fbpx
MARYLAND TRIAL LAWYERS
WE DELIVER THE KNOCKOUT PUNCH

MOSH warns employers about workers and power line dangers

Published on Nov 30, 2017 at 12:54 pm in General Blogs.

When it comes to any kind of work that goes on around high-voltage overhead power lines, the Maryland Occupational Safety and Health Law places safety responsibilities squarely on employers.

MOSH gives special emphasis to safety training, in that educating workers about safe work practices in proximity to power lines is essential.

Avoiding electrocution

Many accidents around energized power lines involve cranes, truck-mounted lifting equipment (bucket trucks), digging equipment and ladders. If these machines or objects come in contact with the lines, workers could suffer severe burns and other injuries, or instant electrocution.

Maryland law requires that workers and all their equipment stay a minimum of 10 feet away from overhead lines, with appropriate hazard signs. The minimum clearance for cranes is 20 feet. An operator should position the crane in such a way that the radius of the boom swing is outside of the absolute minimum clearance relative to the power lines.

Don’t let workers’ compensation benefits fall by the wayside

Published on Nov 21, 2017 at 12:58 pm in Workers Compensation.

Do you spend any of your workday on a ladder, a scaffold or on some other surface that puts you several feet off the ground? If so, you more than likely already know that a fall is a significant hazard for you. A fall can cause any number of serious injuries that can change the course of your life, and when that fall happens at work, you may be entitled to Maryland workers’ compensation benefits.

Any injury to your pride after a fall is nowhere near as important as any physical injuries you may have suffered. Broken bones, neck and back injuries and hitting your head could all have substantial effects on your life. Even if doctors say you merely strained or sprained something in the fall, you could still find yourself in a lot of pain, out of work for a while and wondering how you will pay your bills.

Workers’ compensation benefits: Permanent disability

Published on Sep 20, 2017 at 10:30 pm in Workers Compensation.

Many of the on-the-job accidents that happen here in Maryland cause injuries from which an employee will more than likely recover. However, you may be one of the individuals who suffers such a severe injury that a full recovery is not possible. In that case, you may be wondering what type of workers’ compensation benefits you can receive to help with your financial situation since you may never be able to return to work, or at the very least, you may not be able to return to the work you did prior to the accident.

Was your hospital fall listed as a “never event?”

Published on Mar 28, 2017 at 9:06 pm in Medical Malpractice.

Even though hospitals have signs in strategic locations warning about the possibility of a patient taking a fall, this kind of accident happens on a daily basis. Patients may fall because they felt woozy getting out of bed or because the freshly mopped floor was slippery.

Some patiens survive such falls without harm. But if they suffered a lasting injury it may be classed as a medical error, and they may be entitled to compensation from the medical facility.

Workers’ compensation and the ‘personal comfort’ doctrine

Published on Feb 6, 2017 at 9:03 pm in Workers Compensation.

INJURED DURING A WORK BREAK? WHAT IF YOU WORK REMOTELY? 

Workers’ comp covers you for any work-related accident or injury. But what about injuries while getting coffee or snacks? What about your lunch hour? If you weren’t technically working, can you claim a work injury?

Maryland courts have recognized the “personal comfort doctrine” in workers’ compensation. When you are at work, there is a benefit — to you and the employer — in taking mental breaks, using the restroom and getting refreshments. But there are gray areas and untested scenarios relating to the allowance for personal comfort. Your employer may challenge a work injury claim that stems from a work break.

Three ways vaccines could trigger a malpractice lawsuit

Published on Oct 10, 2016 at 6:15 pm in Medical Malpractice.

For many, vaccinations are a rite of autumn that can help prevent serious illness or lost days of work all through the winter. Getting a yearly flu shot is particularly important for the elderly or for people with compromised immune systems, as those groups are more susceptible to infectious diseases than others. While these routine vaccinations are important, negligence on the part of those administering the vaccine can cause larger problems than the flu. Here are three ways that vaccines can trigger a malpractice lawsuit: 

Can I sue for injuries involving a public bus, subway or commuter train?

Published on Aug 25, 2016 at 5:58 pm in General Blogs.

Hundreds of people — passengers, pedestrians and motorists — are injured each year in mass transit accidents in the Baltimore area. Some people forfeit their right to compensation by waiting too long to bring a claim. Other victims never pursue legal action, believing that government entities are immune.

A public transit agency can be held liable — the same as an individual or corporate entity — but there are special rules and restrictions. Your best recourse is to work with a lawyer who has actually filed and won such claims.

Do I have to be a public transit passenger to sue the transit agency?
No. Pedestrians who were struck by a bus or train, while crossing the street or waiting at the station or bus stop, may have claims. Occupants of other vehicles that collided with a bus or train may have grounds to sue. And of course, passengers who suffered lasting injury while riding, boarding or unboarding may have claims. According to Metrobus, the most common “customer injuries” (passengers) are collision-related, followed by slips, trips and falls.

Doctors Reconsider Value of Cardiac Stents in the Wake of Claims Against Mark Midei, M.D.

Published on Aug 1, 2014 at 3:40 pm in General Blogs.

In today’s Baltimore Sun, reporter Tricia Bishoplooks at the use of stents and the risks they bring. According to the article, until recently, use of cardiac stents to open blocked arteries has been all the rage and was seen as a relatively safe procedure when compared to open heart coronary bypass surgery. Since the 1990s, stents have been increasingly used and have generated more than $1 billion of revenue for Maryland’s hospitals.

In the wake of close to 600 claims against Mark Midei, M.D.- the once preeminent interventional cardiologist at St. Joseph’s Medical Center in Towson, Maryland — for unnecessary stenting of patients with little or no artery blockage, the health care community is now taking a hard look at the risks and benefits of cardiac stents and is now trending away from using them in favor of medications or bypass surgery. According to statistics from the state Health Services Cost Review Commission, stenting procedures in Maryland will drop by 25% this year (from 14,255 to 10,650).

Maryland Attorney Loses Law License for Criticizing Judges

Published on Mar 23, 2014 at 3:27 pm in General Blogs.

Disbarment – the loss of a law license – is an extreme sanction. Yet, in a recent case, Maryland’s top court rejected an attorney’s argument that his emailed criticism of several of Maryland’s government and legal officials was protected as free speech and upheld the decision to yank James Albert Frost’s law license.

An attorney’s knowingly false statements impugning the integrity and qualifications of several judges and public legal officers constitute a violation of the Maryland Lawyer’s Rules of Professional Conduct (MLRPC) and are not protected speech under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, the Court of Appeals has ruled.

In addition, where an attorney repeatedly makes false allegations about the qualifications or integrity of “a judge, adjudicatory officer or public legal officer,” without any explanation or investigation into the allegations, he has demonstrated a lack of fitness to practice law and disbarment is an appropriate sanction, the state’s top court said.

But the decision was not unanimous. Judge Robert N. McDonald said he couldn’t agree with the majority decision because the primary purpose in an attorney discipline proceeding is to protect the public from inept lawyers, not to protect public officials from criticism. McDonald said he would suspend Frost for his failure to respond adequately to the AGC’s inquiry but was not comfortable disbarring him based on what appeared to be an expression of opinion.

Frost was admitted to the Maryland Bar in June 1972. He does not maintain an office for the practice of law. In April 2012, he wrote an e-mail to his ex-wife calling various Maryland state judges and officials, among other things, “lawless,” “corrupt,” “weak” and described one high-placed Maryland political leader as a “pretty boy politician.” Frost was apparently angry over what he described as an “illegal arrest” that resulted in his spending 87 days in county jail.

Frost emailed a copy of the communication to three attorneys, including George Meng, a Maryland personal injury lawyer. Frost did not know Meng. Meng responded by emailing Frost and asking why the email was sent to him. Meng also directed Frost to the rules for lawyers’ conduct and asked Frost to explain how the email was not a violation of those rules. Frost’s only response was to snail mail Meng a letter that did not respond to the question. Meng then filed a complaint with the Attorney Grievance Commission (AGC) of Maryland. The lawyer/investigator for the AGC sent a copy of the complaint to Frost and asked for a response in about 30 days. Frost said his statements were protected by the free speech clause of the First Amendment and, in a second letter, Frost scolded the AGC for getting involved. The AGC asked Frost to substantiate his claims. Although he sent copies of his letters to the members of the AGC, Frost did not provide a substantive response to the Bar Counsel’s requests for information.
In an evidentiary hearing for which Frost did not appear, the judge noted that Frost had made several statements knowing them to be false and with reckless disregard for their truth or falsity. The judge also found that Frost violated the rules when he failed to provide a substantive response to the AGC’s letters. The hearing judge found by “clear and convincing evidence” — a very high legal standard – that Frost’s actions were a violation of several sections of Maryland’s rules of conduct for attorneys.

Under those rules, an attorney is expected to respond to a lawful inquiry from the AGC, even if the attorney views the complaint as frivolous. In addition, another rule provides that a lawyer shall not make a statement that the lawyer knows to be false concerning the qualifications or integrity of a judge or a public legal officer or a candidate for election.

The AGC recommended disbarment for the unsubstantiated badmouthing of the judicial and political officials. Frost asked the court to dismiss the case, arguing that his statements were protected by the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment and that there was insufficient service of process.

The decision then went up to the Court of Appeals. The court concluded that the facts were as established by the hearing judge and agreed with the hearing judge that Frost had violated the rules of professional conduct.

The court then turned its attention to the proper remedy for the violation. Sanctions are put into place to protect the public and the public’s confidence in the legal profession, not to punish attorneys, the court said. Sanctions protect the public when they prevent conduct and remove those who are unfit to continue in the practice of law. The court noted that it had recommended disbarment in a similar case.

The Maryland personal injury lawyers at Belsky & Horowitz are experienced in negligence, auto accident, medical malpractice and other types of legal matters. Contact us through our online contact form or call us at 410-234-0100 so that we can help you with your legal matters.

Court Keeps Rule That Denial of a Request to Change Venue Can Not Be Immediately Appealed

Published on Dec 23, 2013 at 3:10 pm in General Blogs.

Deciding the best place to try a case – forum selection – is important in many ways to a lawsuit. How long it takes for a case to conclude, the likelihood of victory and the amount of damages awarded by a judge or jury can be vastly different, depending on the county where the case is heard. As a result, lawyers on both sides of the case carefully scrutinize the places where a lawsuit can be filed so as to determine the best location for handling the case.

The fact that venue is important means that lawyers often maneuver for the best judicial forum for their clients even before the trial begins. In a case of first impression, Maryland’s Court of Special Appeals has clarified the law on the question of whether a trial court’s denial of a request to transfer a lawsuit before trial has begun can be immediately appealed.

Relying on what had been written about the issue in lawsuits dealing with other matters, the appeals court said it was persuaded to refuse Aleksey Kulikov’s attempt to immediately appeal the court order denying his request to take his case to another court.

FREE CONSULTATIONS

TELL US ABOUT YOUR CASE - NO FEE - NO COMMITMENT

Fill out the form below about your potential case and a personal injury lawyer will get back to you as quickly as possible.