Maryland Personal Injury Blog

Maryland Court Discusses Doctrine of Res Ipsa Loquitur in Personal Injury Appeal

June 3, 2016 | by Foran & Foran, P.A.

In a recent case, the Court of Special Appeals of Maryland reviewed a personal injury claim in which a judgment in favor of the defendant was granted by the trial court. In Cohen v. Veolia Transp. Servs., Inc. (Md. Ct. Spec. App. Feb. 29, 2016), the plaintiff alleged that she sustained personal injuries while being transported in a mobility van when the motorized scooter on which she was seated tipped over. The plaintiff claimed that the defendant’s employee was negligent in failing to secure the scooter to the floor of the van. At trial, the plaintiff relied on the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur to establish a prima facie case of negligence. The trial court held that it did not apply, and it granted the defendant’s motion for judgment at the conclusion of the plaintiff’s case.

Res ipsa loquitur allows a plaintiff to establish a prima facie case of negligence when direct evidence of the cause of the accident is unavailable, and circumstantial evidence permits the inference that the defendant’s negligence was the cause. The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur will be available if the accident or injury is one that ordinarily would not occur without negligence on the part of the operator of the vehicle, and the facts are so clear and certain that an inference of negligence arises naturally. In effect, res ipsa loquitur allows the plaintiff to present the question of negligence to the fact-finder, notwithstanding a lack of direct evidence bearing on causation.

Maryland Court Allows Evidence of Superseding Causation in Medical Malpractice Case

June 2, 2016 | by Foran & Foran, P.A.

The Court of Special Appeals of Maryland recently reviewed a medical malpractice case involving issues of admissible evidence to prove superseding negligence. In Copsey v. Park (Md. Ct. Spec. App. Apr. 21, 2016), the surviving family of the decedent brought an action against the treating physician, alleging that the defendant negligently misread the decedent’s MRI six days before he suffered a massive, and ultimately fatal, stroke. The trial court allowed the physician-defendant to present evidence of negligence by other physicians who had treated the decedent after the defendant, and then the court instructed the jury on superseding causation at the end of the trial. On appeal, the survivors contended that the circuit court erred in admitting evidence of the negligence of subsequent treating physicians and instructing the jury on superseding causation.

Medical malpractice, or negligence, is the failure of a medical professional to meet the appropriate standard of care when treating a patient. In order to establish medical malpractice, a plaintiff must also prove that the physician’s negligent conduct caused the injury alleged in the lawsuit. In Maryland, courts have held that evidence of both negligence and causation attributable to a non-party is admissible in medical malpractice actions when the defendant asserts a complete denial of liability. In Copsey, the appeals court held that it doesn’t matter whether the alleged third-party negligence occurred before or after the defendant treated the patient, since without such evidence, the jury would be given a materially incomplete picture of the facts, and the defendant would be denied a fair trial. The court therefore found that the lower court did not err in allowing the defendant to present evidence of negligence on the part of other treating physicians.

Maryland Court of Special Appeals Rules Policy Exclusion Valid to Deny PIP Benefits

June 2, 2016 | by Foran & Foran, P.A.

Personal injury protection (PIP) coverage is offered by automobile insurance companies to cover additional medical costs and other expenses for personal injuries caused in car accidents, regardless of who was at fault for the accident. The Maryland Court of Special Appeals recently examined the availability of PIP coverage in Maryland Ins. Admin. v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. (Md. Ct. Spec. App. Mar. 15, 2016). At issue in the case was whether an exclusion in an automobile policy prevented an insured from receiving PIP coverage. The insured complained to the Maryland Insurance Administration (MIA) after being denied for PIP benefits, and the MIA imposed a penalty on the insurance company by ordering payment of PIP benefits with statutory interest. The decision was reversed by the circuit court, and subsequently appealed to the Court of Special Appeals.

The claimant was the owner of two vehicles, one of which was insured with the defendant insurance company under a policy that included PIP coverage. The other vehicle was driven as a taxicab and insured by a different insurance company under a policy that did not contain PIP coverage. The claimant was driving the taxicab when he was rear-ended by another automobile, causing personal injuries. The claimant filed for benefits with the defendant based on the policy covering the vehicle he was not driving. That policy contained a provision that excluded PIP coverage if the insured was in a vehicle he owned that was not insured under the policy. On appeal, MIA argued that Maryland law required the defendant to pay PIP benefits to its insured, regardless of the policy.

Maryland law requires insurers to provide coverage for the medical, hospital, and disability benefits for its insureds when they are injured in a motor vehicle accident, including an accident that involves an uninsured motor vehicle. The law, however, does allow insurers to exclude coverage for injuries that occur in uninsured vehicles owned by its insured. Since a taxicab is not within the statutory definition of motor vehicle, it is not required to carry PIP coverage as primary insurance for its occupants.

Maryland Court of Special Appeals Reviews Standard of Care in Medical Malpractice Case

March 31, 2016 | by Foran & Foran, P.A.

The Court of Special Appeals of Maryland recently reviewed a lower court’s decision granting summary judgment in favor of a physician-defendant in a medical malpractice case. In Puppolo v. Sivaraman, the plaintiff’s wife died as the result of the administration of heparin, an anticoagulant used to prevent blood clotting during dialysis. Heparin is not typically administered to patients with platelet levels below 50, since there is a high risk that heparin-induced thrombocytopenia, a serious and sometimes fatal condition, may occur. On December 23, 2008, although the plaintiff’s wife had a platelet level of 1, she was given two doses of heparin, and she died shortly thereafter.

The plaintiff brought a wrongful death claim against his wife’s doctor, alleging that he breached his duty of care by administering the heparin to his wife, or allowing it to be administered to her. In order to establish medical malpractice, the plaintiff must prove that the defendant owed a duty of care to the victim, the defendant breached the duty of care, the defendant’s actions caused the injury to the victim, and damages were incurred. Generally, expert medical testimony is required to prove the standard of care and what constitutes a breach of that standard.

In Puppolo, the evidence indicated that the doctor did not write an order for heparin and that one of the other resident doctors working in the hospital ordered the prescription. The plaintiff nevertheless contended that the defendant was liable for the resident’s breach of the standard of care under the borrowed servant rule. The lower court granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment, finding that there was nothing to support the plaintiff’s assertion that the defendant ordered, directed, approved, or controlled the ordering of heparin.

Maryland Arbitration Award Affirmed Due to Defendant’s Failure to Follow Procedural Requirements for Appeal

March 27, 2016 | by Foran & Foran, P.A.

The Court of Special Appeals of Maryland recently reviewed an appeal involving the arbitration of a medical malpractice claim in Castles of Love Assisted Living Homes, LLC v. Blanks (Md. Ct. Spec. App. Mar. 2, 2016). The issue on appeal was whether the defendant satisfied procedural rules when it sent notice of its rejection of a health care arbitration award by regular mail instead of certified mail.

In Castles of Love Assisted Living Homes, LLC, the plaintiff was a resident of a nursing home facility from 2008 until her death. The plaintiff filed a professional negligence complaint against the facility, alleging that she had sustained numerous injuries and was rendered mute due to an infection from a feeding tube while at the facility. The case was referred to arbitration pursuant to the Health Care Malpractice Claims Act. The arbitration panel found the facility liable for the plaintiff’s injuries and awarded $25,000 in non-economic damages as well as her arbitration costs.

The defendant sent a letter rejecting the panel’s findings and recommendations by certified mail to the Health Care Arbitration Office (HCAO), and a copy by regular mail to the plaintiff’s counsel. The defendant also attempted to vacate the award by filing a motion with the circuit court, which was denied because there was no open case. The HCAO then concluded that the defendant was bound by its decision because the defendant failed to properly serve the plaintiff with its rejection letter. The HCAO then filed a motion with the circuit court to confirm the award, which was granted. The defendant subsequently appealed the circuit court’s ruling.

Maryland Court Affirms Summary Judgment Against Plaintiff in Car Accident Case

March 25, 2016 | by Foran & Foran, P.A.

In a recent decision, the Court of Special Appeals of Maryland decided whether summary judgment was appropriate in the case of Farouq v. Curran (Md. Ct. Spec. App. Feb. 5, 2016). In Farouq, the plaintiff was struck and injured while waiting at a bus stop by a police vehicle that skidded as a result of wet road conditions. The plaintiff filed suit, alleging that the defendant police officer’s negligence led to the collision and was the cause of her injuries. The defendant filed a motion for summary judgment, contending that the plaintiff lacked sufficient evidence to establish negligence, and the motion was granted by the trial court. The plaintiff subsequently appealed that order.

In Maryland, a finding of negligence requires that the plaintiff allege and prove facts demonstrating that the defendant was under a duty to protect the plaintiff from injury, that the defendant breached that duty, that the plaintiff suffered an actual injury or loss, and that the loss or injury proximately resulted from the defendant’s breach of the duty.

In support of its motion for summary judgment, the defendant provided the affidavit of an expert accident reconstructionist who had investigated the scene. The expert reported that the roadway was very slippery and that the potential for loss of control could occur at any speed. In addition, the expert found that the defendant’s speed was approximately 17 miles per hour, which was lower than the posted speed limit of 30 miles per hour. On appeal, the plaintiff argued that since a jury is not required to accept the defendant’s expert testimony, it should not have been taken into consideration by the trial court. The Court of Special Appeals, however, held that a trial court may consider any admissible evidence in deciding a motion for summary judgment.

Maryland Court Affirms Summary Judgment in Slip and Fall Limo Case

March 23, 2016 | by Foran & Foran, P.A.

The Court of Special Appeals of Maryland recently ruled on an appeal in a personal injury claim that was halted when the trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendant. In Geibel v. Z Best Limousine Serv., Inc. (Md. Ct. Spec. App. Mar. 3, 2016), the plaintiff was a passenger in a limousine operated by the defendant. The interior floor of the limousine was hardwood, over which a custom-made carpet with rubber backing was cut to fit the floorboard of the limo. When the plaintiff exited the limousine, the carpet slipped, and she fell to the ground outside of the limo. The plaintiff brought suit against the defendant for injuries she sustained as a result of the fall.

After discovery was complete, the defendant filed a motion for summary judgment, contending that there was no evidence that the carpet runner in the limousine was in an unsafe condition or that the defendant had any knowledge of an allegedly unsafe condition. In addition, there had been no other accidents in the limousine in which other passengers had slipped on the carpet, or reports of any other problems with the carpet not being secure. The trial court granted the motion on the basis that there was no evidence that the defendant was aware or had reason to be aware of any defect in the carpet.

In Maryland, the duty that an owner of property owes to persons entering onto the property varies according to the visitor’s status as an invitee, a licensee by invitation (i.e., a social guest), a bare licensee, or a trespasser. The highest duty is owed to a business invitee, defined as one invited or permitted to enter another’s property for purposes related to the landowner’s business. In Geibel, the plaintiff was an invitee, and as such, the defendant owed her a duty to use reasonable and ordinary care to keep the limousine safe, and to protect the plaintiff from injury caused by an unreasonable risk, which the plaintiff, by exercising ordinary care for her own safety, would not discover.

Maryland Court Affirms Summary Judgment Against Plaintiff in Medical Malpractice Case

March 21, 2016 | by Foran & Foran, P.A.

The Court of Special Appeals of Maryland recently reviewed a trial court’s decision to grant summary judgment in favor of the defendants in a medical malpractice action. In Hannon v. Mercy Med. Ctr., Inc. (Md. Ct. Spec. App. Jan. 11, 2016), the plaintiffs brought a wrongful death and survival action against the doctor and hospital that treated the plaintiff’s father prior to his death. Three months before trial, the court allowed the plaintiffs’ counsel to withdraw. The plaintiffs were unable to retain new counsel less than a month later. When the plaintiffs were unable to secure their sole expert witness to testify at trial, the defendants filed a motion for summary judgment on the grounds that the plaintiffs could not make a prima facie case for medical malpractice. The circuit court granted the motion, and the plaintiffs appealed.

In Hannon, the plaintiffs designated a board-certified internist as their sole expert witness. The expert’s deposition was taken, and the plaintiffs informed the defendants that they intended to take a videotaped deposition of their expert for use at trial. However, two weeks before trial, the plaintiffs cancelled the expert’s deposition. On appeal, the plaintiffs argued that the discovery deposition was sufficient to establish their case and survive summary judgment. The defendants responded that the plaintiffs could not establish their case at trial without any expert testimony.

Maryland Court of Appeals Finds Sufficient Evidence Existed to Submit Plaintiff’s Claims to Jury

March 20, 2016 | by Foran & Foran, P.A.

The Maryland Court of Appeals released a decision in the case of Beall v. Holloway-Johnson, which involved a collision between a police vehicle and a motorcycle, resulting in the death of the motorcyclist. The motorcyclist’s mother brought a wrongful death lawsuit against the police officer and other defendants, claiming negligence, gross negligence, battery, and a violation of Article 24 of the Maryland Declaration of Rights. At trial, the lower court granted the defendant’s motion for judgment at the close of the plaintiff’s case on all the claims except negligence. The jury returned a $3.5 million verdict for compensatory damages in favor of the plaintiff, which was reduced to $200,000 to comply with the damages cap under the Local Government Tort Claims Act. On appeal, the Court of Special Appeals found that there was sufficient evidence to submit the plaintiff’s other claims to the jury, and that the counts alleged might also support an award of punitive damages. The Maryland Court of Appeals subsequently granted a writ of certiorari to consider the questions raised by the parties.

In Maryland, negligence is defined as conduct that falls below the standard established by law for the protection of others against unreasonable risks of harm. Gross negligence is more serious, and it occurs when a person inflicts injury intentionally or is so utterly indifferent to the rights of others that the person acts as if such rights did not exist. The distinction can be difficult to establish, since a legally sufficient case of ordinary negligence will frequently be enough to create a jury question of whether such negligence was or was not gross.

Maryland Court Rules Asbestos Defendants May Be Liable for Failure to Warn About Replacement Parts

March 19, 2016 | by Foran & Foran, P.A.

The Maryland Court of Appeals recently published an important opinion that will have consequences for future asbestos litigation and personal injury claims. In a victory for asbestos plaintiffs, the court’s ruling in May v. Air & Liquid Sys. Corp. (Md. Dec. 18, 2015) found that in limited circumstances, a manufacturer has a duty to warn workers of asbestos-containing third-party replacement component parts under theories of negligence and strict liability.

In May, the plaintiff replaced asbestos gaskets and packing while in the United States Navy from 1956 until 1976, which exposed him to airborne asbestos fibers. However, he was not exposed to the asbestos gaskets and packing that the defendants used, but to asbestos-containing replacement parts acquired from third parties. It is undisputed that the instruction manuals did not contain any warnings regarding the danger of inhaling asbestos dust or directions to wear protective gear. In January 2012, the plaintiff learned he was suffering from mesothelioma, a form of cancer that is commonly caused by asbestos exposure. The plaintiff initially filed suit against the defendants, and his wife continued the action upon his death. The defendants moved for summary judgment, contending that they had no duty to warn of the dangers of third-party asbestos-containing replacement parts that they did not manufacture or place into the stream of commerce. The trial court granted the motion in favor of the defendants, and Court of Special Appeals affirmed.

In Maryland, failure to warn claims may be brought under a negligence or strict liability theory. Negligence claims require a showing of a duty of care owed by the defendant to the plaintiff. In determining the existence of a duty, the court considers many factors, including the foreseeability of harm to the plaintiff, the degree of certainty that the plaintiff suffered the injury, the closeness of the connection between the defendant’s conduct and the injury suffered, the moral blame attached to the defendant’s conduct, the policy of preventing future harm, the extent of the burden to the defendant, and others.