Baltimore Personal Injury Lawyer - All Topics - Most Popular

Sepsis: A Potentially Lethal Complication of Bacterial Infection

Steve Silverman — Tue, 17 Oct 2006 15:35:30 GMT

One of the most dangerous risks of contracting a serious bacterial infection is that the patient may develop sepsis--an overreaction by the immune system causing destructive inflammation throughout the body, often leading to heart and other organ failure and death. Even the best hospital intensive care units may be helpless to save patients stricken by severe sepsis. According to a 2003 study by Emory University and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, sepsis killed 120,491 hospitalized people in 2000. The same study found cases of sepsis in the U.S. have risen dramatically in recent decades, nearly tripling from 82.7 cases out of every 100,000 Americans in 1979 to 240.4 cases per 100,000 in 2000. Shockingly, Muppets creator Jim Henson died of the disease in 1990 at age 53.

Epidemiologists blame this large increase on the explosive rise in antibiotic-resistant bacteria caused by overuse of antibiotics as well as on the increasing numbers of people living with immune systems weakened by HIV, using immune-suppressive therapy for organ and bone marrow transplants, and receiving high-dose chemotherapy for cancer. Young children and elderly people are also at a higher risk for the condition because of their weaker immune systems.

Researchers have recently discovered that blocking the activity of a single enzyme known as aldose reductase can short-circuit sepsis, protecting heart function and greatly reducing sepsis deaths. These scientists have accomplished this feat using a chemical compound very similar to a diabetes drug already in stage three clinical trials in the United States, the final level of human experimentation before a drug is considered for federal licensing approval. If those diabetes trials prove successful and the drug is approved for use in diabetics, it's possible that such an "aldose reductase inhibitor" could be used by physicians relatively quickly for "off-label" emergency use against sepsis in humans, the scientists said. When a drug is approved for one human use, individual doctors may try it out against other conditions where it appears warranted. Until then, the onset of sepsis remains one of the most lethal, yet preventable, reactions to bacterial infections that are unfortunately so prevalent in hospitals today. If you or a member of your family have developed sepsis while in a hospital setting, you may have the right to take legal action. Please cotact us at 1-800-385-2243 or email us for a free consultation.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Steve Silverman

Medical Device Sales Representatives in the Operating Room: Source of Potential Litigation

Jamison White — Thu, 28 Sep 2006 16:21:23 GMT

In 1997, a 30-year-old woman died following a routine ambulatory surgical procedure to remove uterine fibroids. During the procedure, a new device was being utilized by the medical staff with the manufacturer's representative present in the operating room. The new device delivered 9000 milliliters of saline to the patient, with only 1,100 milliliters of output. The consequences were fatal and she died from the excessive infusion and absorption of saline. This incident garnered national notoriety because of the issues as to the propriety of the manufacturer's sales representative's presence in the operating room, and led to questions as to what role, if any, he played during the procedure. The public outrage over this incident led to both civil and criminal investigations, new legislation and new hospital policies on this issue.

Medical device manufacturers' representatives many times observe operating room procedures where their devices are being used. This may come in many forms: the sales representative may be in the operating room, observing the procedure or perhaps providing technical input to the surgeon; or the representative may visit the patient after the procedure to test the functioning of the device. Although this practice is still commonplace in hospitals across the country and may, at first glance, appear to benefit the patient, numerous concerns about a patient's privacy, informed consent and the unauthorized practice of medicine have arisen. Frequently, company representatives are present in the operating room and the patient either has no knowledge of that fact, or the patient has signed only a "general" consent, not one that advises the patient of the presence of the company representative. Because the operating room likely constitutes a private place, a plaintiff may have a cause of action for invasion of privacy by the mere presence in the operating room of a company representative, unless specific informed consent has been given.

Likewise, a company representative's presence in the operating room can also be construed as the unlawful practice of medicine. Each state defines the "practice of medicine." Whether or not the representative has violated the restrictions on the practice of medicine, is a question of fact. Did the sales representative use the medical tool during a surgical procedure? Did he provide advice and consultation to the physician during the procedure? Did the representative change the settings on the device mid-procedure in an effort to assist the physician? Or more simply, did he invade the profession by actions typically provided only by a trained and knowledgeable medical practitioner? The discovery that a sales representative performed these activities may give rise to liability against the sales representative, the device manufacturer, the physician/surgeon and the hospital or facility in which the procedure took place.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Jamison White

Out of State Automobile Accidents-What law Applies?

Steve Silverman — Fri, 06 Feb 2009 11:24:49 GMT

I recently represented a Maryland resident who was driving in Delaware when his car was hit head-on by by another Marylander who was driving in the opposite direction. My client suffered substantial injuries requiring multiple surgeries. Because the victim and the defendant were residents of Maryland, I was able to bring suit in Maryland even though the accident happened in Delaware.

The more important question was whether the Maryland Court would apply Delaware or Maryland negligence law. This was a critical issue for the victim because the Delaware law of comparative negligence is much more “plaintiff friendly” than Maryland’s doctrine of contributory negligence (see my previous blog on a discussion of contributory negligence v. comparative negligence” )

When deciding whether Maryland or Delaware law applies to this case, the Maryland Judge will follow the doctrine of lex loci delicti, which states that the law of the jurisdiction where the accident took place controls. Many states, including Delaware, take the position of the Restatement of Conflict of Laws § 145, which sets out the “most significant relationship test” and lays down six factors in § 6 to determine which law should apply when an accident occurs in one state between residents of a different state. In White v. King, the Maryland Court of Appeals clearly stated that Maryland law recognizes the doctrine of lex loci delicti. 223 A.2d 763 (1966).

This holding was reaffirmed in Hauch v. Connor, where the Court of Appeals reiterated that “[t]he rule of lex loci delicti is well-established in Maryland (although in Hauch itself, the Court applied Maryland law to an accident in Delaware based on public policy reasons because the Worker’s Compensation action could not have existed under Delaware law at all). When its rationale has been put into question, ‘this Court has consistently followed the rule.’” 295 Md. 188 at 124 (1983).

Thus, Maryland follows the rule of lex loci delicti. Even though both parties are residents of Maryland, the accident occurred in Delaware so Delaware law applies to this case.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Steve Silverman

Wrongful Death Suit Filed Against Nursing Homes

Shannon Weidemann — Thu, 10 May 2007 16:32:03 GMT

Two nursing homes have had wrongful death lawsuits filed against them for their alleged improper care and treatment of a former resident. The estate of the deceased woman have filed suit against Bethalto Care Center and Rosewood Care Center of Alton. Three doctors have also been named in the lawsuit.

Brown claims Bethalto failed in its duty to exercise ordinary care by failing to provide Theresa with proper hydration and nutritional support.
He also claims Bethalto failed to obtain proper and timely testing, monitoring, treatment and evaluation, failed to adequately and timely assess Theresa's condition, failed to keep her physicians advised of her condition, failed to protect her from pressure sores and failed to advocate for proper care.

She died on January 20, 2006 at Saint Anthony's Hospital. The estate is seeking $500,000 for pain and suffering to the victim and the loss of her to her family.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Shannon Weidemann

Tractor-Trailer Carrying Milk Overturns In Howard County

Chrissie Cole — Wed, 05 Aug 2009 18:59:00 GMT

A tractor-trailer, carrying milk, overturned Wednesday morning on I-95 to Route 32 West in Howard County.

The driver of the truck, Gary Hines, 35, of Severn, suffered minor injuries and was transported to Howard County General Hospital. According to officials, Hines has been charged with negligent driving.

No milk spilled from the truck, said police. But the ramp was closed for a short time while the damaged truck and debris were removed from the scene.

For more information on these types of accidents, visit our Tractor Trailer Help Center where you can find several helpful articles such as How to Stay Safe and Avoid a Tractor-Trailer Accident.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Chrissie Cole

Maryland Legislature Considers Criminal Liability for Adults Giving Alcohol to Minors

Steve Silverman — Tue, 17 Feb 2009 18:03:25 GMT

Maryland personal injury lawyers are closely watching a bill in this season of the Maryland General Assembly which will impose criminal liability on adults providing alcohol to minors. Intended to curb drunk driving, the expected new law will arm personal injury lawyers with a new tool to seek damages for victims of drunk drivers.

The proposed bill will change from a civil violations to a criminal misdemeanor any adult who gives alcohol to a minor. The only exceptions are parents, siblings and religious services. It is expected that the criminalization of the conduct will result in more thorough police investigations when minors are involved in drunk driving. Lawyers expect the police will also focus on the source of the alcohol, particularly when an accident or injury is involved. Adults who supply alcohol to minors my increasingly find themselves as defendants in lawsuits by victims of accidents caused by drunk minors. This is likely part of the legislatures motives to criminalize the now civil offense.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Steve Silverman

Contributory Negligence in Maryland for Maryland Personal Injury Cases

Steve Silverman — Thu, 05 Feb 2009 15:48:21 GMT

The Doctrine of Contributory Negligence adversely affects many personal injury plaintiffs in the State of Maryland. Basically, if a victim is found to share in the responsibility for an accident, the victim is completely bared from recovery. This doctrine, only found in Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina and Washington, D.C. frustrates many deserving injury victims and their lawyers.

In most states, recovery or compensation is based upon the Doctrine of Comparative Negligence. Comparative negligence, a much fairer standard, comes into play when it is contended that two or more parties failed to act in a reasonable standard of care. For example, suppose one person was driving too fast and hit a car that that failed to stop completely at a stop sign. In this situation-where each party has some degree of negligence in causing an accident-the responsibility to the other person(s) is reduced by the others' degree of negligence.

For example, suppose a jury decides that the driver going too fast was 10% responsible for the accident, while the driver who blew through the stop sign was 90% responsible. If the driver who was driving too fast is awarded $10,000, his recovery would be reduced to $1,000 because of his 10% contributory negligence.

If this accident case were decided in a contributary negligence jurisdiction such as Maryland, the driver who was found to have contributed to the accident by 10% would be 100% barred from any recovery. This can be unfortunate in situations where a plaintiff is severely injured or paralyzed, and can not make any recovery.

Most people do not think about this concept very often until it affects them personally. So if you are driving in Maryland, have an accident-watch out! The opposing insurance company may try to tag you with 1% of the blame to prevent compensating you a nickel. Immediately get yourself an experienced Maryland personal injury lawyer to protect you. Otherwise you may be left with mounting medical bills, ruined credit, and no where to turn.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Steve Silverman

Weis Markets Recalls Weis Baker's Basket 18 Ct Fruit Miniatures and 2 lb Platters of Mini-Fruit Diamonds

Jenny Albano — Thu, 03 Jan 2008 16:00:31 GMT

Weis Markets, in conjunction with the CPSC, is recalling Weis Baker's Basket 18 Ct Fruit Miniatures and 2 lb Platters of Mini-Fruit Diamonds because of undeclared walnuts in the products. The two pound platters of Mini-Fruit Diamonds come in four varieties - Nut Diamond, Cheese Raspberry, Apricot and Mixed assortment. People who are allergic to walnuts could suffer severe allergic reactions if these products are consumed.

These products, which were sold in Weis Markets' Bakeries, have been removed from store shelves and destroyed. The 18-count Fruit miniatures come in clear plastic containers and the two pound Mini Fruit Diamonds are packaged in a platter with a clear top. The UPC and code dates are listed below.

The problem with the Weis Market's products was discovered after a customer contacted the company to complain. The recalled Fruit Miniatures and Mini-Fruit Diamonds were sold at Weis Markets including its Mr. Z's, King's and Scot's Lo-Cost units in Pennsylvania, Maryland, New York, New Jersey and West Virginia.

The sell by date of the recalled product is 1/5/08 and the UPC Codes are:
UPC 210100-00000 18 Ct Fruit Miniatures
UPC 210112-00000 2 lb Fruit Miniature Platters

For more information on this subject, please refer to our section on Defective and Dangerous Products.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Jenny Albano

Contributory Negligence Doctrine Bars Many Maryland Personal Injury Claims

Steve Silverman — Wed, 24 May 2006 13:56:52 GMT

Personal Injury law in Maryland is vastly different then other states due to the Doctrine of Contributory Negligence. Contributory negligence means that if a person is found to be 1% or more at fault, that person is 100% barred from making any recovery. For example, if you are the victim of a rear end collision and the judge or jury finds you contributed to the accident by stopping too quickly, you can not recover for any of your medical bills, lost wages or other damages.

Often in slip and fall cases, a Maryland plaintiff will be barred from recovery because a jury determines the plaintiff is partially at fault for not watching where she was going. This is the case even if the store owner left an oil spill on the floor for 5 hours and failed to warn the customers! Such unjust results can be devastating to an individual who accumulates hundreds of thousands of dollars in medical bills, and the defendant is mostly to blame.

The Contributory Negligence Doctrine is unique to Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina and the District of Columbia. The net effect is that it invites litigation and clogs the court system because at-fault parties often believe that they can duck liability if they can show the defendant was 1% at-fault.

Because of the unique burden of proof required in Maryland, personally injury victims need too choose their attorney wisely and with great caution. Sadly, often the success of a case is determined by a very thin margin. For this reason, experience and trial skills are critical.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Steve Silverman

Civil Invasion of Privacy-A Tort Under Maryland Law

Steve Silverman — Fri, 13 Feb 2009 14:41:43 GMT

Whether it involve a landlord with a peephole, unauthorized movies or pictures, or compromising pictures posted on the Internet, the tort of invasion of privacy is the best means to recover in civil court in the state of Maryland.

The tort of invasion of privacy offers potential plaintiffs hope of recovering damages for mental suffering, shame or humiliation for the unwarranted appropriation or exploitation of one's personality, publicizing one's private activities with which the general public has no legitimate concern, or wrongful intrusion into one's private affairs.

If defendant is found liable for intrusion, and no defense or privilege is asserted, the plaintiff may be able to recover damages or obtain other relief. Unlike the tort of defamation, in which damages are awarded to compensate the plaintiff for the harm to his or her reputation, in an invasion of privacy suit, it is the harm to the plaintiff's dignity that is evaluated. Thus, to bring a successful invasion of privacy suit, it is not necessary that a defamatory remark be ''published,'' that is, made known to a person other than the plaintiff and the defendant. The plaintiff is the only one that is required to be aware of the intrusion, although the court must later also be convinced that he or she suffered mental distress.
A variety of remedies are available to an intrusion victim: general damages, special damages, compensatory damages, punitive damages, and injunctive relief.

General damages are of the type that generally flow from the intrusion-invasion of privacy tort, i.e., those that the law itself implies or presumes to have accrued from the wrong complained of and that are the immediate, direct and proximate result of the tort. General damages accrue as a necessary result of the injury, or they are the damages that did in fact result from the wrong, directly and proximately.

For instance, in Dietemann v. Time, Inc., the plaintiff was awarded $ 1000 in general damages for injury to the plaintiff's ''feelings and peace of mind'' after he had been deceived by reporters, who later wrote a critical article about him in ''Life'' magazine. In a New Hampshire action, a former wife, sought damages for the mental anguish, shock, anger, and sense of violation and deception she experienced when she discovered that her former husband had invaded her privacy by recording telephone conversations without her knowledge or permission. The former husband had recorded conversations between his former wife and the couple's daughter and the couple themselves. The recordings were in violation of New Hampshire's wiretapping and eavesdropping statute. The wife gave personal testimony of mental distress that was sufficient to present the issue of damages to the jury. The plaintiff's mental anguish affected her work, appetite, ability to sleep and emotional stability. The plaintiff's mother corroborated her daughter's testimony, stating that her daughter's sleep and eating patterns were disrupted for an extended period of time as a result of the emotional distress she experienced when she discovered the illegal recordings. The court felt that even though damages in invasion of privacy actions are necessarily subjective in nature, they are recoverable without demonstrating actual physical injury and without establishing causation by expert testimony.

Special damages are those ''which are the actual, but not the necessary, result of the injury complained of, and which in fact follow it as a natural and proximate consequence in the particular case, that is, by reason of special circumstances or conditions.'' Special damages are required to be specially pleaded and proved.

Compensatory damages are ''such as will compensate the injured party for the injury sustained and nothing more; such as will simply make good or replace the loss caused by the wrong or injury. [They are] [d]amages awarded to a person as compensation, indemnity or restitution for harm sustained by him.'' Compensatory damages consist of both general and special damages. An example of compensatory damages being awarded to an intrusion victim can be found in Birnbaum v. United States. The plaintiffs' letters to and from the Soviet Union were opened and copied by the United States Central Intelligence Agency. The district court awarded compensatory damages of $ 1000 to each plaintiff individually and ordered the government to send letters of apology to the plaintiffs. On appeal, the compensatory damages were affirmed, but the part of the judgment requiring that the letters of apology be sent was reversed.

Punitive or exemplary damages are awarded to a plaintiff, over and above compensatory damages, when the wrong done to him or her is aggravated by circumstances of violence, oppression, malice, fraud or wanton and wicked conduct on the defendant's part. Punitive damages are intended to soothe the plaintiff's mental anguish, shame, and/or degradation. Punitive damages are intended to punish the defendant, and, as such, are sometimes referred to as ''vindictive'' damages.

For example, in Nader v. General Motors Corp., Ralph Nader, the consumer advocate, was awarded $ 2,000,000 in compensatory damages and $ 7,000,000 in punitive damages in an invasion of privacy action against the car manufacturer. The action stemmed from G.M.'s surveillance and harassment of Nader when G.M. learned that Nader had written ''Unsafe At Any Speed,'' a book extremely critical of the car industry.

In Black v. United States, the government was held liable for $ 903,232 in damages arising out of approximately ten weeks of electronic surveillance of the plaintiff by F.B.I. agents. Damages were awarded for injuries, including loss of name, reputation, friends and business associates, in addition to mental pain and suffering, embarrassment and humiliation, as well as for loss of employment.

In other invasion of privacy cases, injunctive relief may be granted. An injunction is an equitable remedy, requiring the person to whom it is directed to do or refrain from doing a particular thing.

In summary, an intrusion-invasion of privacy victim has a number of remedies at his or her disposal to compensate for past damage or injury, to punish the wrongdoer, or to enjoin the wrongdoer from future intrusion.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Steve Silverman