Posted on September 23, 2011 in Infection Malpractice

A woman in Pennsylvania was recently awarded one of the highest sums ever recorded in a medical malpractice suit after an infection went unnoticed and nearly killed her. The lawsuit was based upon medical negligence and medical errors committed by a home nurse that was treating the woman, who was suffering from Crohn’s disease. The woman was receiving care from a home nurse when the R.N. failed to recognize that she had an infected catheter. As a result of the nurse failing to refer the patient to a physician to treat the infected catheter, both of the woman’s legs were amputated below the knee. This was a result of the infection spreading to the bloodstream.

The jury in this case awarded the woman $23.12 million after hearing about the failure of the nurse to treat the bacteria-infected catheter and found both the nurse and the employer negligent. The damages were based on compensatory awards of economic damages for medical expenses and lost wages, as well as non-economic damages associated with pain and suffering. A medical malpractice case requires a plaintiff to establish that a health care provider undertook care of a patient, and thus had a duty to the patient; the duty was breached by the health care provider upon their failure to perform at the standard level of care; and that damages to the plaintiff resulted. A finding of negligence means the jury thought that the evidence showed that the woman’s health care provider committed a medical error resulting from an omission which deviated from the standards of practice generally accepted in the medical community, and found that this failure caused injury to the patient.

Continue Reading ››

 Posted on September 16, 2011 in Child Custody

In our August 25, 2011 blog we discussed custody evaluation as one of the services that can be available to parties subject to domestic litigation. The Circuit Court for Baltimore County is one of the County courts that currently offers custody evaluations to those litigants with highly contested custody matters. They also offer co-parent education classes, custody mediation, home studies and supervised visitation. These services are currently offered to parties who qualify at no cost. The litigant or the litigant’s attorney needs to either file a motion with the Court requesting these services or request the service at the scheduling conference.

Commencing October 3, 2011, the Circuit Court will begin charging for these services, due to a decrease in funding received from the State Judiciary. The fees will be as follows:

• Co-Parent Education Classes: $35 per person
• Custody Mediation: $100 per person
• Home Study: $100 per study to be split between the parties
• Custody Evaluations:$450 per study to be split between the parties

Continue Reading ››

 Posted on September 12, 2011 in Child Custody

Many times in cases where I represent the Father in a Maryland custody case, child support is often an issue where perhaps some believe the man is treated somewhat inequitably. While I do not necessarily agree that is always the case, I have heard many Father’s say “If I were a woman, child support would not even be an issue, I would get what I am supposed to get.” Well for all those Dad’s out there, I am happy to report that I recently successfully argued a ‘voluntary impoverishment’ case. In this case, the non-custodial parent (who happens to be a Mother) is being forced to pay child support based upon what she has the ability to earn because the Court determined she was not doing so at the time of the hearing.

Voluntary Impoverishment cases are difficult cases to prove unless the non-custodial parent basically admits s/he not working to avoid paying child support. In Maryland, for the purposes of child support guidelines, a parent shall be considered “voluntarily impoverished” whenever the parent has made the free and conscious choice, not compelled by factors beyond his or her control, to render himself or herself without adequate resources. The factors a Court will consider in making such a determination as to whether a parent is a voluntary impoverished are: (1) his or her current physical condition; (2) his or her respective level of education; (3) the timing of any change in employment or other financial circumstances relative to the divorce proceedings; (4) the relationship between the parties prior to the initiation of divorce proceedings; (5) his or her efforts to find an retain employment; (6) his or her efforts to secure retraining if that is needed; (7) whether he or she has ever withheld support; (8) his or her past work history; (9) the area in which the parties live and the status of the job market there; and (10) any other considerations presented by either party.

Continue Reading ››

 Posted on September 02, 2011 in Controlled Dangerous Substances (CDS)

Most Experienced and Aggressive Criminal Defense Attorneys handle many cases in which the client is charged with Violation of Probation. Typically when a judge places a criminal defendant on probation, the judge will require the person to do certain things while on probation such as report to an agent, perform community service, participate in drug treatment. The probation also requires the defendant to remain law abiding and very often to be randomly tested for drug use.

If a defendant violates any of these conditions, the agent will notify the judge who will usually order a hearing to determine if he probation has been violated and very often issue a warrant for the defendant’s arrest. Many judges routinely order that the defendant be held without bail until such hearing takes place. Many attorneys wrongly assume that violations of probation are not defensible since there is no prohibition on the use of hearsay testimony and the State must only prove the violation by a preponderance of the evidence standard, not beyond a reasonable doubt as is the case in criminal trials. Many defenses are in fact viable in violations of probation including speedy trial type defenses. I successfully defended a client in a violation of probation hearing this week in Baltimore County District Court using this type of defense. Here are the facts:

My client was convicted of possession of a controlled dangerous substance in 2007, when she was just 18 years old. In May of 2008 she tested positive for opiates and a violation of probation was issued. The court issued a bench warrant for her arrest ordering that she be held without bail pending the hearing. I find this tactic by judges troubling, particularly in cases involving non-violent misdemeanors, as it often causes lengthy incarceration prior to that person being adjudicated guilty of the violation; and in many cases, such as this one, where the person was ultimately found not to have violated her probation.

Continue Reading ››

 Posted on September 01, 2011 in Hospital Malpractice

A Maryland jury awarded the wife and two children of a 59-year-old man $2.5 million in damages following his untimely death from medical malpractice at Montgomery General Hospital in 2007. The lawsuit alleged that the doctor attending to the man at Montgomery General failed was negligent in failing to recognize and diagnose that he was suffering from “hemorrhagic shock” and treat the same. A copy of the article regarding the settlement can be found here.

The man’s death occurred two days after he fell and fractured his pelvis. The family alleged that the primary care physician, who was the sole defendant in the medical malpractice case, did not realize that the man was suffering from internal bleeding. The family believes that had the doctor treated this condition when he first examined him, he could have saved the man’s life. Instead, the man ultimately died from multiple organ failure due to the internal bleeding.
While the primary care physician argued that the man died as a result of a side effect to medication that restricted his intake of oxygen, this theory was discredited because no mention was made of any such complication on the death certificate.

Continue Reading ››

 Posted on August 25, 2011 in Child Custody

As we have explained in previous blogs, in most counties in Maryland, the first scheduled court date once litigation has commenced is a scheduling conference. This is an opportunity for the litigants to tell the Court what hearings/trials they will need and court services they might need. Among those services to ask for may be a custody evaluation. In counties such as Anne Arundel County and Baltimore County custody evaluations are available at no cost in those custody cases where a Judge or Master can be convinced it is necessary. These would typically be cases where custody is highly contested or other exceptional circumstances exists (an unfit home, potential abuse, etc). A description of the custody evaluations performed in Anne Arundel County and Baltimore County can be found at their respective websites.

Depending on the county where the evaluation is ordered, an evaluation typically involves a meeting with both parents with the children, possibly a visit to each parent’s home, and interview with those who frequently interact with the parents and children (counselors, school staff, family members). Once the evaluation is completed, a report is typically drafted by the evaluator where he or she will recommend a custody arrangement and their reasons for recommending same. The Court may set in a conference date for the parties to review the evaluation, or the evaluation will be sent to the parties and/or their attorneys.

A custody evaluation can be helpful in many ways as it is a tool for the Judge or Master to hear about the parties’ homes and interactions with their children from a third party professional. However, a custody evaluator’s recommendation may or may not have bearing on the Judge or Master’s ultimate decision with regards to custody. It is up to the Court to decide if they will even allow the contents of the evaluation to be disclosed at the final custody hearing, as much of it contains hearsay ( out of court statements). Additionally, a custody evaluation can aid parties in reaching a resolution prior to going to trial on their matter.

Continue Reading ››

 Posted on August 19, 2011 in Maryland DUI Penalties

Defendants in DUI cases who have commercial driver’s license pose a unique set of challenges and considerations for Maryland DUI Attorneys. I have blogged often about the importance of selecting an attorney who specializes in DUI/DWI defense. Unfortunately, all too often we see attorneys with little or no experience with these of cases appearing in court with their clients.

Very often these attorneys make simple mistakes, that no experienced DUI/DWI attorney would ever make, with devastating consequences for their clients. I witnessed one such mistake in the District Court of Baltimore County a few days ago involving a defendant with a commercial driver’s license. The attorney who handled the case was an attorney who has been practicing for many years, mostly doing divorce and personal injury cases. In other words, he was NOT a DUI/DWI specialist. Here are the facts.

The defendant in the case was operating a non-commercial vehicle when he was pulled over for exceeding the speed limit by 10 or 12 miles per hour. The officer noted in his report that the defendant smelled of alcohol, had a flushed face and spoke with slightly slurred speech. He was asked to step out of the car and perform field sobriety tests and he complied. After completing the tests unsatisfactorily, the officer believed he was impaired and he was arrested. He agreed to take the breathalyzer and blew a .11. The defendant had a spotless driving record and, as I noted earlier, a commercial driver’s license.

Continue Reading ››

 Posted on August 16, 2011 in Dog Bites

Our law firm recently handled a serious dog attack on a young child in Pennsylvania. Each jurisdiction we encounter throughout the mid-atlantic region has different variances on the owner of a dog that causes personal injury. Pennsylvania law is slightly different than Maryland.

The Pennsylvania Code contains the regulations pertaining to dogs. Dog Laws are codified in Title 3, Chapter 8, of the Pennsylvania Code. The portion of the dog laws pertaining to dangerous dogs is codified in 3 P.S. § 459-501-A through § 459-507-A.
Under Pennsylvania Dog Law, the owner/keeper of any dog is required at all times to keep the dog either :
1. Confined within the premises of the owner
2. Firmly secured by means of a collar and chain or other device so that it cannot stray beyond the premises on which it is secured; or
3. Under the reasonable control of some person Pennsylvania Dog Law is the standard for determining whether a person has complied with the duty to exercise ordinary care. Unexcused violations constitute negligence per se. However, a violation of the Dog Law does not establish the necessary causation for a finding of liability. Liability does not attach unless the violation is a substantial factor is bringing about the injuries sustained. Villaume v. Kaufman, 379 Pa. Super. 561, 550 A.2d 793 (1988), aff’g Miller v. Hurst, 302 Pa. Super. 235, 448 A.2d 614 (1982).

Continue Reading ››

 Posted on August 15, 2011 in Hospital Malpractice

Peninsula Regional Medical Center, located in Salisbury, Maryland is the latest Maryland hospital involved in medical malpractice suits arising from unnecessary stent procedures.

Last month, cardiologist John R. McLean, M.D. was convicted of health care fraud offenses after implanting cardiac stents in more than 100 patients who did not need them. McLean was found to have performed unnecessary tests and made false entries in medical records when he submitted insurance claims for the stent procedures.

Despite its attempt last year to be dismissed from the case involving McLean, which was denied by the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland, Peninsula Regional Medical Center agreed to pay $1.8 million to settle the case in early August. The allegations set forth in the suits against Peninsula Regional Medical Center were that it failed to act to prevent the unnecessary procedures even though it were aware of McLean’s behavior. There were fifty-two parties named as plaintiffs. Additionally, under the settlement, the hospital must also repay the money it received from federal health benefit programs while the unnecessary medical procedures amounting to fraud were going on.

Continue Reading ››

 Posted on August 10, 2011 in Hospital Malpractice

Baltimore Washington Medical Center, located in Anne Arundel County Maryland, was recently fined by the Maryland Department of Environment (MDE) a result of medical malpractice. The settlement agreement reached between the MDE and Baltimore Washington Medical Center stemmed from an error in which the hospital administered an improper dose of radiation. The MDE became involved because radiation doses are supposed to be limited to levels as low as reasonably achievable, pursuant to the Maryland Radiation Act.

As a result of the self-reporting system, the hospital notified officials, as well as the patient, about the error in which the patient was exposed to radiation inconsistent with the treatment plan. While it’s likely that the medical mistake will not result in any negative effect on the patient, radiation doses that are too high can kill cells while those that are too low can damage or alter the DNA within the cells.

As a result of this mistake, and in addition to the $14,000 fine, hospital officials will have a radiological health official present at each of their next four radiation safety meetings to make sure the hospital is in compliance and to provide guidance if necessary.

Continue Reading ››