Posts Tagged ‘Maryland’

Legal Boot Camp Class Four. Sean and Kristy’s Story: How a Jury Award is Conformed to the Cap.

Wednesday, June 15th, 2011

From the Editor. Please see our disclaimer at the end of this blog for a better understanding of the limitations of this series and our mission statement.

Last week, we published a blog about Sean and Kristy. You will recall that Sean died from excessive bleeding when the nurse overdosed him with anticoagulation medication after a major surgery. You will also recall that after careful consideration Kristy decided to file a medical malpractice claim against the nurse and her employer, the hospital.

Now, let’s skip forward.  Kristy’s Complaint stated two causes of action: survival and wrongful death. Under the survival claim, Kristy was the only named Plaintiff because she was named Personal Representative of Sean’s Estate. Only a personal representative can bring a survival action on behalf of a decedent. Kristy and Kira (Sean’ daughter) were both named Plaintiffs under the wrongful death count. Generally speaking, only a parent, spouse, or child (with some exceptions) can bring claims for wrongful death.

At the conclusion of the trial, the jury returned a verdict of 2.5 million with 1 million awarded in the survival action and 1.5 million awarded in the wrongful death action. Furthermore, in the wrongful death action, the jury awarded Kristy 1 million dollars and Kira 500,000 dollars.  All of these damages were for pain and suffering.  You will recall that Maryland has a cap on non-economic damages. The cap imposes a limitation of about 812,000 dollars when the jury’s award is for wrongful death and survival (this is regardless of the number of claims or claimants).

How will the Court reduce the verdict so that it conforms to the statutory cap? The answer is mandated by statute: the Court must make proportionate reductions in order to reduce the jury award to the statutory cap.  Here is how it works:  The total recovery in this case is 2.5 million (1 million under the survival action, 1.5 million under the wrongful death action). 1.5 million represents 60% of the total recovery of 2.5 million.  1 million represents 40% of the total recovery.

Now, 40% of the 812,000 cap is 320,800 dollars. 60% of the 812,000 cap is 487,200 dollars. Therefore, the monetary award under the survival action will be reduced by the Court to 324,800 dollars. The overall award under the wrongful death action will be reduced by the Court proportionately to 487,200 dollars.

Furthermore, proportionate reductions are necessary to conform the wrongful death award to the cap.  An overall amount of 1.5 million was awarded in the wrongful death action.  From that award, the jury gave Kira 500,000 dollars and Kristy 1 million dollars.  One million represents about 67% of the total recovery in the wrongful death action. Kira’s award of 500,000 dollars represent 33.3%. Applying these percentages to the capped wrongful death recovery of 487,200 dollars, Kira’s award will be reduced from 500,000 dollars to 160,776 (33% of 487,200) dollars. Kristy’s award of 1 million dollars will be reduced to 326,424 dollars (67% of 487,200). This is all Maryland law will permit them to recover. Justice or injustice, what do you think?

Related Posts:

Malpractice Wrongful Death Lawsuit by Couple Falsely Accused of Abusing Their Child Filed Against Children’s Hospital

Maryland’s Cap and a Message from the former MAJ President re the Goings-On in Annapolis

Legal Boot Camp (First Class): The Story of Pam – Maryland’s Law on Earning Capacity

“Wrongful Death and Survival Actions”

Disclaimer: As is the case with all of our blogs and the writings posted on our website, we are not offering legal advice to our readers. This information in our series,Legal Boot Camp, is being presented in the hope that we can provide some education about the law in Maryland and the District of Columbia. The law in the field of personal injury (and particularly in our sub-specialty of medical malpractice) can be complex and confusing at times. Even in these two jurisdictions where we are licensed to practice, the laws and their interpretation by the courts can vary significantly. It is simply our hope that by presenting this series – Legal Boot Camp - that we can provide a better understanding of some legal principles that can come into play when bringing a civil claim or lawsuit for damages as a result of the wrongdoing of others.

For those who do not live in either Maryland or the Washington, D.C., we hope that we can at least raise some issues for you to consider when you speak with an attorney licensed to practice in the state in which you live. Many times the basic concepts of law are similar. We hope that by raising some of these issues applicable to Maryland and the District of Columbia, you will at least have a basic understanding of some terms and principles that may apply to your situation. Don’t be afraid to raise these issues with your attorney. Education – be it in law or medicine – is our main goal.
Finally, please see our introductory blog for Legal Boot Camp for a better understanding of our mission in presenting this series.

 

Newest Word on Crib Safety: Ban the Bumpers?

Tuesday, June 14th, 2011

Which crib bedding would you choose? Aesthetic or safe?

In the newest topic regarding crib safety, Maryland is considering regulations to ban the sale of crib bumpers. For many years, more and more emphasis has been placed on infants sleeping in safe cribs without any additional “stuff” in them. This has included the elimination of lots of former nursery staples. Baby blankets, stuffed animals, pillows and other loose items have been banned from the crib by safety experts for years. As requirements for cribs have required slats that are closer together, the utility of using a bumper to help a child from getting stuck between crib slats has been eliminated. More recently, the Consumer Product Safety Commission has developed even newer crib safety standards, including eliminating the use of drop-sides, and warned against the use of sleep positioners. Yet, despite the advice to put babies to sleep only on their backs in cribs empty of everything except a well fitting mattress and fitted sheet, many parents and caregivers persist in using other items in cribs. Now, with an increasing number of deaths associated with crib bumpers, Maryland is considering a stronger stance.

Danger of Crib Bumpers

The concern about crib bumpers is that there have been infant deaths associated with suffocation or strangulation and the use of crib bumpers. Some of the deaths are directly attributable to the bumpers (for instance a child found with their head wrapped in the ties of the bumper or their face pressed into the side of the bumper), while others are only potentially related to the bumper use but not definitively so (for instance, children whose death are classified as SIDS, but where bumpers were in use in the crib at the time of death and may have been a contributing factor in the death). This makes the discussion of the dangers muddy – with manufacturers claiming that bumpers are safe and advocates warning against their use to protect against suffocation.

Potential Ban on Sale of Bumpers

When the Baltimore Sun reported on the potential regulations, they mentioned something that gave me pause. They explained that if Dr. Sharfstein, secretary of the state Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, does decide to regulate this issue, the regulations will impact only the sale, not the use of the bumpers. While this makes sense from a policy perspective, the goal is not to punish parents who may not be aware of the safety risks, and from a enforceability perspective, the state cannot possibly enforce a regulation that requires knowledge of whether bumpers are being used in individual homes, the regulation of the sale of the item is going to have some drawbacks.

Will a State Ban Save Lives?

So here are my questions. Will regulations against the sale of these bumpers in Maryland make any difference in saving lives? In this day of internet shopping and wide availability of items through catalogues and easy interstate travel, are Maryland families going to forgo the crib bumper because they cannot be purchased in the local baby store, or are they still going to be buying the bumper with a set of nursery items on Amazon or through a national baby store? Will Internet or national companies without a store presence in Maryland be punished for selling a bumper to a person with a Maryland address? If so, then perhaps the word will get out that these items are dangerous and should not be used. If not, will parents even realize that the goal of the regulation is actually to curb the use of the bumpers. Either way, I guess that by decreasing the number of bumpers in Maryland homes, safety will be increased and perhaps over time, awareness will be increased and other states may follow suit.

Getting the Word Out

My other concern is that if there are parents who are still using bumpers, blankets or other items in their babies’ cribs, is the issue one of parent education? Perhaps the real emphasis needs to be on wider parental awareness of the safety issue. There are lots of great resources available to learn how to put infants to sleep safely:

httpv://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VNekf5P9_Yg&feature=youtu.be

Since the early 1990s, the emphasis has been on having infants sleep on their backs. This has lead to a dramatic decrease in SIDS deaths since that time. The “Back to Sleep” campaign began in 1994 and continues to this day.  However, when reading a 2005 paper from the AAP, I was surprised to read that SIDS deaths are more likely to occur when a baby who is used to sleeping on their back is placed to sleep on their stomach. This suggests that education needs to be of all potential caregivers since an occasional babysitter, grandparent or child care provider who is unfamiliar with the recommendations and the child’s normal sleep position may place the child to sleep on their stomach and cause real risk.

AAP has made many recommendations since 2005 including that children sleep in cribs with only a fitted sheet and without any additional soft bedding. These recommendations have varied somewhat over time on the use of bumpers and sleep positioners. However, the overall advice seems to remain the same – eliminate all soft bedding items. Despite these recommendations, there are still images in popular media of nurseries complete with cribs with soft bedding.

What changes are still needed?

What changes are needed to get the word out? Do you think that there needs to be a stronger effort to change the marketing images for infant products? Do you think that a ban on the sale of bumpers will have a significant impact on child safety? What about an education campaign focusing on caregivers, grandparents and day care providers?

Related Posts:

Over Two Million Cribs Recalled…What About Yours?

Infant Safety – drop-down crib hazard; CPSC issues recall

Generation 2 Worldwide and “ChildESIGNS” Drop Side Crib Brands Recalled; Three Infant Deaths Reported

Consumer Product Safety Commission vows to crack down on defective cribs – washingtonpost.com

 

Images from: sidscenter.org, potterybarnkids.com

Legal Boot Camp (First Class): The Story of Pam – Maryland’s Law on Earning Capacity

Thursday, May 26th, 2011

Image from cnbc.com

Wondering what “Legal Boot Camp” is all about? Check out our announcement, find out, come along, have some fun and learn some “law stuff” while you’re at it.   Please see our disclaimer at the end of this blog for a better understanding of the limitations of this series and our mission statement.

Class is now in session….

A 41-year-old woman, Pam, who was laid off from her job as a swimming instructor and swim coach in December of 2009, has been struggling to find a new position for the last few years. Even though Pam had been working as a swimming instructor full-time for the past 18 years, she felt that she needed to jump into a new career while waiting to find a new position as a swimming instructor and coach. Starting in October of 2010, her father died leaving her a rundown home that he had recently purchased with the intent of renovating it. Pam felt that she could put her physical fitness and knowledge of home aesthetics to work, not to mention the ideas she picked up watching renovations shows while unemployed, by renovating the home her father left and selling it for a profit. Since Pam thought that this could be her new vocation along with being a swim instructor, she formed a company for her new real estate and renovation business. She also bought a few additional run-down properties at auction. She started the renovations on the first house and completed a stunning new kitchen and had begun the demolition for a new bath by January of 2011. While still unemployed as a swimming instructor and before making any profit on her real estate business, Pam underwent a routine medical procedure at a local area hospital. Unfortunately, while still in the hospital following the procedure, she was severely injured and has been left paraplegic.

Now, Pam is considering filing a lawsuit as a result of the negligent care she received while hospitalized. Given the extent of her injuries, she will not be able to return to her job as a swimming instructor and she will have to hire workers if she is going to complete any additional renovations in the homes that she purchased. She may be able to work again, but not without significant assistance and not in either of her prior capacities. The question for today is what damages might she be able to claim in terms of a lost wages claim or a diminished earning capacity claim in Maryland.

Unemployment Not a Bar to Recovery for Loss of Earnings

In personal injury actions in Maryland, unemployment or self-employment without earning a profit at the time of injury are not a bar to recovery for loss of earning or loss of earning capability. In Ihrie v. Anthony, to Use of Gov’t Emp. Ins. Co., 205 Md. 296,107 A.2d 104 (1954), a woman was injured in a car accident while unemployed. She had previously worked in several jobs, both office positions and real estate work. Ihrie, 205 Md. at 303-304,107 A.2d at 107. After her injury, she was unable to continue to work in these types of positions, though there is some dispute about that. Id. at 304, 107 A.2d at 107. What is important to consider for Pam is that in the Ihrie case, the injured woman was allowed to recover. Id. at 309, 107 A.2d at 110.

The court held that “[t]he fact that the plaintiff was unemployed at the time of the accident and for several years prior thereto is not fatal to her right to recover.” Id. at 305, 107 A.2d at 107. In that case, like the one we are considering today, the woman who was injured had worked in the past and had a history of employment and wages to consider. The judges took the woman’s injuries and her past earning history into account in making their decision:

We are of the opinion that there was sufficient evidence of the permanence of the plaintiff’s injuries and of their impairing her earning power to warrant the submission of those issues to the jury and that there was sufficient evidence to serve the jury as a guide in measuring the extent of her loss of earnings.

Id. at 306-307, 107 A.2d 104, 108. Pam’s injuries and her past history of employment as a swim instructor should be presented at trial in her claim for loss of earnings. The past year and a half of unemployment should not bar her recovery since she has an eighteen-year history of employment to measure her loss of earnings for the future.

Can She Recover for Her Business?

What about Pam’s fledgling real estate business? She was working herself on the houses, which she will not be able to do moving forward. In order to complete the renovations and sell the homes, she will have to hire renovators at a significant expense. Since her business did not yet have a profit, she does not have the same sort of earnings history as she does for her past job as a swim instructor. However, she may still be able to recover for a loss of earning capacity.

In Anderson v. Litzenberg, 115 Md. App. 549, 694 A.2d 150 (1997), the court found that if someone is self-employed in a not yet profitable business at the time of their injury, they may still be able to recover for their loss of earning capacity. The case examined the situation of a man who was injured in an accident while he was partially self-employed in a real estate business that was not making a profit. Id. The court examined the question of loss of earning capacity. Id. The court defined impairment of earning capacity as the “lost capacity to earn, rather than what a plaintiff would have earned.” Id. at 572, 694 A.2d at 161 (internal citations omitted). The court explains that:

It is generally recognized that impairment of earning capacity seeks to compensate the plaintiff for a reduction in his ability to earn through his personal services. Once the fact of impaired earning capacity is established, the plaintiff must submit evidence so that the extent of the impairment can reasonably be determined. The prevailing proper measure of lost earning capacity is the difference between the amount that the plaintiff was capable of earning before his injury and that which he is capable of earning thereafter. Essentially, the plaintiff must establish the disparity between the market value of his services before and after the injury.

The objective is to place [the victim] in the same economic position as would have been … had the injury not occurred. We seek to accomplish this goal by a formula which … consists of determining what [plaintiff's] annual earning power would have been but for the injury, deducting what it will be thereafter, multiplying the result by [plaintiff's] expectancy, and discounting the product to present value.”

Id. at 572-73, 694 A.2d at 161-62 (internal citations omitted). This would be the formula that would need to be considered in Pam’s case. The necessary proof would need to be provided of Pam’s former earning capacity before her injury and whatever earning capacity she has with her injury. However, Anderson makes clear that the specificity of earning capacity need not be as great as that of lost earnings – as it would be nearly impossible to know for certain what sort of profit Pam might make in the future. See id.

There are many factors to consider when deciding whether to file a personal injury action for medical malpractice. One of the considerations is certainly whether the potential damages award makes it worthwhile to undertake the costs of litigating for the wrong inflicted upon the injured party. Have you ever been involved in a case involving lost earnings or loss of earning capacity in a personal injury case? Was there unemployment involved? This seems likely to be a more frequent question with the current economic realities in our country.

Related Posts:

Every bad outcome or injury does NOT a malpractice case make! Some practical advice.

Should you sue a healthcare provider? Some guidelines to help you decide.

 

Disclaimer: As is the case with all of our blogs and the writings posted on our website, we are not offering legal advice to our readers. This information in our series,Legal Boot Camp, is being presented in the hope that we can provide some education about the law in Maryland and the District of Columbia. The law in the field of personal injury (and particularly in our sub-specialty of medical malpractice) can be complex and confusing at times. Even in these two jurisdictions where we are licensed to practice, the laws and their interpretation by the courts can vary significantly. It is simply our hope that by presenting this series – Legal Boot Camp - that we can provide a better understanding of some legal principles that can come into play when bringing a civil claim or lawsuit for damages as a result of the wrongdoing of others.

For those who do not live in either Maryland or the Washington, D.C., we hope that we can at least raise some issues for you to consider when you speak with an attorney licensed to practice in the state in which you live. Many times the basic concepts of law are similar. We hope that by raising some of these issues applicable to Maryland and the District of Columbia, you will at least have a basic understanding of some terms and principles that may apply to your situation. Don’t be afraid to raise these issues with your attorney. Education – be it in law or medicine – is our main goal.

 

Horrible day in Anne Arundel County, MD:Fatal crash halts morning traffic near Arundel Mills – Early Evening Fatal Plane Crash

Saturday, February 27th, 2010

This was a brutal day in Anne Arundel County, MD.  As the Baltimore Sun reported -Fatal crash halts morning traffic near Arundel Mills – baltimoresun.com -

At 6:29 a.m., rescue workers were called to a collision on eastbound 100, just west of Telegraph Road, near the MARC system’s Penn Line.

The vehicle went off the road and fell about 30 to 40 feet to the train tracks below, with crews taking roughly 20 minutes to free the two victims, Cox said. One victim, a man estimated to be about 40 years of age, was flown by medevac helicopter to the University of Maryland Shock Trauma Center. The second man, estimated to be about 30 years old, was pronounced dead at the scene.

At 4:30 this afternoon, according to a news report from the Baltimore Sun, a single engine plane crashed in the backyard of a single family home.  The pilot died; no one else was injured according to the report.  The crash took place in Edgewater, near Lee Airport and not far from the intersection of Solomons Island Road and Warehouse Creek Lane.