Posted on March 10, 2009 in Controlled Dangerous Substances (CDS)

Maryland Criminal Attorney Brian Thompson successfully defends client charged with Possession with Intent to Distribute Cocaine. The issue in this case was whether or not the police can conduct a strip search on a person who is arrested for a traffic violation. In Maryland, the police have the discretion to arrest or to simply issue citations and release people who are charged with incarcerable traffic violation such as Driving Under the Influence or Impaired by Alcohol, Driving While Suspended, Driving Without Insurance, Hit and Run, etc., In most instances, so long as the person is able to be conclusively identified, the officer with cite and release
However, in cases where the police are unable to conclusively identify a person because the person does not have proper identification or in situations where the police want the excuse to search the person’s vehicle, they will arrest for these violations. My recent case falls into the latter category. Here are the facts:

My client was driving a vehicle in the Essex area of Baltimore County one afternoon this past summer. He drove by a police officer who knew him and believed him to have a suspended license. The officer confirmed this information through dispatch and pulled my client over. Suspecting that my client was “riding dirty” (was in possession of drugs) the officer placed him under arrest for the violation and conducted a search incident to the arrest of both my client’s person and the vehicle. This is all perfectly proper and legal for the police to do but did not result in the recovery of any contraband.

Continue Reading ››

 Posted on March 10, 2009 in Automobile Accident

A skateboarder’s failure to yield when entering a highway contributed to his own demise and bars his widow and estate from recovering against the driver whose vehicle struck and killed him, the Court of Special Appeals has held. A recent article in the Maryland Daily Record discusses the Court’s determination that a skateboarder is a “vehicle” and therefore subject to the boulevard rule. Thousands of Marylanders are injured every year while riding on skateboards, bicycles and other recreational vehicles. An experienced accident attorney can help injured victims recover compensation for their injuries under the law.

Under Maryland law, a favored driver has the right of way under the boulevard rule. For years, the law was unclear as to what status skateboarders, cyclists and pedestrians held under this rule. This latest decision by the Court holds a skateboarder to a higher standard of care under the law with regards to the contributory negligence rule. An experienced Maryland Accident Attorney is well-versed in this law and can accurately and effectively advise injured victims on how best to proceed with their case. If you or someone you know is injured while riding on a skateboard, bicycle or any other type of recreational vehicle contact the personal injury experts.

Continue Reading ››

 Posted on March 06, 2009 in Medical Malpractice Law in Maryland

Maryland has enacted significant limitations on the ability of Plaintiffs to use expert witnesses in Maryalnd medical malpractice cases. In 1976, the Maryland Health Claims Arbitration Act was enacted to help address a perceived medical malpractice insurance crisis. In 1986, the legislature further amended the Act to include a certificate of qualified expert requirement. As proposed in Senate Bill 559, an expert only would be qualified to sign a certificate if he or she did not receive 50 percent or more income from testimony and other activities related to personal injury claims. That language was amended to become the 20 Percent Rule; i.e., in order to qualify, a certifying expert cannot devote more than 20 percent of his or her professional activities to activities directly involving testimony in personal injury claims. The dichotomy that the General Assembly sought to reconcile was the desire, on the one hand, to exclude certain “professional witnesses” from the “pool of eligible experts” available to sign certificates of merit, while on the other, it did not want to “shrink” the size of that pool so as to “deny the parties the ability to pursue and defend these [malpractice] claims.” This balance was achieved by the aforementioned language changes which “keyed the critical numerical measurement to time, instead of income,” and narrowing the activities described as “related to” personal injury claims to the more circumscribed world of activities “directly involving testimony in personal injury claims.”

Continue Reading ››

 Posted on March 06, 2009 in Medical Malpractice Law in Maryland

When most people think of a medical malpractice case, they think about the kind of case in which the plaintiff (the party bringing the case) claims that a doctor of hosptial has acted below the standard of care and caused significnat injury in a patient. Another type of medcial malpractice case, however, inolves what is called “informed consent.” In the seminal case of Sard v. Hardy, the Maryland Court of Appeals held that the doctrine of informed consent follows logically from the universally recognized rule that a physician treating a mentally competent adult under non-emergency circumstances, cannot properly undertake to perform surgery or administer other therapy without the prior consent of his patient. The fountainhead of the doctrine of informed consent is the patient’s right to exercise control of his own body. In order for the patient’s consent to be effective and “informed,” it must have been one that is given after the patient received a fair and reasonable explanation of the contemplated treatment or procedure.

Continue Reading ››

 Posted on March 06, 2009 in Cancer Malpractice

A deceased woman’s family has been awarded $2.5 million in a medical malpracice case against the woman’s doctor for misdiagnosis of cancer. According to the family, the woman’s doctor’s negligent actions resulted in delayed treatment and severely reduced her chances of survival.

In 2004, the woman, who then was 24 years old, went to her doctor after experiencing blood in her stool. Her doctor diagnosed the problem as hemorrhoids on several occasions, but the real problem was colon and rectal cancer. Because her doctor failed to timely an properly diagnose her cancer, the woman’s condition went untreated for seven more months. She eventually died in 2007 at age 27.

The family argued that she would have had a extremely high probability of survival – 97% – if the doctor had timely diagnosed her cancer, but that due to the delay in diagnosis her survival rate fell below 50%. A copy of an article regarding the case can be found here.

Continue Reading ››

 Posted on March 06, 2009 in Medical Malpractice Law in Maryland

Many of my Maryland medical malpractice clients ask me whether there is any possibility that they can claim or recover punitive damages in their cases. The answer in every case is no. In Maryland, in order to recover puntive damages, the Maryland Court of Appeals (Maryland’s “Supreme Court”) decided in the 1992 case of Owens-Illinois, Inc. v. Zenobia, that a person must prove that the defendant acted with “actual malice.” Actual malice has been defined to mean intent to injury, ill will, or fraud. In a medical malpractice case, I have never seen a case where a physicain intended to injure a patient, or where there was ill will toward a patient that caused injury. Similarly, I have never seen a case of fraud in a medical malpractice case that injure a patient. While I suppose it could happen, it almost never does.

There are, however, times when punitive damages can be claimed in a medical malpractice case involving a defective product. In Zenobia, the Court of Appeals held that in order to prove a claim for punitive damages, a plaintiff must plead and then demonstrate: (1) that the defendant possessed actual knowledge of the product defect; and (2) that the defendant consciously and deliberately disregarded a foreseeable harm that might result from the defect. With respect to a product manufacturer, the Zenobia Court cited with approval academic commentary which stands for the proposition that manufacturer’s requisite level of knowledge “is usually gained through…testing procedures before the marketing or through post-marketing consumer accident reports and complains received by the defendant.” Additionally, actual knowledge also includes the willful refusal to know. Therefore, a defendant cannot shut his eyes or plug his ears when he is presented with evidence of a defect and thereby avoid liability for punitive damages. Id. Simply put, “the test requires a bad faith decision by the defendant to market or distribute the product, knowing of the defect and danger, in conscious disregard of the threat to the safety of those who will be exposed to the product.” While this is not an easy standard to meet, it can be met, and has been met in many cases, where evidence supports such a claim.

Continue Reading ››

 Posted on March 05, 2009 in Automobile Accident

The Baltimore Sun is reporting that Mathew S. Markle, 38, was tragically killed this morning in a one-car accident near Havre de Grace, Maryland this morning. an Interstate 95 on-ramp was closed for several hours. According to the Maryland State Police, Mr. Markle lost control of his pickup truck on the ramp from Route 155 to southbound I-95 on Exit 89. He lost control when his pickup left the roadway, went into a ditch and overturned. The driver was pronounced dead at the scene.

Continue Reading ››

 Posted on March 05, 2009 in Constitutional Violations

The answer to the question, at least according to this Maryland Criminal Attorney, is, I don’t know yet but what I have seen over the past few weeks has sure made me suspicious. Racial Profiling Cases, also known as “Driving While Black” cases occur when police officers stop citizens based on innate characteristics such as race and age as well as factors such as clothing and the type of vehicle the person is driving. These stops typically occur on I-95 and involve young black males driving rental cars or cars with out of state plates, especially cars bearing Florida or New York plates.

As some may be aware, Maryland has a bit of a sordid past with this issue. In fact the State Police settled a lawsuit just last year that was filed on behalf of several men who claimed that they had been “profiled” after fighting the ACLU for 12 years. The State Police paid out over $400,000 and agreed to hire an independent monitor to make sure this behavior is not repeated. So why am I suspicious that the MTA Police are engaged in racial profiling so soon after the State Police settlement? Here is why:

In just the last two weeks I have been retained by three people whom I believe may have been racially profiled by the Maryland Transportation Authority Police. In two of the three cases the facts justifying the stop are almost identical and they are quite similar in the third:

Continue Reading ››

 Posted on March 04, 2009 in Automobile Accident

Terrible news out of Anne Arundel County this morning. A 33 year old woman was killed and her 5 year old daughter were injured when another vehicle struck her in the rear, forcing her directly into the path of a commercial garbage truck. According to the Baltimore Sun, Anne Arundel Police have not released the victim’s names.

Apparently after the garbage truck struck the vehicle, both vehicles caught on fire. Coast Guard Petty Officer First Class Lavelas Luckey was the hero who saved the child. Petty Officer Luckey was on his way to work when he came upon the accident. He freed the child from the back seat and attempted to save the mother as well.

The child was taken to Johns Hopkins Pediatric Trauma Center in Baltimore. Tragically, the mother died at the seen due to injuries sustained. The accident happened on Ordinance Road in Glen Burnie. Early indications are that drugs and alcohol are not factors in this accident.

For more information or a free consultation, please contact the Maryland personal injury lawyers of Silverman, Thompson, Slutkin & White, LLC. or call Steve Silverman at 410-385-2226.

Continue Reading ››

 Posted on March 01, 2009 in Federal Criminal Defense

The United States Federal Sentencing Guidelines are not mandatory on sentencing courts. The Guidelines are also not presumed to be reasonable. That was the very clear and very recent message sent by the United States Supreme Court in Nelson v. United States, 129 S.Ct. 890 (2009). In so ruling , the Supreme Court made it very clear that the federal sentencing guidelines are NOT what they used to be!

The federal sentencing guidelines used to strike fear into the hearts of criminal defendants accused of federal offenses. Not only were the guidelines mandatory, but they were VERY harsh. Under the old sentencing guidelines scheme, even first time offenders with compelling personal circumstances were forced to serve large non-paroleable prison terms. Federal prison populations swelled with non-violent drug offenders incarcerated for long terms of incarceration. Judges who wished to vary from the guidelines were routinely reversed by federal circuit courts. Federal prosecutors, emboldened by the harsh mandatory guidelines, had no incentive to be reasonable. Under the mandatory guidelines system, prosecutors – not Judges –were the most powerful players in determining the fate of criminal defendants. By deciding which crimes to charge, the prosecutors could effectively dictate the result faced upon conviction. Even the most skilled defense attorneys were often powerless to stop unfairly harsh sentences. Judges were equally powerless.

Continue Reading ››