Posted on September 23, 2014 in Controlled Dangerous Substances (CDS)

As an Aggressive Maryland Criminal Lawyer, I have represented hundreds of defendants charged with Possession with the Intent to Distribute Controlled Dangerous Substances over the past 16 years. These are very serious cases, often involving complicated Fourth Amendment, illegal search and seizure issues. They are also cases that can carry lengthy mandatory sentences that must be served without the possibility of parole, particularly for repeat offenders. It is imperative that a person charged with one of these serious offenses take the time and care to ensure that they are represented by an attorney who has both the experience and the expertise to handle such a case. I strongly recommend that as in the case of being diagnosed with a serious illness, someone charged with a Felony such as Possession with the Intent to Distribute, should seek out at least two opinions from an attorney who is a specialists in both criminal law and the jurisdiction in which the person is charged.

Continue Reading ››

 Posted on May 20, 2014 in Criminal Tax

Yesterday, the U.S. Department of Justice announced a major guilty plea in line with their goal of curtailing the use of foreign bank accounts by Americans to conceal taxable assets.

Credit Suisse bank pleaded guilty to one count of conspiring to aid Americans evade taxes by hiding their wealth in undisclosed Credit Suisse accounts. The guilty plea underscores the vulnerability of parent banks and their subsidiaries, and indicates that all are subject to the United State’s prosecution efforts in this regard. Credit Suisse, as part of yesterday’s guilty plea, admitted to helping Americans conceal their wealth from the United States government, and will pay $2.6 Billion in fines and penalties to the Federal and New York State governments. The plea saves Credit Suisse from potentially losing its license to operate in the United States, a power Federal regulators may exercise over violator banks. The criminal charges were also prompted as a result of actions taken by the bank to impede the federal investigation, including failing to comply with investigators’ requests for employee interviews, delays in providing requested documents, and destruction of relevant e-mail communications. France’s largest bank, BNP, is expected to enter a similar guilty plea in the next few weeks.

Continue Reading ››

 Posted on April 23, 2014 in Medical Malpractice

A Kansas jury recently found that a Kansas doctor and pain clinic were guilty of medical malpractice that caused the death of a 40-year-old man, and awarded the Missouri family nearly $3 million.

The medical malpractice suit stems from a series a steroid injections beginning in May 2008. The patient, who suffered chronic lower back pain, visited a Kansas pain clinic in early 2008. In May, one of the physicians who operated the clinic injected medication into the patient’s back. This alleviated his pain for a while, but in December the patient was back in the clinic for a second round of injections. Unfortunately, those injections failed, and the patient returned to the clinic on January 5, 2009. The original treating physician was on vacation, so another operating physician attended to the patient. This physician administered an epidural steroid injection in the patient’s lower back. Soon after, the patient’s pain still had not subsided, and a lump started to appear where the needle had gone in. The medical malpractice suit states that the patient complained that the lump hurt but was told by the clinic that minor swelling at the injection site was normal.

Continue Reading ››

 Posted on April 15, 2014 in Emergency Room Malpractice

Tragically, a medical condition or injury sometimes results in death for too many individuals, particularly young children. This is a loss that no parent should have to experience in his or her lifetime. Often, there is nothing that can be done to prevent these tragedies. However, there are occasional incidents in which a child’s death could have been prevented, but wasn’t. In these situations, errors by medical professionals and hospitals are crucial and sometimes may be the bases for medical malpractice lawsuits. Medical malpractice suits function to hold these professionals and hospitals accountable when they fail to meet the appropriate standards of care and injury or death results. Medical malpractice can take many forms, including a misdiagnosis. Recently, this prompted a medical malpractice lawsuit by a Dallas couple whose six-year-old boy died after treatment by an emergency physician at a Texas medical center. A copy of the article regarding the recent medical malpractice case can be found here.

Continue Reading ››

 Posted on April 08, 2014 in Cancer Malpractice

Some of the most common medical malpractice lawsuits involve a provider’s failure to diagnose a patient properly. When patients seek medical help, they trust that their healthcare providers will perform the necessary steps to determine what is causing their symptoms and ultimately provide the proper treatment. Needless to say, patients expect to receive the highest level of care. In this same vein, doctors are expected, and even trained, to make the proper decisions when the time comes to make a diagnosis or recommend the appropriate treatment.

Unfortunately, misdiagnoses happen all too often. A misdiagnosis can lead a patient down the wrong treatment plan or without any treatment plan at all. Failing to properly diagnose a patient prevents doctors and medical staff from providing the proper treatment, which often can lead to further injury or sometimes even death.

In 2009, a healthy and active middle-aged woman in Texas underwent a mastectomy to remove a benign breast tumor. Just one month later, she was given the horrific news that every woman fears: she had stage IV breast cancer. Once she was able to accept this devastating news, she began to give away her belongings, start treatment, and arrange for own home care. The treatment endured for seven long months. As a result of the stress and difficulties associated with the diagnosis and treatment, the patient developed anxiety. In 2011, the patient visited a medical center for treatment of her anxiety. Doctors performed several tests and scans that routinely are administered to cancer patients experiencing anxiety. At that time, they suspected that something was wrong. Subsequent testing at another medical center later confirmed those suspicions: the patient’s previous cancer diagnosis was wrong. The tests revealed that the patient had been cancer-free since her mastectomy earlier in 2009. Fortunately for the patient, the original doctor who made the diagnosis read her PET/CT scan incorrectly.

Continue Reading ››

 Posted on April 04, 2014 in Handgun Offenses

In Baltimore County, the Police are increasingly resorting to investigating and ultimately arresting citizens who simply go to gun ranges such as Continental Arms in Timonium or Freestate in Middle River. As an criminal defense attorney with 20 years of experience, I have represented dozens of people who have been charged in these case, probably more than any other lawyer in Baltimore. These investigations and prosecutions are deeply troubling to me as they are nothing more than a shameless attempt to build up the police statistics for firearms prosecutions and confiscations.

The overwhelming majority of the citizens involved in these cases have only misdemeanor convictions that, more often than not, date back a decade or longer. These folks are hard working, law abiding citizens who generally speaking have no idea that they are in violation of the law by going to a gun range and renting a gun to take target practice. Most believe that if their prior records cause any prohibition at all, it is only on ownership of weapons, not simply shooting one in a controlled environment such as a gun range. To make these investigations even more troublesome and, in my view, counterproductive to the stated goal of law enforcement which is to protect and serve the community, the police utilize “ruse interviews” (everyone else just calls it plain old lying) to entrap their targets into incriminating themselves. It is difficult to believe that the police don’t understand what a corrosive impact the use of scorched earth tactics such as these have on their relationship with the community they purport to serve. I was recently contacted by a Baltimore County couple that were the target of one of these investigations. I think it is a particularly egregious case. Here are the facts:

The target of the investigation is a gentleman in his early 50’s. The police became aware of his existence when they summonsed the records of shooters who had gone to the Continental Gun Range for a month late last year. For those who don’t know how this works, whenever someone goes into a gun range, the employees make a copy of the shooter’s driver’s license. They keep this along with a copy of a standard form that everyone has to execute. One of the questions on this forms asks if the shooter has ever been convicted of an offense that carries a penalty of more that 2 years in jail.
The target in this case had a few misdemeanor drug possession charges in the early 1980’s, 30 years ago! He had never spent a day in jail and in any event believed, as many people do, that because his priors were misdemeanors, that they carried a penalty of less than a year. He also believed that because these incidents occurred 30 years ago, that they were basically off his record at this point. Unfortunately for him he was incorrect in both of these assumptions. In Maryland, possession of a controlled dangerous substance carries 4 years in jail unless it is marijuana in which case it carries a year. So each time he went there with his wife to shoot, he checked the “no” box in response to this question and went ahead and shot.
Armed with a copy of the form my client executed along with his dust covered misdemeanor record from the Rick Springfield era, the police responded to their home unannounced and conducted their “ruse interview”. Instead of telling them the real reason that they were, they lied and said that they were investigating a theft that had occurred at Continental one day that they were there and asked for their cooperation. They were more than willing to do so of course and incriminated themselves in the process which is exactly what they police intended. Needless to say, they were stunned to find out that they had been lied to and now feel like they can no longer trust the police.
This seems to me like a bad tradeoff for the police. By conducting this “ruse interview” they turn two people (and probably everyone that they tell about it) from people who were demonstrably willing to help the police into people who are now distrustful of the police. And all they get in exchange is a stat building arrest that in no way furthers their mission which is to protect the community. The irony of the situation is that had the police simply told them the truth they both said (as has most everyone I have ever represented in one of these cases has said) that they would have admitted that they shot there because they honestly didn’t believe that they had done anything wrong.
And the icing on the cake is that when the police came back to arrest them, they came in platoon strength! Roughly a dozen police officers in 4 or 5 cars descended upon their home ensuring that their presence was known to the entire neighborhood. They totally traumatized this family of 6 including the target’s wife who is trying to raise 4 children while suffering from MS. Even setting aside what the police did to these people, does anyone think this massive expenditure of time and resources is appropriate to arrest two 50 somethings for target practice? I think not; in fact I think the police who were involved in this should be ashamed of themselves.

Continue Reading ››

 Posted on April 01, 2014 in Emergency Room Malpractice

A Massachusetts jury recently has found that a doctor at a hospital in Boston was guilty of medical malpractice that caused the sudden death of a 23-year-old man, and awarded the family $4.8 million in the medical malpractice case.

Apparently, the patient visited the emergency room on August 14, 2006, with symptoms of a cough, fever, and chest pains. After a very brief visit with a physician at the hospital, the patient was diagnosed with bronchitis and discharged shortly thereafter. The physician prescribed antibiotics and painkillers and suggested he get plenty of rest. Sadly, early the next morning, the patient was found dead in his bed. A copy of the article regarding the medical malpractice case can be found here.

Medical examiners subsequently identified the patient’s cause of death as myocarditis, a virus that affects the heart muscle through infection and inflammation. An electrocardiogram would have revealed this condition. However, and despite the fact that an electrocardiogram is routine for patients complaining of chest pains, the physician did not order that test. The medical malpractice lawsuit alleged that the patient’s condition was preventable, had his physician spent the appropriate time caring for the patient.

Continue Reading ››

 Posted on March 25, 2014 in Orthopedic Malpractice

A person who is injured expects to receive adequate care and treatment from doctors and medical staff. Patients certainly do not expect that they will walk out of a hospital or doctor’s office in a worse condition than when they arrived. Unfortunately, that is exactly what happened in a recent medical malpractice case in New York.

Almost ten years ago, a New York man slipped on some steps as he made his way into work as a public safety dispatcher, breaking one of his ankles. He subsequently sought treatment for his injury from a doctor at an orthopedic practice. Later, he began experiencing significant pain on the side of his foot near his little toe. This intense pain prompted him to seek treatment from another doctor. From 2005 to 2009, a surgeon at a knee center began performing surgeries on his little toe in hopes of alleviating the patient’s pain. Eventually, however, the surgeon amputated the patient’s little toe.

Sometime after this amputation, the patient developed an infection, and the doctor was forced to amputate the fourth toe. The patient’s pain persisted, and in July 2009 the knee surgeon amputated the leg just below the knee. Once again, the patient developed another post-surgical infection which required the amputation of the remaining leg above the knee. After these surgeries in 2009, the patient no longer was able to work. In all, the patient underwent twelve surgeries from various doctors in New York. Following all of these surgeries, the patient filed a medical malpractice suit against his treating doctors and surgeons.

Continue Reading ››

 Posted on March 23, 2014 in Contracts

Liability insurance policies sold to businesses, and individuals, are often “occurrence”-based policies that provide coverage for specific events, or “occurrences,” that take place during a covered period (regardless of when a lawsuit based on those events is filed). This seems easy enough on the surface, but “occurrence” policies have given rise to legions of legal opinions concerning arguments as to whether a coverage-triggering “occurrence” or “occurrences” took place, and if so, when the “occurrence(s)” took place. As most businesses purchase commercial policies of relatively short duration, one or two years, policyholders oftentimes argue that separate occurrences took place over multiple consecutive policy periods – in order to “trigger” coverage under multiple policies. Insurers typically respond, if the facts support such a response, that there was no “occurrence” at all, and therefore coverage is not triggered under any of the potentially applicable policies – or alternatively, that there was only one “occurrence,” triggering coverage under only one policy.

Continue Reading ››

 Posted on March 22, 2014 in Federal Criminal Defense

Companies and attorneys should be wary when turning documents over to a governmental entity while in an adversarial relationship, even when a signed confidentiality agreement is in place. The risks associated with doing so took center stage last summer in a civil defamation case, Gruss v. Zwirn, when United States District Judge Paul Gardephe ruled that Zwirn Entities waived the attorney-client privilege when it disclosed portions of witness statements to the SEC as part of an internal investigation.

Beginning in 2006, the hedge fund Zwirn Entities launched an internal investigation following allegations of financial impropriety, which ultimately focused on the fund’s CFO. Outside counsel leading these investigations interviewed 21 witnesses and prepared privileged and confidential memoranda summarizing those statements. Those findings then were voluntarily reported to the SEC in the form of various PowerPoint presentations pursuant to a signed confidentiality agreement.
The fund’s CFO subsequently brought breach of contract and defamation claims against his former company alleging that statements made to investigators and regulators implicated him while minimizing the culpability of others within focus. After receiving the PowerPoint presentations in discovery, he sought the underlying attorney notes and interview summaries from defendants; defendants refused to produce them on the basis that they were protected by the attorney-client privilege and work product doctrine. A magistrate judge agreed, citing the confidentiality agreement with the SEC and the fact that the underlying interview memoranda – unlike the PowerPoint slides – never were produced.
District Judge Gardephe reversed the magistrate’s ruling, finding that production of the PowerPoint presentation did constitute a waiver of the underlying source material: “Excerpts of Defendants’ attorneys’ work product – the interview notes and summaries – were deliberately, voluntarily, and selectively disclosed to the SEC via the PowerPoint presentations. As a result, any work product protection associated with the factual portions of the interview notes and summaries was forfeited.”
Judge Gardephe’s opinion rejected strategic and manipulative assertions of privilege, and found that the confidentiality agreement at issue provided no meaningful protection to Defendants because it essentially granted the SEC discretion to selectively disclose materials at any time and to serve its own interests or gain tactical or strategic advantage. Thus, according to the court, through their voluntary disclosure to the SEC, defendants had waived any attorney-client privilege and work product protection that may have insulated the notes and summaries from discovery.
The takeaway from this case is that companies and attorneys must recognize the risks involved in disclosing findings of an internal investigation to the government. A delicate balance exists between confidentiality interests and successful defense of wrongdoing, and practitioners must exercise due caution in discovery production.
As seasoned attorneys who have handled numerous internal investigations as well as parallel civil and criminal/regulatory enforcement proceedings, Silverman Thompson Slutkin & White is well-versed in successfully walking the narrow tightrope that such proceedings often present. If you would like to learn more, please visit our Web site at www.silvermanthompson.com or call Andrew C. White or William N. Sinclair at (410) 385-2225.

Continue Reading ››