Posted on September 25, 2008 in Controlled Dangerous Substances (CDS)

Maryland Criminal Attorney – Baltimore Criminal Attorney I represented a client today on a possession with intent to distribute a controlled dangerous substance case today in the Circuit Court for Baltimore County. In this case the particular substance was amphetamines and the case presents a good example of how many narcotics detectives overcharge certain cases – presumably to inflate their own felony arrest statistics.

In this case the client was pulled over for a routine traffic offense. The officer claimed, as they frequently do, that he smelled the odor of burning marijuana coming from the car. (The Court of Appeals ruled approximately 15 years ago that the smell of marijuana alone constitutes probable cause. As one might imagine after that ruling was handing down, police officers across Maryland began to smell marijuana on car stops with increasing frequency). The officer ordered my client out of the car and commenced a search of the vehicle. Inside the vehicle the officer found a small amount of cocaine and two percocets, which for anyone who doesn’t know, is a prescription narcotic. He arrested my client and charged him with possession of a controlled dangerous substance.

Approximately 10 days later the officer went to a judge and got a search warrant signed for the search of my client’s home. This in and of itself is pretty disturbing because there was absolutely no indication that my client was involved in the distribution of controlled dangerous substances as well as the fact that the officer waited almost two weeks before applying for the warrant. Typically, detectives will only seek a search warrant for a person’s home if they have reason to believe that the person is a dealer, not a mere. Moreover, they usually apply for the warrant and conduct the search while the person remains in custody for the original arrest. If anything is recovered in the search then charges are simply added on to the charge for which the person was originally arrested. The delay caused my client to be arrested twice which may be good for the officer’s stats but seems a bit unfair to me.

Continue Reading ››

 Posted on September 25, 2008 in Fire / burn malpractice

Today, MSNBC ran a story about Operating Room fires. The article states that the latest data reveals about 600 cases annually. These fires, sometimes called surgery fires or surgical fires, are completely preventable occurrences.

I have successfully handled a number of these cases, including operative room burns and unintended surgical burns. In these cases, the patient caught on fire because the surgeon did not keep the cautery device away from the oxygen that was being given to the patient during the surgery. The patient also received oxygen at too high a concentration, thereby contributing the likelihood of fire. Doctors and hospitals have known for decades how to prevent surgical fires, yet they still occur. I would say that any time a patient catches on fire during surgery it is a clearly due to medical malpractice and should result in a malpractice lawsuit.

We handle cases like these all of the time in my practice.

Continue Reading ››

 Posted on September 25, 2008 in Controlled Dangerous Substances (CDS)

Our firm has represented both doctors and and Web sites who are under investigation or have been charged with prescribing controlled substances via the Web.

The growing number of Web sites that offer consumers the opportunity to obtain prescription medications pursuant to an online medical consultation have been attracting considerable regulatory scrutiny from state and federal health officials.

For example, in Illinois, the Department of Professional Regulation suspended the license of Dr. Robert Filice for prescribing Viagra via an Internet pharmacy for patients he had never seen. Dr. Filice was working as a consultant for The Pill Box, a San Antonio, Texas-based pharmacy chain that sells online. The state suspended Dr. Filice’s license immediately because it determined his actions put people in danger. The agency later reinstated his license when he admitted that his conduct was “unprofessional.” The physician was fined $1,000, put on a two-year probation, and ordered to not prescribe medication to patients without personally interviewing and examining them.

Continue Reading ››

 Posted on September 25, 2008 in Medical Malpractice

A. Statute of Limitations:

Medical malpractice actions are actions for injury to the person or wrongful death, which must be brought within two years. 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 5524(2) (LEXIS 2003). Pennsylvania courts have adopted a discovery rule for injuries to the person. When the existence of an injury is not known to the claimant, and such knowledge cannot be reasonably ascertained within the two-year period, the statute does not begin to run until the discovery of the injury is reasonably possible. Hayward v. Medical Center of Beaver County, 530 Pa. 320, 608 A.2d 1040 (1992). The discovery rule does not apply in death cases, however. Pastierik v. Duquesne Light Co., 514 Pa. 517, 526 A.2d 323 (1987). For medical malpractice cases arising on or after March 20, 2002, the discovery rule is limited by a seven-year statute of repose that runs from the date of the act (two years for death cases)

B. Modified Rule of Comparative Negligence:

Pennsylvania has adopted a modified rule of comparative negligence. A plaintiff’s recovery is barred only if his contributory negligence is greater than the causal negligence of the defendants against whom recovery is sought. 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 7102(a) (LEXIS 2003). Otherwise, the plaintiff’s damages are diminished in proportion to the amount of negligence attributable to him. Id.

Continue Reading ››

 Posted on September 25, 2008 in Medical Malpractice Law in Maryland

Generally, recovery in Maryland for malpractice against a physician/psychiatrist is allowed only where there is a relationship between the doctor and patient. This relationship may be established by contract, express or implied, and the fact that a physician does not deal directly with a patient does not necessarily preclude the existence of a physician-patient relationship.

Complaints of malpractice and intentional infliction of emotional distress with regard to third parties have been reviewed by Maryland Courts. In the case of Dehn v. Edgecombe, 384 Md. 606 (Md. 2005), Mr. Dehn underwent a vasectomy. According to Mr. Dehn, his primary care physician advised him that he could resume engaging in unprotected intercourse with his wife without fear of pregnancy, despite the fact that requisite tests had yet to be performed. Mrs. Dehn subsequently became pregnant and sued her husband’s primary care physician, claiming that the physician had negligently counseled her husband. The Court held that there was no independent cause of action for a patient’s wife against a doctor who acted negligently while treating her husband because there was no relationship or direct interaction with the wife.

Continue Reading ››

 Posted on September 25, 2008 in Cancer Malpractice

An Indiana jury has returned a $8.1 million medical malpractice verdict in favor of a 33 year old mother of two, whose cancer was not timely diagnosed and treated. Apparently, the woman had a growth removed from her bit toe in 2004 by a local podiatrist, who did not test the growth at the time. When the growth resurfaced two years later, it was tested and the test revealed malignant melanoma. The woman claimed in her malpractice lawsuit that the doctor should have tested the tissue from the excised growth. Now in stage three of the cancer, she has just a 17 percent chance of living another 12 years, according to statistics
Interestingly, the doctor’s medical practice apparently failed to participate in the state program that caps malpractice damages at $1.25 million for all care providers involved in a case. Nevertheless, the doctor will be shielded by Indiana’s $250,000 damages cap on all damages against individual doctors under the law. The woman’s lawyers will have to pursue attempting to recover the verdict from the doctor’s medical practice. A copy of the article regarding the case can be found here.

Continue Reading ››

 Posted on September 24, 2008 in Federal Criminal Defense

When the federal Sentencing Guidelines were first implemented in the late 1980’s, federal judges quickly became frustrated with a new system that virtually tied their hands in terms of deciding an appropriate criminal sentence. Prior to the Guidelines, federal judges had wide discretion in imposing sentences on those who pled guilty or were convicted in federal court. The judges could take into consideration the full picture of the defendant – not only the crime he or she was charged with but also his or her family, background, education, and expression of remorse. The Guidelines dramatically changed that system, and set forth rather rigid – and mandatory — Guidelines. Whether the defendant had been accused of an intricate white collar financial fraud scheme, racketeering, drug distribution, or conspiracy to sell illegal weapons, the Guidelines left very few mechanisms for the judges to allow for any leniency or exceptions.

I remember when the Guidelines went into effect, my uncle, the late Norman P. Ramsey, Judge, U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland, never missed an opportunity to express his frustration – whether on the bench or at a family gathering. Were my uncle still alive, he would now be thanking the Supreme Court, which three years ago swung the pendulum back toward the pre-Guideline days.

Continue Reading ››

 Posted on September 22, 2008 in Breathalyzer

Maryland DUI/DWI Lawyer/Attorney Can a person initially refuse to consent to a breathalyzer and then, upon further reflection, withdraw that refusal? And does that withdrawal of the refusal then constitute valid consent? The answer is a qualified yes. According to 16-205.1 of the Maryland Traffic code a person may withdraw an initial refusal to submit to a breathalyzer and then later consent to take a test of breath if the subsequent consent is unequivocal and it does not substantially interfere with the timely and efficacious administration of the the test.

I had a case in Baltimore County that presented this exact situation several months ago. My client was pulled over on I695 for speeding. He admitted to the officer that he had had 3 beers completing the last beer approximately 90 minutes prior to being stopped. He was asked to perform field sobriety tests and consented to do so. He believed that he had performed the tests virtually flawlessly but the State Trooper arrested him anyway. He was taken back to the State Police Barrack where he was read his rights and had the potential consequences of refusing to take the breath test or blowing over .08 explained to him. He initially said refused to consent to the breath test but then requested to use the telephone to contact his attorney.

The police allowed him to do so. (I have had several instances where the police refused to allow my client to call his attorney which constitutes a violation of the person’s rights and can lead to the inadmissibility of the tests at trial and an absolute defense to the administrative sanctions for refusing the test or blowing over .08.) My client then attempted to contact me but given that it was 3:00am was unable to do so. He then contacted another (obviously and insomniac) and discussed the situation with him at great length, almost an hour in fact. At this point the police told him that he had to make a decision as the two hour time limit was about to expire (in order for the result of the breath test to carry the legal presumptions that I have discussed in previous blogs, the breathalyzer must be administered within two hours from the time the person is arrested).

Continue Reading ››

 Posted on September 22, 2008 in Childbirth Malpractice

A Minnesota jury in medical malpractice case has rendered an award of almost $1 million to the family of a child injured during labor and delivery approximately five years ago. The jury reached its verdict in the medical malpractice lawsuit late last week, finding that the obstetrician was negligent by not recognizing the fetus was so large it should have been delivered by Caesarean Section. As a result, the child, who weighed more than 10 pounds at birth, suffered injuries that unfortunately will affect her for the rest of her life. The jury’s award totaled $975,501, consisting of separate amounts for past medical expenses, bodily and mental harm, future damages and mental harm, and loss of future earning capacity. A copy of the article regarding the case can be found here.

During the delivery of the child, the nerves in her shoulder were injured because the obstetrician had to pull the baby so hard get her out of the birth canal. The injury is called Erb’s Palsy, and occurs when the nerves of the shoulder are stretched or torn, causing permanent loss of sensation and control of the arm. Unfortunately, the injury will cause lifelong limitations and significantly reduce future earnings. The defense was that the size of the fetus can’t be easily determined and that C-Section brings with it significant complication risks. However, the Plaintiffs were able to point out that a radiology report said that measurements of the fetus were “suggestive of a macrosomic fetus.” Macrosomia is a medical term describing a fetus or newborn of excessive weight. In a situation, the standard of care is to do a C-Section to prevent exactly what happened here.

Continue Reading ››

 Posted on September 19, 2008 in Insurance Carriers

Occasionally in Maryland personal injury claims, a situation arises when one or more insurance companies agree to pay their entire policy to the claimant(s), but are unable to do so without exposing itself to potential liability. This situation often occurs when two or more persons are are injured and are competing for a limited amount of insurance. Rather than cut a deal with one of the victims, the insurance company will file an interpleader action.

Generally, An action for interpleader may be brought against two are more adverse claimants, when those claimants claim to be entitled to certain property, said property is within the possession of the Plaintiff, and the claims are such that the Plaintiff may be exposed to double or multiple liability, meaning that the Plaintiff could be subject to pay out more money then is actually in their possession.

An Interpleader Action in Maryland can be filed in state of federal court.

There are two different ways to file an Interpleader Action in Federal Court. The first is using Rule 22 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the second is using §1335 of the USCS. For our purposes, we should use §1335 to file a Federal Interpleader Action. The reason for this is because Rule 22 requires complete diversity between the Stake-Holder (our firm) and the Claimants (all of the investors). Because the majority of the investors are from Maryland, we would not have complete diversity between Stake-holder and Investors, therefore, making it difficult to interplead under Rule 22. Section 1335, however, only requires that there be diversity between two or more adverse claimants. In this case, because at least one of the claimants is from Alabama, we satisfy the diversity requirement under §1335, therefore permitting the action to be filed in Federal Court.

Continue Reading ››