Posted on March 29, 2010 in Criminal Defense

Although the big news out of Annapolis this session is the likely passing of a ban on Maryland motorists using cell phones while driving, the reality is the bill has little teeth! Under the bill poised to pass, it is unlawful for a motorist on Maryland roads to hold a cell phone while talking on it, to text or otherwise use the device while driving. It will be lawful to use a blue-tooth device to talk on the phone remotely.

What makes the bill toothless is that it is a secondary offense. This means that the police are NOT allowed to stop a motorist if the officer sees an infraction. The officer can only write up a ticket if the motorist commits a primary infraction, such as speeding, and only then can the officer issue a citation for using a cell phone while driving. Upon conviction for the cell phone offense, the motorist will receive a whopping $40.00 fine and no points.

The best guess is that it is only a matter of time before this becomes a primary offense. It was not too long ago in Maryland when proponents of the mandatory seat belt law agreed to make it a secondary offense to ensure passage by the legislature. Just a few years later, it became a primary offense with little fanfare. Now the police can pull anyone over by claiming the motorist was not wearing a seat-belt. As an experienced Maryland criminal defense attorney, I am well aware of the significance this bill will likely have in further eroding civil liberties. It is only a matter of time until the cell phone law becomes a primary offense. Everyone has a cell phone, and everyone will soon be fair game for a traffic stop.

Continue Reading ››

 Posted on March 26, 2010 in Criminal Defense

Baltimore Maryland Criminal Defense Attorneys/Lawyers are often called upon to represent defendants who are charged with manufacturing a controlled dangerous substance. Most of these cases involve the growing of Marijuana as this one did, but some involve the manufacture of methamphetamines or other drugs.

The case I had last week occurred on the West side of Baltimore County. My client, who is a 40 year old father of 3 with a college degree and various professional licenses to protect, was accused of growing 6 marijuana plants in his back yard. Unfortunately, Maryland law does not differentiate between manufacturing controlled dangerous substances for personal use and manufacturing for the purpose of distribution. Any manufacturing activity, including the growing of just one or a few marijuana plants is a felony under Maryland Law. Needless to say, the stakes were very high for the client in spite of the very small number of plants involved because a conviction would result in him having a felony on his record which would have a devastating effect on his career even if he avoided jail. Here are the facts:

My client was at work one day last November when he received a call from his neighbor informing him that there had been a burglary attempt at his home. The neighbor advised him that he has seen a man attempting to break into the back of his home. The neighbor told my client that he had chased the man away and called the police. He advised my client that the police wanted him to come home to help them with their investigation.

Continue Reading ››

 Posted on March 22, 2010 in Personal Injury

In the case of Pfeifer v. Phoenix Insurance Co, the Maryland Court of Special Appeals has recently affirmed that the statute of limitations for UM coverage or UIM coverage suit is three years from the date of denial of coverage, orthe exhaustion of the tortfeasors coverage occurs. Practically speaking, if you are involved in an accident on 1/1/06, and the tortfeasor offers their policy on 1/1/07, the statute of limitations would begin to run on 1/1/07, giving you until 1/1/10 to file a claim against the UM/UIM carrier.

Oftentimes, I come across clients who suffer injury at the hands of an uninsured or underinsured driver. Understanding the process of collecting under your UM/UIM means the difference between collecting what is fair or being at the mercy of the insurance companies. Should you be involved in a motor vehicle accident with an uninsured driver, or a driver who has a small policy, contact the Maryland personal injury lawyers of Silverman, Thompson, Slutkin & White, LLC. or contact Andrew G. Slutkin with further questions or inquiries at 410-385-2786

Continue Reading ››

 Posted on March 19, 2010 in Divorce

It is common for one to be unaware that there are two types of divorce in Maryland. An absolute divorce is typically what one thinks of when thinking of a “divorce.” See February 28, 2010 Blog. On the other hand, a limited divorce merely legalizes a separation. A limited divorce is generally sought when the parties do not have grounds for an absolute divorce yet and are unable to come up with a settlement agreement, but a party is in need of financial relief or child custody and access needs to be established.

Under Maryland law, the Judge may grant a limited divorce on grounds of: “(1) cruelty of treatment of the filing party or of a minor child of the filing party, (2) excessively vicious conduct to the filing party or to a minor child of the filing party; (3) desertion (actual or constructive); or (4) voluntary separation, if the parties are living separate and apart without cohabitation and there is no reasonable expectation of reconciliation.” Maryland Code, Family Law § 7-102. In contrast to an absolute divorce, there is no time period that the parties need to be living separate and apart in order for the judge to grant a limited divorce on the grounds of voluntary separation.

Continue Reading ››

 Posted on March 16, 2010 in Personal Injury

A California jury has awarded an Oregon girl $24.3 million in damages for being run over by a tractor trailer truck. The defendant was a transport company that was the carrier, insurer and guarantor of delivery for the truck’s contents.
At the time of the accident, the girl was 14. She was run over when the truck driver, who actually was the girl’s father drove away from a rest break without realizing that his daughter was still outside the truck. The girl was caught under the truck’s rear wheels and suffered severe injuries to her entire lower body that will require many future surgeries. Interestingly, the judge in the case ruled that the jury would not be told that it was the girl’s father who caused the accident, as that fact was irrelevant to the issue of negligence and damages. A copy of an article regarding the case can be found here.

My name is Andrew Slutkin. As an experienced Baltimore, Maryland attorney who specializes in catastrophic injury cases, I have successfully handled a number of truck accident cases. These cases require aggressive representation as the insurers and attorneys for the trucks almost always fight these cases tooth and nail. Knowledge of the insurance regulations and federal regulations regarding trucks also is important. To see some of the cases I have handled, click here.

Continue Reading ››

 Posted on March 16, 2010 in Medical Malpractice

The family of an 86-year-old Massachusetts woman has settled their medical malpractice case arising from the death of the woman after she fell from an operating table following hip surgery. The case settled for $800,000. The woman died seven days after she suffered a severe head injury during the negligent fall, as she was being prepared for transfer to her hospital bed. The fall caused severe internal bleeding and fractured her skull. The Massachusetts Department of Public Health investigated the case and concluded that the fall led to the woman’s death. It found deficiencies in procedure which led to the fall.

My name is Andrew Slutkin. As an experienced Baltimore, Maryland medical malpractice lawyer, I have successfully handled a significant number of medical malpractice / negligence cases involving falls that cause severe injury or even death. All of the cases involve people who are in a vulnerable position – such as being elderly or sick – and cannot take care of themselves. It’s always important to carefully examine the medical records to see what happened. But because these are the types of injuries where the injury is known to the health care providers at the time it happens, the medical records frequently make it seem like the heath care providers did everything correctly yet the fall somehow occurred. That is why witness and family accounts frequently help to determine what really happened. It also is important to check the health care provider’s policies and procedures to determine if rules and regulations were followed. To see some of the cases I have handled, click here.

Continue Reading ››

 Posted on March 16, 2010 in Medical Malpractice

A New York jury has awarded a family $43 million in a medical malpractice case. The jury found that a hospital failed to properly resuscitate a child at birth, causing cerebral palsy. The family had previously settled out of court with the doctor involved in the delivery.

My name is Andrew Slutkin. As an experienced Baltimore, Maryland medical malpractice lawyer, I have successfully handled a number of medical malpractice cases involving birth injuries. These cases are extremely complex, requiring multiple expert witnesses such as an obstetrician, neonatologist, pediatric neurologist placental pathologist, life care planner, economist, etc. They are very challenging cases to win, but important nevertheless as they can help a family take care of a brain damaged individual for life. To see some of the cases I have handled, click here.

Contact Andrew G. Slutkin with further questions or inquiries at 410-385-2786

Continue Reading ››

 Posted on March 15, 2010 in Family Law

The Maryland Legislature is currently considering legislation that would update the Maryland Child Support Guidelines. The legislation has passed in the Senate, but has not yet passed in the House. Many proponents of the legislation feel it is long overdue as the Maryland Child Support Guidelines have not been updated in over 20 years, since 1988 when Maryland first implemented the guidelines to comply with the federal government’s recommendation. At that time, the government also recommended that the guidelines be revisited very four years which has not been done in Maryland. The Maryland guidelines calculate the payment by using a pre-established figure to represent the expenses in the household that covers the child or children and then dividing this figure based upon the parties’ respective income percentages, see Maryland Annotated Code, Family Law 12-204 . Currently the guidelines are calculated based on the proportion of expenses for children based on expenses and the cost of living in 1988. These expenses have not increased in perfect proportion to parents incomes over the years, which is one of many reasons why proponents seek to have these guidelines re-evaluated. Additionally, the guidelines do not calculate for those with combined household incomes over $10,000 a month, which encompasses many more households than it did in 1988. The new legislation would change the guidelines to include higher income situations up to $30,000 a month.

Continue Reading ››

 Posted on March 12, 2010 in Criminal Defense

Since I have been doing this Baltimore Maryland Criminal attorney/lawyer blog I have often been chided by my friends on the other side of the aisle (This is for you Joey D.) for only blogging about the cases that I win. So, in an attempt to show a little balance and humility, I will discuss a case that I lost the other day in this posting. The real reason I do this is to illustrate the point that a good criminal defense attorney always has a Plan B no matter how strong a case he believes he has. In other words, even in cases that I am confident that I will prevail, I always consider the possibility that we will lose and think about how to minimize the damage to the client if that should occur.

I had just such a case this week in Baltimore County Circuit Court. My client was charged with possession with the intent to distribute marijuana. I believed, and still believe, that I had an overwhelming case for suppression of the evidence because I believed the police had stopped my client without probable cause or even the lesser standard known as reasonable articulable suspicion, which allows police in certain circumstances to briefly detain a suspect for investigatory purposes. The facts of the case were as follows:

A Baltimore County Police Officer was driving past a shopping center containing a grocery store when he observed an Acura parked towards the back of the parking lot away from most but not all of the cars. He testified that this vehicle was occupied by one person who was in the driver’s seat and that there were roughly 5 empty spaces in between this vehicle and the next closest car. He testified that the vehicle was approximately 75 yards from the entrance of the store. In spite of the fact that it was 4:00pm and the business was open and operating, he testified that he found this situation to be suspicious.

Continue Reading ››

 Posted on March 11, 2010 in Family Law

I recently received the written report and recommendation of the Master in the case detailed in the February 14, 2010 blog, Relocation Custody Cases in Maryland – Part Two. The findings, report and recommendation were favorable to my client. Among many other things, the Master specifically found that the mother was not willing to foster a relationship between the minor child and the father and that an award of sole custody to the mother would not be in the minor child’s best interest. Accordingly, the Master recommended that the parties have joint legal and physical custody of the minor child (with a one week on, one week off access schedule for each parent) until he commences Kindergarten, at which time the father would have primary physical custody of the child here in Maryland with specified visitation to the Mother.

I believe the mother will probably file exceptions to the Master’s recommendations, which will require her to meet the requirments of Maryland Rule 9-208. An Exceptions Hearing, is not a de novo hearing (a re-trial), instead the Judge assigned the case decides the exceptions based on the evidence presented to the Master unless the excepting party sets forth with particularilty the additional evidence to be offered and the reasons why the evidence was not offered before the Master, and the Judge determines that the additional evidence should be considered. If additional evidence is to be considered, the Judge may remand the matter back to the Master to hear and consider the additional evidence or at that point to conduct a de novo hearing.

Continue Reading ››