Posted on June 01, 2011 in Divorce

As many of our clients are aware, going through a divorce process once is enough, let alone having to do it all over again. As the New York Times reported on May 30, 2011 , a New York man, Mr. Steven Simkin, is seeking to revise the divorce settlement him and his wife, Ms. Laura Blank reached in 2006, as the funds he was awarded were lost as a casualty to the Madoff disaster. As we have previously discussed, many parties reach a separation agreement or settlement agreement outside of court which resolves their marital issues.
When the parties reached their settlement in 2006, Ms. Blank chose to keep her funds out of the Madoff account, while Mr. Simkin chose to keep his with Mr. Madoff. Mr. Simkin argues that the settlement agreement, aka a contract, should be voided as the funds with Mr. Madoff did not even exist at the time of the divorce settlement. His argument relies on the “doctrine of “mutual mistake,” a well-established principle that allows for the cancellation of contracts, including divorce agreements, when both parties are innocently mistaken about an essential term. The case is currently with New York’s highest court and it is said that they are divided, as are many attorneys on the issue. The case could not only affect New York law, but the way that marital settlement agreements are handled throughout the country. Those who are against the revision of the agreement believe that it would allow for do-overs whenever an agreement does not go as planned. Many enter into these divorce agreements with no idea what the future holds, but it is a way of making a clean break from your spouse and moving forward.

For more information on marital settlement agreements, contact an experienced Maryland divorce attorney.

Continue Reading ››

 Posted on May 25, 2011 in Childbirth Malpractice

The mother to a son born with cerebral palsy will eventually receive the full judgment of $10 million awarded to her by a Florida jury for medical malpractice, but she’ll have to wait for half of it. In 2003, while six months pregnant, the woman was to be transported after one hospital determined it didn’t have the right equipment to handle a premature baby and another said it lacked specialists for extremely premature births. Both of those hospitals, and doctors from each, were originally involved, but settled for a total of $1.4 million. Ultimately, however, the woman gave birth on the way to Arnold Palmer Hospital for Children in Orlando while in an ambulance. The child survived but suffered severe brain damage as a result of a lack of oxygen. In a medical negligence case, a jury found the Florida ambulance provider, EVAC, negligent for both the care they provided and for accepting the initial transport order.

After the $10 million judgment was handed down in the malpractice case, EVAC asked a judge to throw out the verdict or, alternatively, reduce the judgment amount. EVAC argued they could not refuse an order given by a doctor in the emergency room. A settlement was ultimately reached whereby EVAC will pay $5 million immediately (their insurance cap) and then sue its insurance company for bad faith and have it pay the rest.

Continue Reading ››

 Posted on May 23, 2011 in Pediatric (child) Medical Malpractice

Recently, a New York District Judge ordered Mogen Circumcision Instruments of New York to pay compensatory and punitive damages totaling $10.8 million to a Florida boy and his parents following a medical instrument malfunction. Despite the instrument maker’s claims that injury arising from the use of their Mogen clamp was impossible, the boy lost a portion of his penis. This is not the first time Mogen has been at the center of a circumcision injury lawsuit. Mogen was involved in a 2007 Massachusetts lawsuit where it was forced to pay $7.5 million. In the current case, the baby lost the entire head (glans) of his penis. The judgment amount was based on the court’s determination the Mogen had to pay for both medical expenses and the years of therapy that the child will need.

Malpractice is sometimes to blame for circumcision mistakes and injuries as well. A jury in a 2009 case awarded $2.3 million to a baby and his parents after too much tissue was removed during his circumcision. Despite a nurse’s complaint of excessive bleeding, the baby’s pediatrician failed to respond; had he, the tip of the penis might have been reattached. As a result of the medical negligence, the baby lost a third of the glans of his penis. The New York jury found both the physician who performed the circumcision and the pediatrician negligent.

Continue Reading ››

 Posted on May 20, 2011 in Birth Trauma Malpractice / Cerebral Palsy Malpractice

A multi-million dollar cerebral palsy medical malpractice lawsuit recently settled out of court. Tripler Army Medical Center in Honolulu, Hawaii ultimately paid a family $11 million dollars in the settlement following a series of serious medical errors resulting in severe brain damage to their child. The child, who was born in 2005, was deprived of oxygen at birth and now suffers from cerebral palsy. A breakdown in communication amongst doctors triggered an hour-long delivery in which the child was born with her umbilical cord wrapped tightly around her neck. Round-the-clock care will likely be required for the rest of her life. This medical negligence case was not the result of misdiagnosis, but rather stemmed from a failure by doctors to take essential steps quickly enough to help the child while she was in distress during birth. The series of medical errors continued when doctors tried to resuscitate the child after delivery but mistakenly pumped air into her stomach, instead of lungs, when the respiratory tube was placed in her esophagus by an inexperienced intern.

Continue Reading ››

 Posted on May 13, 2011 in Child Custody

As a family law practitioner I have represented a number of petitioners and respondents in protective order hearings throughout the state of Maryland. Unfortunately, the purpose and intent of a protective order is often misinterpreted and misused by the litigants. The purpose of the domestic violence statute as defined by Maryland case law is to protect and aid victims of domestic violence by providing a quick and effective remedy and to prevent further harm to the victim. It is not intended to produce pendente lite orders relating to custody, support, and marital property that are effective for the duration of the Protective Order. Oftentimes, Petitioners attempt to use this necessary and important statute to do just what it was not meant to do – obtain custody of a child in common with the respondent.

I recently represented a respondent in a Final Protective Order hearing , in which the petitioner used the staute to attept to gain custody of their chid. In that case the petitioner alleged an assault upon him by the respondent that resulted in their infant child being bounced off the bed, where she was laying at the time, and landing on the floor. The police were called to the residence three times over the course of less than 24 hours and no one was arrested or left the residence. Ironically, the respondent fled the state the next day with the assistance of a domestic violence program due to continuing abuse by the petitioner upon her. Nevertheless, the petitioner filed a Temporary Protective Order, which was granted and awarded him custody of the parties infant child. My client was already out of the state (with the child) and once she was served with the Order did appear for the Final Protective Order Hearing. Once the Petitioner put on his case, the evidence in my opinion, was abundantly clear that even in the light most favorable to the petitioner, that there had been at most a mutual scuffle which was instigated by the petitioner and that petitioner’s only motivation in filing the protective order was to obtain custody of the child. This is a complete misuse of the domestic violence statute, i.e. protective order statute. At the conclusion of the petitioner’s case I made a Motion to Dismiss the Petitioner’s Protective Order as he had not met his burden of proof establishing by clear and convincing evidence that abuse had occurred. The Court agreed that even in the light most favorable to the petitioner, he had not met his burden and dismissed the Protective Order without the need for my client to put on her case. In this particular situation, the Court was keenly aware of the purpose and intent of the domestic violence statute and did not grant the Final Order.

Cases such as the above with baseless allegations are frequently filed with the Court with mal intent, and at the initial stage the Temporary Orders are granted because at the Temporary Protective Order stage of the process often the respondent is not even present. It is not until the Final Hearing that the respondent even has an opportunity to be heard. If you are either a Petitioner or Respondent, you would likely benefit from the assistance and advice of experienced legal counsel. For more information on your particular situation you should speak with an experienced family law attorney.

Continue Reading ››

 Posted on April 21, 2011 in Sex Offenses

As an Aggressive and Experienced Maryland Criminal Defense Attorney, I have represented dozens of people who have been charged with Sexual Solicitation of a Minor. In most of these cases, the defendant is caught in a sting operation conducted by state of federal law enforcement.

I represented a client in one such case this week in Baltimore County Circuit Court. The State was seeking a sentence of 10 years in the Division of Corrections with all but 5 years to be suspended. I was able to get him a sentence of just 4 weekends to be served in the Baltimore County Detention Center. This, in spite of the fact that we ended up in front of a judge who is widely regarded as a very tough sentencing judge and the fact that we literally had no defense. How did this happen? The answer is we put together a compelling presentation of mitigating facts and circumstances to argue for a sentence much less than the State was demanding.

Continue Reading ››

 Posted on April 21, 2011 in Uncategorized

STSW attorneys Andrew White gained a high stakes victory in the Baltimore City Circuit Court in a case in which an STSW client was charged with multiple felony counts involving the possession of a handgun. The client had been charged after a car in which he was riding crashed on a northern Baltimore City roadway. According to witnesses at the scene, a handgun was thrown from the vehicle after the car flipped over multiple times and came to rest on its side. The witnesses described how the driver of the vehicle threw the gun from the car, which witnesses told police was being operated at a high rate of speed prior to the crash. The driver testified as a prosecution witness and testified that the STSW client gave her the firearm after the crash occurred. She also testified that the client possessed the firearm because he wanted to confront persons who had reportedly hurt his son. At trial, Mr. White and Ms. Murphy discredited the cooperating witnesses and used the physical evidence from the crash scene to show that the prosecution’s version of events was not possible. In issuing the “not guilty” verdict, the Circuit Court Judge agreed that the prosecution’s version of the case was undermined by the evidence adduced by Mr. White and Ms. Murphy at trial as well as by the extensive cross-examination of the cooperating witness.

Continue Reading ››

 Posted on April 18, 2011 in Divorce

Currently, Maryland law regarding divorce involves two different waiting periods in order to obtain a no fault divorce. The one year waiting period applies when BOTH parties are seeking the divorce, i.e. the separation is MUTUAL and voluntary. The two year waiting period applies when only one of the two parties would like the divorce. We had previously discussed this distinction in our October 2010 blog. The Maryland legislature has passed a bill eliminating the two year waiting period, and now no fault divorces can proceed with only a one year separation, eliminating the need for the Court to consider if one or both parties is seeking the divorce for grounds purposes. The Maryland Daily Record reported on April 17, 2011 that this new legislation will go into effect October 1, 2011. The chief sponsor of the bill, Senator Bobby Zirkin believes that the two year separation period is only extending volatile situations and allowing parties to drag the litigation out in order to bargain for those items they want in the divorce. He also believes that this is a step in the right direction in his effort to reduce the waiting period to only six months, as we discussed in our February 17, 2011 blog .

Continue Reading ››

 Posted on April 13, 2011 in Personal Injury

WBAL is reporting in an online article that the worker killed Tuesday at the Dundalk Marine Terminal has been identified as 46-year-old James Mills Gillus of Dundalk. Mr. Gillus was tragically killed when he was attempting to climb back into his vehicle after he noticed it was rolling backward and was struck by the vehicle. The vehicle he was operating is used to haul dumpsters around the marine terminal. State and Federal Workplace officials are investigating this accident. Mr. Gillus’ family will be entitled to Workers’ Compensation Death Benefits because he was killed during the course and scope of his employment. Additionally, under certain situations, they may be able to recover in a wrongful death action.

For more information or a free consultation, please contact the Maryland personal injury lawyers of Silverman, Thompson, Slutkin & White, LLC. or contact Andrew G. Slutkin with further questions or inquiries at 410-385-2786

Continue Reading ››

 Posted on April 13, 2011 in Automobile Accident

Baltimore personal injury attorney, Craig Zissel, of the firm Silverman Thompson Slutkin & White won a contested auto accident case in the Circuit Court for Montgomery County last Tuesday. Mr. Zissel’s client was injured when the vehicle he was riding in was struck from behind while stopped at a stop light. GEICO denied liability for the accident claiming there was no way our client could have been injured due to the minor nature of the accident. Additionally, they pointed out the many prior accidents our client had been involved in. After deliberating for an hour, the Montgomery County jury returned a verdict in favor of the Plaintiff for the full amount of his medicals plus an award for non-economic damages to compensate him for his pain and suffering. Prior to trial, GEICO had offered no money to settle the case. This verdict represents a great result for Montgomery County, which is historically a defense-oriented, conservative jurisdiction.

At trial, Mr. Zissel focused the jury’s attention on the evidence supporting his client’s claims including the testimony, property damage photos and medical bills.

Continue Reading ››