Posted on July 10, 2008 in Criminal Defense

An Aggressive Maryland Criminal Attorney will always review all criminal cases for Constitutional Violations such as Speedy Trial, Illegal Search and Seizure, Illegal Confessions in violation of a person’s Miranda Rights and, Illegal Traffic Stops. I have a case scheduled for next week in the District Court of Maryland for Baltimore City at the North Avenue location that involves a significant Speedy Trial issue that I believe will result in the dismissal of all charges.

The client allegedly had a domestic violence incident involving his girlfriend at the time, way back in March of 2006. The ex-girlfriend went to the court commissioner and swore out a warrant against him alleging that he had assaulted her in the second degree and repeatedly harassed her and committed telephone misuse by repeatedly calling her with the intent to harass her. The warrant was issued that day but there was apparently never any attempt to serve this warrant on my client until April of this year, over two years after the warrant was issued. This obviously puts the issue of Speedy Trial in play. Speedy Trial is an issue that comes up often in serious felony cases in the Circuit Court, particularly in Baltimore City. In felony cases that are charged in Circuit Court, either by way of indictment or criminal information, Speedy Trial commences upon the filing of that formal charge, not when the original warrant is issued. That is because the original warrant in the majority of circuit court cases is issued by way of a District Court charging document, known as a Statement of Charges, a charging document upon which the defendant cannot be tried.

Once the person is picked up on the warrant charging the person with a serious felony, the case will be set in for a preliminary hearing, usually 30 days or so after the warrant is served. During this time the State’s Attorney’s Office will conduct a felony review to determine whether or not they wish to file charges against the person in circuit court by way of a grand jury indictment or the filing of an information after a preliminary hearing is held or waived by the defendant. The State’s Attorney may also choose to reduce the case to a misdemeanor or dismiss it altogether which will usually occur at the preliminary hearing. The Speedy Trial calculation for these types of cases begins upon the filing of the indictment or information by the State’s Attorney. It matters not how long the case is in warrant status without being served. The reason for this as laid out by the Court of Appeals in State v. Gee is that the if a person is charged with a matter where exlusive jurisdiction is vested in the circuit court on a warrant statement of charges (examples include murder, robbery, rape, burglary, sex offenses and other serious felonies), the warrant statement of charges is not a formal charge that would activate the person’s speedy trial right because the person cannot be tried on that document. In order to be tried the State must file and indictment or information in the circuit court and it is the filing of this formal charge that activates the person’s Speedy Trial right.

Continue Reading ››

 Posted on July 08, 2008 in Personal Injury

Sometimes, individuals that do not carry automobile insurance coverage (because they do not drive) are injured by an uninsured motorist or "phantom vehicle." The Maryland legislature has created a special fund to compensate these victims. In certain circumstances, it may be possible to make a claim against this government-managed fund when a person has been injured (or his or her property has been damaged) by the negligent act or omission of an uninsured motorist or a motorist that has fled the scene of the collision and cannot be identified.

When someone is struck by a "phantom vehicle," the injured person must demonstrate that he or she has made all "reasonable efforts" to ascertain the identity of the motor vehicle and the owner/operator of the motor vehicle that stuck him or her, but was unsuccessful. What constitutes "reasonable efforts" is determined on a case by case basis, but Maryland courts have historically applied a much heightened standard. Generally speaking, "reasonable efforts" are the same efforts that one would expect an injured person to make if he or she knew there would be zero recovery unless he or she actually located the driver of the phantom vehicle. These efforts may include, but certainly are not limited to, interviewing all available witnesses, searching the surrounding area for the vehicle, publishing a notice in a local paper and/or hiring a private investigator.

Continue Reading ››

 Posted on July 07, 2008 in Medical Malpractice

A $1.25 million settlement has been reached in an Indiana medical malpractice case in which the parents of a deceased eighteen-month-old claimed that a doctor failed to timely diagnose and treat the child’s meningitis by negligently diagnosing a stomach problem. An antibiotic treatment and brain surgery failed to cure the child, and he died. The parents alleged that the doctor should have done a spinal tap and administered antibiotics earlier. A copy of the article regarding the case can be found here.

I have successfully handled a number of medical malpractice / medical negligence / medical error cases involving a failure to timely diagnosis and treat meningitis. The key to these cases is carefully looking for the signs and symptoms of meningitis (fever; headache; vomiting or nausea with headache; confusion, or difficulty concentrating – in the very young, this may appear as inability to maintain eye contact; seizures; sleepiness or difficulty waking up; stiff neck; sensitivity to light; lack of interest in drinking and eating; skin rash in some cases, such as in viral or meningococcal meningitis) both in the medical records and through speaking with family members.

Continue Reading ››

 Posted on July 02, 2008 in Personal Injury

A Cheyenne, Wyoming jury awarded a husband and wife more than $18 million in a personal injury lawsuit arising out of a tractor-trailer collision. The driver of the tractor-trailer and the trucking company that employed her were found to be negligent in causing the crash. The defendants claimed that the husband, who was very seriously injured and sustained severe brain damage as a result of the crash, was negligent in causing the collision. The jury disagreed. A copy of the article regarding the case can be found here.

Trucking cases can be very difficult and complex cases to handle and it is very important to be represented by an experienced trial attorney who is familiar with the statutes, rules and regulations that are applicable to truck drivers and trucking companies. These statutes, rules and regulations may add another layer of complexity to an otherwise typical automobile accident case. There are certain records that a trucking company is required by law to maintain. These records can be critical to the outcome of trucking case where a party has sustained serious personal injuries. For instance, Department of Transportation regulations govern the inspection and maintenance responsibilities of most motor carriers and truck drivers that conduct interstate operations. These regulations have been adopted by the Maryland legislature and apply with equal force to intrastate motor carriers that conduct business entirely within the State of Maryland.

Continue Reading ››

 Posted on July 02, 2008 in Medical Malpractice

A Plaintiff recently lost a medical malpractice case in which it was alleged that there was a failure to properly place a patient on anti-coagulants after orthopedic surgery, which caused blood clots to form and kill the patient (pulmonary embolism). Apparently, a 54-year-old former pastor died three weeks after undergoing surgery on his leg. He developed difficulty breathing that day and was taken to a hospital where he died. An autopsy found that his death was caused by a blood clot in his lungs that originated in his leg. The patient claimed in the suit that the doctor should have prescribed medications to reduce the chance of blood clots after the surgery to repair a torn Achilles tendon. A copy of the article regarding the case can be found here.

I have handled approximately five pulmonary embolism medical malpractice cases in the Baltimore, Maryland / Washington area, and have been highly successful in each one. The standard of care in these cases is very clear. Whenever a patient has certain risk factors, such as certain medical conditions like obesity, advanced age, surgery lasting more then two hours, etc., the surgeon must ensure that certain preventive measures are taken, such as tight stockings (commonly called Ted Stockings; to keep blood from pooling in the legs), sequential compression devices (inflatable leg sleeves that keep the blood moving in the legs), and/or a blood thinner (coumadin, lovinox, etc.).

Continue Reading ››

 Posted on June 30, 2008 in Medical Malpractice

A Florida jury has awarded $12 million for the death of a premature baby caused by medical malpractice. The parents contended in their suit that the hospital negligently accepted a transfer of the baby from another hospital, but did not have the appropriate specialists on its staff to deal with their baby’s infection. A copy of the article regarding the case can be found here.

In Maryland and the District of Columbia, most hospitals can be classified as academic medical centers (like the Johns Hopkins Hospital, the University of Maryland Medical Center, George Washington University Medical Center or Georgetown University Hospital, etc.) or community hospitals (like Sinai Hospital, Harbor Hospital, Shady Grove Adventist, etc.). Maryland and District of Columbia hospitals also are labeled according to what type of trauma center they are.

The concept of a trauma center was developed at the University of Maryland Medical Center in the 1960s and 1970s by heart surgeon and shock researcher R Adams Cowley, who founded what became the Shock Trauma Center. Trauma centers in the United States are ranked by the American College of Surgeons (ACS), from level I (comprehensive service) to level III (limited-care). The different levels refer to the type of resources available in a trauma center and the number of patients admitted yearly.

Continue Reading ››

 Posted on June 27, 2008 in Medical Malpractice

An Indiana jury has decided that a medical clinic must pay $2.75 million to a former patient for failing to test a tumor removed from the woman’s foot. A doctor later found that a second tumor removed from the foot was malignant. Jurors awarded an additional $500,000 to the woman’s husband.

This case involves a complete failure to test the first tumor, and the failure to alert the patient to the fact that the tumor wasn’t tested. That is a clear mistake, and is certainly medical negligence according to the standard of care. I have handled a number of cases before where tests were not properly done or interpreted.

In one such medical malpractice case in Maryland, a young girl’s leg was hurting, so her mother took her to a Baltimore hospital to be examined. The doctor didn’t want to do an x-ray, but the mother insisted. After the x-ray, the mother was told that she would be called if the x-ray was abnormal. No one ever called. Over the 8 months, the child’s leg pain got worse. When the mother decided to take her daughter to another hospital for a second opinion. That hospital asked the mother to get a copy of the x-rays from the first hospital. When the mother called the first hospital, they couldn’t find the x-rays. The mother then went to the first hospital in person, to try and get the x-rays. When she got there, she was told that the x-rays were just being read. She didn’t understand, as it has been many months since she and her daughter had been there. On her way to the second hospital, the mother got a call from the first hospital telling her that the x-ray showed evidence of bone cancer. It turned out that the films were never read until the day the mother went to pick up the films. That eight month delay in the bone cancer diagnosis allowed the cancer to spread / metastasize. As a result, the girl died before her 20th birthday. What a tragic case. Obviously, that medical malpractice case settled for a substantial amount.

Continue Reading ››

 Posted on June 26, 2008 in Criminal Defense

I had a CDS Possession case in which my client was alleged to have been in possession of both marijuana and cocaine this afternoon in Essex District Court in Baltimore County Maryland. As an Aggressive Maryland Criminal Attorney the first thing I look at in CDS Possession or Driving Under the Influence (DUI) or Driving While Impaired) (DWI) cases is whether or not the police officer had probable cause to stop and ultimately search my client for contraband. In a case that I recently handled in Baltimore City Maryland Circuit Court, the officer may have had probable cause to stop my client but he did not have probable cause to search my client’s person or his motor vehicle.

The officer told my client that he pulled him over for illegally dark tinting of his windows. Once my client showed him the documentation that the tinting was in fact legal (35%) he said that my client wasn’t wearing his seat belt, which according to my client was untrue. Accepting the officer’s version of the facts is unfortunately a necessary evil in evaluating the Constitutionality of a vehicle stop and/or a search because more often than not the judge is going to give more weight to the police officer’s version of the events than he or she will the defendant’s version. And it is a judge, not a jury, who decides whether or not a stop or a search is legal. The officer then called in a K-9 dog to scan the outside of the vehicle which is legal without probable cause as the court’s have consistently ruled that a person has no expectation of privacy in the outside of his or her motor vehicle.

Continue Reading ››

 Posted on June 25, 2008 in Medical Malpractice

A New Jersey doctor’s medical license has just been suspended after regulators determined that he performed the wrong surgery on a patient, by removing the wrong lung, then tried to cover up the error. The New Jersey Board found Dr. Santusht Perera removed a portion of the patient’s right lung when he should have been removing a tumor in the left lung. According to the Board, the surgeon then told the patient that the right lung contained a life-threatening tumor, though there was no such growth. He also altered the patient’s records to show he intended to operate on the right lung. The board determined that Perera’s actions constituted gross negligence. A copy of the article regarding the case can be found here.

While most medical care is good, sadly there are significant number of doctors and hospital staff who commit serious medical malpractice / medical mistakes each day. In the case above, the patient’s healthy lung was removed while the cancerous lung was left unaltered. As if that is not bad enough, the doctor then tried to cover up his mistake. Like in this case, the doctor usually gets caught.

Continue Reading ››

 Posted on June 25, 2008 in Driving Under the Influence

Maryland DUI Attorney – Maryland DWI Attorney – Maryland DUI Lawyer – Maryland DWI Lawyer

Just about the first question people routinely ask me when they find out that I am an Aggressive DUI/DWI Attorney is should they or shouldn’t they take the Breathalyzer if they are stopped by a police officer after they have been drinking. The answer to the question is somewhat more complicated than it used to be given recent changes in Maryland DUI/DWI law.

In the case of first offenders, my advice prior to January 1, 2006 used to be to tell the person go ahead and take the test if he believes that he is significantly under the influence. The rationale for this advice was that taking the test in no way prevents a person from later asserting Constitutional defenses such as an illegal stop or an illlegal arrest which are really the only viable defenses in most DUI cases these days for reasons I will explain in the next paragraph; and taking the test only subjected a person to 45 day restricted license, regardless of the person’s blood alcohol level, as opposed to a 120 day outright suspension or a year with the interlock device if the person refused the test.

Continue Reading ››