Maryland Personal Injury Blog

Maryland Car Accident Victim Sues Her Insurer for Uninsured Motorist Coverage

April 3, 2018 | by Foran & Foran, P.A.

Fighting with an insurance company after a car accident can be frustrating and burdensome. Accordingly, many people choose to hire a Maryland personal injury attorney to help resolve their claim and obtain payment for their losses. As demonstrated in a February 22, 2018 case, an accident victim can bring suit against her own insurance company if it refuses coverage for a valid claim.

The plaintiff in the case was involved in a car accident with an uninsured driver and went to the hospital for medical treatment. She notified the defendant, her insurance company, of the accident. The defendant denied the plaintiff’s claim for uninsured motorist coverage of her medical expenses and other damages arising from the accident. The defendant asserted that the plaintiff did not qualify as a family member covered under the policy because she was not a resident of the named insured’s household at the time of the accident.

After the denial of her claim, the plaintiff filed suit against the defendant in district court, alleging that the defendant breached the insurance contract. She sought damages for her medical bills, pain and suffering, and car rental costs. After a trial, the court ruled that the plaintiff was a temporary resident of the named insured’s household at the time of the accident, and as a result, she was entitled to uninsured motorist coverage under his automobile policy. The plaintiff was awarded a judgment against the defendant for her medical bills and general damages.

Maryland Court Reverses Verdict in Medical Malpractice Case Based on Improper Jury Instruction

April 3, 2018 | by Foran & Foran, P.A.

If you have been injured by negligent medical treatment, you may be able to bring a Maryland medical malpractice claim against the health care provider who was responsible. In a recent medical malpractice case, the plaintiff won on his claim against his neurosurgeon and was awarded compensation for his losses by the jury. The defendant appealed the matter to the Court of Special Appeals of Maryland, which issued a ruling on September 1, 2017.

The plaintiff in the case had suffered years of neck and shoulder pain and numbness in his right hand. The defendant performed surgery to remove damaged discs from the plaintiff’s cervical spine. The plaintiff’s recovery was difficult, and some five months after the operation, the plaintiff tested positive for a Staph infection. At trial, the plaintiff’s expert witness testified that the defendant and his staff were too slow in diagnosing and treating the infection. The jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff, finding that the defendant was negligent.

The primary issue on appeal was whether the jury instructions were proper. The jury in the case was given instructions in terms of the standard of care that should be employed by a reasonably competent health care provider engaged in a similar practice and acting in similar circumstances. However, in addition, an instruction was provided on the general negligence concept of foreseeable circumstances, describing how a reasonable person changes their conduct according to the circumstances and danger that is known or would be appreciated by a reasonable person. On appeal, the defendant argued that the jury instruction sounding in general negligence principles was prejudicial.

Maryland Plaintiffs Successfully Appeal Judgment in Wrongful Death Case Against Restaurant

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

In a Maryland wrongful death action, family members of an accident victim seek compensation for the loss of their loved one. The Court of Special Appeals of Maryland recently examined the statutory time limits to bring a wrongful death claim in a September 1, 2017 case. The decedent in the case had been repairing an HVAC unit on the roof of a Maryland restaurant when he fell 20 feet, suffering fatal injuries. The decedent’s survivors filed a wrongful death action, alleging negligence and premises liability claims against the shopping center, the property management company, and the restaurant. After the circuit court ruled that Maryland’s statute of repose barred the plaintiffs’ claims, they appealed to the higher court.

In Maryland, the statute of limitations provides that a person must file a wrongful death claim arising out of premises liability within three years of the date of accrual of the cause of action. The statute of repose, however, limits that period to no later than 20 years from the date that the defective and unsafe condition of the property was available for its intended use. The statute of repose also includes four subsections that indicate situations in which the 20-year limitation would not apply. The first subsection provides an exemption when the defendant was in actual possession and control of the property as owner, tenant, or otherwise when the injury occurred, as the defendants were in the current case. The remaining three subsections relate to certain asbestos manufacturers and suppliers. These four subsections are linked by the conjunction “or.”

The question for the court on appeal was whether the “or” should be interpreted as disjunctive, indicating four separate exceptions, or conjunctive, indicating that the defendant must be in actual possession of the property as well as meet the asbestos-related requirements provided in the other three subsections. To decide the matter, the court looked at the legislative history, prior amendments to the statute, and case law describing the purpose of the statute.

Maryland Plaintiff Files Wrongful Death Action Against Gym After Husband Suffers Heart Attack

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

In some negligence actions, a defendant’s duty of care can arise from a law enacted to protect the plaintiff and others similarly situated. In a July 25, 2017 case, the plaintiff brought a Maryland wrongful death action against a fitness center after her husband died from cardiac arrest while playing basketball there. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant had a duty to use the automated external defibrillator (AED) that it had installed at its facility, pursuant to statutory requirements.

The decedent had been playing basketball at the defendant’s facility when he suddenly collapsed. A fitness instructor employed by the defendant began to administer CPR, while other people called 911. Although the facility had an AED that was just outside the doors of the basketball court, and despite the fact that the fitness instructor had 20 years of experience in administering life support and resuscitation measures, including the use of an AED, the fitness instructor did not retrieve the AED or ask anyone to retrieve it for her. When the paramedics arrived, they were notified of the defendant’s AED and used it on the decedent, but they were unsuccessful in resuscitating him.

To prove negligence per se, the plaintiff must show the violation of a law designed to protect a specific class of persons that includes the plaintiff, and the violation must have proximately caused the plaintiff’s injury. The primary issue before the Court of Special Appeals, therefore, was whether the Maryland statute at issue prescribed a duty of care requiring the defendant to use an AED to provide cardiac defibrillation to someone who has suffered sudden cardiac arrest.

The court first looked at the language of the statute. The statute at issue was designed to encourage the installation of AEDs in places of business and public accommodation, and ensure that the devices are operable and are used by people who are properly trained to use them. The statute requires a facility with an available AED to possess a valid certificate from the EMS Board. To obtain a certificate, the facility must qualify by meeting several requirements, which the defendant in the case had done.

Maryland Plaintiff Wins Case Against County, Police Department After Violent Arrest

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

A Maryland personal injury claim can arise out of careless or even intentional conduct. Recently, a Maryland plaintiff won his case against a county and police department for acts that occurred during his arrest. The plaintiff brought claims of battery, assault, malicious prosecution, false arrest, false imprisonment, and constitutional violations, as well as intentional infliction of emotional distress and negligence. After a trial, the jury determined that the police officers involved in the arrest were liable on some of the claims and awarded the plaintiff a total of $600,000. In an August 15, 2017 opinion, the Court of Special Appeals of Maryland considered the government’s argument that the award should be capped pursuant to the Local Government Tort Claims Act.

The Local Government Tort Claims Act applies to the tortious acts or omissions of local government employees, committed within the scope of their employment and without actual malice. Under the Act, local government employees have qualified immunity from liability for such acts or omissions. The Act requires the local government to provide a legal defense for its employees in these types of actions, and it shifts liability to the local government to cover any judgment against an employee.

The Act also establishes limits on the government’s liability, capping the amount of damages that may be paid. Specifically, the Act limits the liability of the local government to $200,000 per individual claim, and $500,000 per total claims that arise from the same occurrence. On appeal, the government argued that the plaintiff asserted only one set of aggregate, operative facts, giving rise to one individual claim under the Act. The primary question for the Court of Special Appeals of Maryland, therefore, was whether each of several causes of action alleged by the plaintiff constituted one individual claim.

Maryland Gunshot Victim Files Negligence Claim Against Security Guard’s Employer

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

To succeed on a Maryland injury claim, the plaintiff must prove all of the required elements, including that the defendant owed the plaintiff a duty of care. In a July 12, 2017 case, the Court of Special Appeals of Maryland considered whether an employer owed a duty to someone who was shot by its employee. The plaintiffs in the case sued the defendant-employer for the actions of its employee under a negligence theory. After the lower court granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss, the plaintiffs appealed.

The defendant in the case was a security company that employed a guard to pick up cash deposits in an armored vehicle. After a group of robbers stole money from the guard and drove away, the guard fired shots at their car, hitting the rear tire and striking one of the robbers. The robbers continued driving for another mile before seeing the plaintiff by his parked car. The robbers jumped out of their vehicle, shot the plaintiff twice in the head, and stole his car. In his lawsuit, the plaintiff alleged that the security company owed him a duty of care to protect him from the actions of the robbers because its employee had shot at the robbers’ vehicle, creating a previously non-existent risk of harm to the plaintiff.

To prove a negligence claim in Maryland, the plaintiff must establish that the defendant was under a duty to protect the plaintiff from injury, the defendant breached that duty, and the plaintiff suffered an injury as a result of the defendant’s breach of duty. Generally, a private person is under no special duty to protect another person from criminal acts by a third person. There are three exceptions, however: (1) if the defendant has control over the conduct of the third party; (2) if there is a special relationship between the defendant and the third person or between the defendant and the plaintiff; or (3) if there is a statute or ordinance that is designed to protect a specific class of people.

Maryland Car Accident Victim Seeks Damages from Driver Who Ran a Red Light

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

In Maryland personal injury cases, the plaintiff must prove the amount of damages caused by the defendant’s negligence. In a July 6, 2017 case, the Court of Special Appeals of Maryland reviewed the jury’s verdict in a negligence claim arising out of a car accident. At the trial, the defendant stipulated that he was responsible for causing the accident by running a red light. The question for the jury was whether, and in what amount, the plaintiff was entitled to damages. When the jury returned a verdict of zero dollars, the plaintiff brought an appeal, arguing that the court should have granted her request for a new trial.

In the case, the plaintiff was driving her car when it was struck by a vehicle operated by the defendant, who drove through a red light. The plaintiff suffered injuries to her neck, which were treated with physical therapy and injections of anti-inflammatory medication in the months following the accident. At trial, the testimony of the plaintiff’s doctors differed on the amount of physical therapy that was necessary after the accident, but they agreed that some treatment was reasonable and causally connected to the accident. There was also testimony that the plaintiff had spinal problems for which she had sought treatment several months before the accident.

On appeal, the plaintiff argued that the trial court erred in refusing to grant a new trial because the verdict for the defendant was not supported by the evidence. The plaintiff pointed to the facts that the defendant admitted responsibility for the accident and that her doctors agreed that medical treatment was necessary and causally connected to the crash.

Maryland Court Considers Plaintiff’s Appeal in Negligence Claim Against Transportation Company

August 14, 2017 | by Foran & Foran, P.A.

The law holds people and businesses responsible for injuries caused by their negligent conduct. In a July 19, 2017 case, the Court of Special Appeals considered a Maryland injury claim brought on appeal by a plaintiff against a bus transportation business. The plaintiff filed the appeal after a jury found in favor of the defendant.

The victim in the case was a double amputee who required the use of a wheelchair for mobility. The victim had hired the defendant’s bus transportation company to transport him to his home. As the driver attempted to load the victim into the transport bus, his wheelchair rolled backwards and fell off the bus’ lift. The fall sent the victim crashing to the ground and broke his neck. The victim spent the next few months in the hospital before passing away from his injuries. The victim’s estate filed suit against the driver and the bus transportation company, alleging negligence. After a trial, the jury found that the victim’s injuries were not results of the driver’s negligence.

On appeal, the plaintiff argued that the trial court erred by striking the testimony of the plaintiff’s expert. In Maryland, before allowing expert testimony, a trial court must make the following determinations: (1) whether the witness is qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education, (2) whether the expert testimony is appropriate on the particular subject, and (3) whether a sufficient factual basis exists to support the expert testimony. With respect to the third element, an expert’s opinion testimony must be based on an adequate factual basis so that it does not amount to conjecture, speculation, or incompetent evidence. They cannot simply hazard guesses, however educated, based on their credentials.

Maryland Plaintiff Pursues Medical Malpractice Claim Arising from Hip-Replacement Surgery

August 10, 2017 | by Foran & Foran, P.A.

The timing of a Maryland medical malpractice case is important. If filed too late, the defendants may invoke the statute of limitations to prevent the action from proceeding. In a July 20, 2017 case, the Court of Special Appeals of Maryland decided whether the lower court correctly dismissed the plaintiff’s case as barred by the statute of limitations.

The defendant had performed hip-replacement surgeries on the plaintiff in 2005 and 2010. Although the plaintiff experienced significantly worse pain after the 2010 procedure, the defendant never informed her that her symptoms were anything other than normal results of a successful surgery. The plaintiff consulted another orthopedic surgeon on December 6, 2010, who informed her that she would need a corrective surgery. On January 7, 2011, the plaintiff opened a letter from her insurance company, advising that there had been a recall of certain prosthetic hip components, and it was likely that she had received one of the recalled components when the defendant performed her right hip replacement in April 2010. The plaintiff filed her malpractice claims against the defendant on January 2, 2014.

In Maryland, the statute of limitations requires professional liability claims against health care providers to be filed within the earlier of: (1) five years from the time the injury was inflicted; or (2) three years from the date the injury was discovered. The key issue in the case was when the plaintiff became aware of facts that would have caused a reasonable patient to investigate a potential malpractice claim against the defendant. That issue was complicated by the fact that, in the field of medicine, an unsuccessful result alone does not necessarily establish negligence on the part of the health care provider. Instead, to establish a claim of medical injury, a plaintiff must prove not only a bad result but also a breach of the standard of care that was a proximate cause of the bad result.

Maryland Plaintiff Files Negligence Claim Against Retail Store After Injury from Falling Object

August 9, 2017 | by Foran & Foran, P.A.

Accidents can happen anywhere, but when they are caused by a careless person or business, the victim may be able to pursue compensation through a negligence claim. The Court of Special Appeals of Maryland decided a July 14, 2017 appeal involving a plaintiff who had been injured in a retail store. The plaintiff in the case was shopping in the defendants’ department store when a cast iron griddle fell from a bottom shelf and landed on her right foot. She brought negligence claims against the store owners, based on the legal theory of res ipsa loquitur. Following trial, the jury found in favor of the plaintiff. However, after the trial court entered a judgment notwithstanding the verdict in favor of the defendants, the plaintiff brought the current appeal.

In a negligence action, the plaintiff must present evidence tending to show that the defendant was legally responsible for her injury, although direct proof of negligence is not required. The plaintiff may instead invoke res ipsa to rely on an inference of negligence to be deduced from all of the circumstances. In Maryland, this requires the plaintiff to establish that the accident was (1) of a kind that does not ordinarily occur without negligence on the part of the defendant, (2) caused by an instrumentality exclusively in the defendant’s control, and (3) not caused by an act or omission of the plaintiff. If and when a plaintiff satisfies these three elements, res ipsa permits but does not compel the jury to infer a defendant’s negligence without the aid of any direct evidence.

On appeal, the court explained that, to satisfy the latter two elements of res ipsa, the plaintiff had the burden of proving that the falling griddle was more likely than not a result of the negligence of the defendants. The plaintiff must also demonstrate that the combined likelihood that her own negligence or that of a third party caused the griddle to fall was less than 50%. As a result, the court focused on whether there was evidence to demonstrate the defendants’ exclusive control of the griddle.