintiffs brought suit against their insurance company for denying their claim. After the trial court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, the insurance company appealed to the Court of Special Appeals of Maryland.

The plaintiffs in the case owned two vehicles, which were insured by two different insurance companies. One car was insured by the defendant with uninsured/underinsured limits of $100,000. Their van was insured by a different company under a policy with uninsured/underinsured limits of $50,000.

The plaintiffs were driving the van when another car collided with them. The other driver was determined to be at fault for the accident. Accordingly, the driver’s insurance company settled with the plaintiffs for the full amount of the driver’s policy limit of $50,000. The plaintiffs then filed a uninsured/underinsured claim under their policy with the defendant on their other car, seeking coverage in excess of the $50,000 settlement. The defendant denied the plaintiffs’ claim for uninsured/underinsured coverage, based on the owned-but-otherwise-insured exclusion.

Maryland Court Reviews Jury Verdict in Rear-End Automobile Collision

April 24, 2018 | by Foran & Foran, P.A.

In many cases, a rear-end car accident is caused by a negligent driver. In order to recover compensation from the other driver, however, a plaintiff must prove that he also suffered an injury or loss and that his injuries were caused by the driver’s negligence. In a January 3, 2018 case, the Court of Special Appeals of Maryland reviewed a personal injury claim involving a rear-end accident. The parties stipulated that the defendant was negligent in causing the accident, but they left the issues of causation and damages for the jury to decide. After the jury returned a verdict in favor of the defendant, the plaintiff appealed.

In the case, the defendant rear-ended the plaintiff as he was stopped at a red light at an intersection. The impact caused the plaintiff’s car to collide with an SUV that was in front of his. Nevertheless, the plaintiff’s airbags did not deploy, and there was no damage to the vehicles other than a scratch to the plaintiff’s rear bumper. The parties were able to drive away from the accident scene, and the defendant was uninjured.

The plaintiff dropped off his passenger after the accident and drove himself to the emergency room. The doctors took an x-ray of his shoulder and said he could return to work in two days. A week later, the plaintiff sought treatment from his primary care physician, who referred him to another doctor. The doctor treated the plaintiff over the course of two years, providing rehab and physical therapy services. The plaintiff was able to continue playing sports throughout the time.

Maryland Court Holds Out-of-State Insurance Policy Excluding Coverage for Lead Exposure Does Not Violate Public Policy

April 23, 2018 | by Foran & Foran, P.A.

With the state’s abundance of older buildings and housing structures, many Maryland residents have suffered from exposure to lead-based paint. Some Maryland lead paint victims have pursued a negligence claim against their landlords and property owners to recover compensation for their injuries. A December 18, 2017 decision by the Court of Appeals of Maryland is relevant to consider when bringing a claim arising out of lead exposure, particularly against out-of-state insurance companies and property owners.

The matter was brought before the Maryland court by the U.S. District Court, before which was pending a lead paint case. The District Court sought an answer to the question of whether the pollution exclusion contained in the defendant’s Georgia insurance policy, which excluded coverage for bodily injuries resulting from the ingestion of lead-based paint, violated Maryland public policy.

The plaintiffs in the case had been exposed to lead-based paint at a property owned by the defendant in Maryland. The plaintiffs brought suit against the defendant and the defendant’s insurance company, claiming that the insurance company was obligated to indemnify the defendant. The insurance company contended that it was under no such obligation, since the defendant’s general liability insurance policy, which was purchased in Georgia, did not cover injuries resulting from pollutants such as lead-based paint. The plaintiffs argued that the exclusion, although valid under Georgia law, was against Maryland’s public policy and could not be enforced in the state.

Maryland Gunshot Victim Wins Claim for Insurance Coverage of Pub’s Negligence Settlement

April 22, 2018 | by Foran & Foran, P.A.

Insurance coverage can be crucial if substantial damages are awarded in a personal injury claim. In some instances, the plaintiff must undergo another court battle against the defendant’s insurance company to obtain a judgment. Guidance from an experienced Maryland premises liability attorney is particularly beneficial in cases involving insurance firms, as demonstrated in a July 27, 2017 case.

The plaintiff in the case had visited a pub to watch a basketball game. As he was opening the door to exit the pub, he was struck by a bullet. The shooter was neither apprehended nor identified. The pub and the plaintiff reached a consent judgment agreement, in which the pub admitted negligence and agreed to a settlement of $100,000 for medical expenses and noneconomic damages. Thereafter, the plaintiff made a demand on the pub’s insurance company for payment of the settlement, which was denied. The plaintiff then filed an action for breach of contract against the insurance company. The trial court ruled in favor of the plaintiff and awarded damages in the amount of $100,000. The insurance company appealed the decision to the Court of Special Appeals of Maryland.

The policy at issue contained an provision that excluded coverage for bodily injuries arising out of assault and battery. The primary issue for the court, therefore, was whether or not the shooting incident constituted a battery under the policy exclusion. The appeals court noted that there was no evidence regarding the identity of the shooter or whether the shooting was intentional or accidental. The absence of such evidence also raised the question of whether the intent of the shooter must be established to distinguish the injury from one that arises out of an accident. The court answered the question affirmatively, explaining that if evidence of intent was not necessary, virtually all bodily injuries caused by another person would be barred under the policy exclusion, including accidental injuries.

Maryland Court Reverses Summary Judgment, Enabling Plaintiff to Advance Lead Exposure Case

April 21, 2018 | by Foran & Foran, P.A.

Failing to follow procedural rules and deadlines set in a court case can result in serious consequences, including dismissal. In a November 9, 2017 Maryland lead paint case before the Court of Special Appeals of Maryland, the plaintiff sought to reverse a summary judgment entered by the trial court on her negligence claim, stemming from a missed discovery deadline.

In the case, the plaintiff alleged that she had been poisoned by lead-based paint while living in a property owned and managed by the defendants. The plaintiff had identified an expert witness to testify regarding his opinion that the defendant’s property contained lead-based paint and that the plaintiff’s exposure to that lead-based paint caused her injuries. The plaintiff had also obtained a report from an environmental testing company that found lead in the defendant’s property, but the report wasn’t completed and produced until 14 days after the discovery period closed.

The defendants moved to strike the report from evidence as untimely, and to strike the expert’s testimony on the ground that he lacked a sufficient factual basis for his opinion, i.e., the report. The trial court granted the motions to strike. The defendants then moved for summary judgment, based on the lack of expert testimony. The trial court granted the motion, denying the plaintiff any recovery for her injuries. The plaintiff then brought an appeal.

Maryland Plaintiffs Seek Underinsured Motorist Coverage Through Victim’s Employer After Death

April 20, 2018 | by Foran & Foran, P.A.

If a negligent driver doesn’t have adequate insurance to fully compensate you for the loss you suffered in an accident, you may have to seek uninsured or underinsured coverage from your own insurance company. You can avoid some frustration by hiring an experienced Maryland car accident attorney to advance your claim and pursue damages in court upon a denial, as the plaintiffs did in a November 3, 2017 case before the Court of Special Appeals of Maryland. After their insurance company denied coverage for the wrongful death of their son, the plaintiffs filed a lawsuit against them in court.

The victim in the case was killed on the job by a motorist as he was directing traffic in a construction zone. The company for which the victim worked was insured by the defendant. The surviving family members sought to collect underinsured motor vehicle benefits from the defendant, after the motorist’s insurance coverage of $100,000 had been paid out and was exhausted. The defendant denied the claim, alleging that the employer’s policy with the defendant did not provide uninsured or underinsured coverage for its employees or their survivors.

Generally, Maryland courts will first look at the insurance policy contract to determine the rights and obligations of the parties, interpreting the plain meaning of the language. Only when the language is ambiguous may the court consider evidence outside the context of the contract.