Maryland medical malpractice lawsuits have certain requirements that are not necessary for other personal injury claims. Most importantly, before filing a Maryland medical malpractice claim, a claimant must file a certificate of a qualified expert.

Under MD Cts & Jud Pro Code § 3-2A-04 (2019), a certificate of a qualified expert must be filed within 90 days from the date of the complaint, attesting to the defendant’s departure from the standard of care and that the departure is the proximate cause of the alleged injury. The certificate must be served on all other parties to the malpractice claim. The 90-day deadline may also be extended in some circumstances. The requirement to obtain a certificate of a qualified expert is meant to curb meritless medical malpractice claims. If a defendant disputes liability, the defendant is required to file a certificate of a qualified expert within 120 days from the date the claimant or plaintiff served the certificate, which must detail the defendant’s compliance with the standard of care or that the deviance from the standard of care was not the proximate cause of the alleged injury. Failing to follow the state’s requirements for medical malpractice claims can result in the dismissal of the lawsuit.

In a recent case, a defendant argued that the plaintiff failed to follow notice requirements in a medical malpractice case by failing to properly serve a defendant. In that case, an inmate at a prison was attacked by other inmates, resulting in lacerations and a fractured jaw. He was taken to a hospital and later had oral surgery done on his fractured jaw at a medical center. He later filed a medical malpractice suit against defendants, including the surgeon. Under that state’s law, before filing a medical malpractice suit, the claimant was required to notify prospective defendants of the claimant’s intent to file a medical malpractice claim. Notice also had to include a completed authorization form, if available.

Every year, new models of cars boast shiny safety features and additional software mechanisms designed to keep us safer as we navigate the road. Sometimes, however, these safety features are not enough to prevent accidents from taking place. If a safety feature on someone’s vehicle is purposely turned off and that individual negligently causes a Maryland car accident, the individual who negligently causes the accident is still the one who must be held accountable.

According to a recent news report, a major car accident left two people dead and three seriously injured. Local authorities reported that a fully airborne Tesla plowed through a stop sign and into a home. Video footage of the scene of the accident shows the car crashing through the house, where it left a gaping hole in its wake. Officials also noted that the Tesla did not have its autopilot function operating at the time of the crash, which is designed to prevent accidents like this from taking place. The details surrounding the accident remain under investigation.

Following a car accident in Maryland, you may be considering bringing a personal injury lawsuit to recover monetary compensation for any physical injuries or property damage. To do so, it is crucial that you first understand two significant Maryland car accident laws that could affect the success of your claim.

When people think of a typical, run of the mill car accident, they may assume that most accidents take place between two parties. Sometimes, however, accidents can take place between multiple parties, which can both increase the severity and consequences following the collision, but also make things complicated when it comes to establishing who is truly at fault. To best advocate for yourself following a multiple vehicle accident, it is crucial that Maryland drivers understand how fault is determined and how state laws can have an impact on these delineations.

According to a recent local news report, three individuals were pronounced dead after a fatal multi-vehicle car accident. Maryland police reported that the driver of a Camaro was traveling in excess of 100 miles per hour eastbound in a westbound lane when it crashed head-on with a Corolla. Investigators believe that the debris from this initial accident disabled the third vehicle involved, a Mitsubishi Eclipse. The Camaro’s driver, an additional passenger in the Camaro, and the driver of the Corolla were both pronounced dead on the scene by emergency responders. The driver of the Eclipse and his passenger did not require medical treatment. The investigation is ongoing and being conducted by the Maryland State Police Crash Team.

In Maryland, before figuring out how to establish and apportion fault, it is crucial to understand the basics of the state’s auto accident laws. Maryland employs at-fault car insurance coverage requirements, which means that drivers who cause an accident are responsible for paying for resulting damage and medical bills.

The manufacturers of consumer products have a duty to perform reasonable tests to ensure that their product is safe for use. In the event that a product may be dangerous to use, manufacturers are required to adequately warn consumers of the dangers that are known. manufacturers can be held accountable for significant damages in the event that their products harm people. If manufacturers fail to disclose known risks of a product, they could be required to pay damages well in excess of the actual harm caused to a victim by their product. The California Court of Appeals recently affirmed a substantial verdict against Monsanto, the manufacturer of the popular weed control product Roundup, which contained a significant amount of punitive damages against the company.

The plaintiffs in the recently decided case are a married couple who used roundup on their properties from the 1980s until 2015. Based on the information contained in the packaging and from advertisements, the plaintiffs did not think that Roundup was a dangerous chemical, and they used it liberally on their properties without gloves or other protective equipment. After using the product for years, both plaintiffs developed non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, a type of cancer that has been linked to the use of Roundup and other herbicides. The plaintiffs sued the defendant in state court, alleging that the product was dangerous and defective and that the defendant failed to warn consumers about dangers that they knew of.

During a six-week trial, witnesses testified that the defendant had access to information that their product caused cancer, and failed to warn consumers of the risk. Additionally, witnesses testified that the use of gloves and other safety equipment could significantly reduce the risk of cancer, however, the product label did not advise consumers to use protective equipment. Witnesses also testified that the plaintiffs’ use of Roundup was a substantial contributing factor in the development of their cancer. The jury ultimately ruled in favor of the plaintiffs on all claims, initially awarding tens of millions of compensatory damages and $2 billion in punitive damages against the company. The punitive damages were reduced by the court, and the final verdict totaled approximately $86 million.

Maryland’s Workers’ Compensation Commission (MWCC) provides compensation to workers who suffer injuries on the job. The coverage only includes medical care and some wage benefits. However, the system rarely covers the extent of injuries and subsequent damages that Maryland workers often face after a workplace accident. In most cases, workers’ compensation is the sole remedy for Maryland workers who suffer injuries at work. The only exceptions include when the victim’s employer engaged in intentional or willful conduct.

While the law limits many victims, there may be additional avenues of relief. For instance, an injured worker may be able to file a lawsuit against a negligent third party that caused their accident. These claims are distinct from workers’ compensation and allow victims to go through the traditional civil court claims process. A third-party claim may be relevant in cases involving:

  • Independent contractors;

Most Maryland car accidents involve a number of contributing factors that led to the final collision. Courts and insurance adjusters will look to the totality of the circumstances when making determinations regarding fault and liability. Several environmental factors may come into play when evaluating an accident. In most cases, an outside influence, such as weather, impacted the accident. However, it is essential to note that an unavoidable weather event does not necessarily remove responsibility from an at-fault driver. While bad weather may exacerbate an accident, drivers still maintain the duty of care to modify their driving to adjust to the changing weather conditions.

Bad or unexpected weather can cause a chain reaction of events that can cause catastrophic injuries to other motorists, passengers, and bystanders. For example, a recent sandstorm resulted in a deadly pileup. An out-of-state highway patrol officer explained that a 22-vehicle crash occurred after strong winds caused a sand and dust storm. Many drivers began stopping their vehicles because they could not see the road.

The sudden stopping caused various collisions, including accidents between large tractor-trailers and smaller sedans. Ultimately, eight people suffered fatal injuries in the accident, including four children. Authorities believe that a thunderstorm about 90 miles away from the dust storm stirred up dirt and dust that led to the sandstorm. The Weather Service advised residents that the wind surges could reach over 60 miles per hour. Accident scene photos depicted piles of wreckage and vehicles pinned underneath large trucks. However, these extreme weather events are becoming more common as the United States has been encountering several droughts.

Motorcycle accidents are one of the most dangerous incidents and often result in serious injuries and fatalities. According to the most recent statistics by the Maryland Department of Transportation (MDT), Maryland motorcycle accidents accounted for about 2% of the total number of accidents in the state. However, motorcycle crashes comprised almost 15% of all the fatal accidents in the state. Moreover, four out of five of the passengers killed in these accidents were not wearing any safety equipment. In combination with the steady increase in motorcycle accidents, these startling statistics highlight the importance of motorcycle safety for both operators and passengers.

Motorcycle passengers and operators are more vulnerable to serious injuries because of the lack of protection from impacts with other vehicles or objects. Moreover, motorcycle passengers are often thrown from the bikes after a collision occurs. These situations can result in the passenger being run over by oncoming traffic, slammed into the concrete, or thrown into a guard rail or similar static object.

For example, a news report recently described a tragic motorcycle accident that involved a bike and a sedan. According to a preliminary investigation, the motorcycle crossed through a center line and slammed head-on with the sedan. Law enforcement reported that the motorcycle driver suffered serious injuries, and the passenger died.

Many Maryland and Washington D.C. residents count on public transportation in their daily lives for work and recreation. At a minimum, we expect that public transportation will be safe and reliable. Unfortunately, this was not the case when a metro bus crashed earlier this month, causing significant injuries.

In an event that emergency crews described as a “mass casualty incident,” at least 13 people were injured. Although reports on the extent of the injuries vary, it appears at this time that at least two people were seriously hurt. About seven people had less serious injuries, and one individual refused treatment altogether.

At this time, the cause of the bus accident is unknown. In many cases, however, when a bus crashes, someone is legally responsible. The people injured in the crash—including any people who might have suffered an emotional injury from the trauma of the incident—may have a claim for monetary compensation against those responsible for the accident.

There is no greater tragedy than the death of a child. When a child’s death results from negligence, their grieving family can begin to seek closure through a wrongful death lawsuit.

Unfortunately, one family was left grieving earlier this month when an 11-year-old boy was killed at an Iowa amusement park. Reports say that the boy passed away after the raft he was on overturned at the park. Although first responders and witnesses arrived to render care to the six passengers aboard the raft, the boy could not be saved. Several other passengers were hospitalized following the incident, including a second child who was said to be in critical condition.

According to reports, officials are still in the early stages of investigating this amusement park disaster. A key question could be whether negligence was a factor in the child’s death.

Expert testimony is useful in many Maryland accident cases, and in some cases, expert testimony is essential. Under Maryland Rule of Evidence 5-702, expert testimony may be admitted if the court finds that the testimony will help the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue. In determining whether to admit expert testimony, a court will consider whether the witness is qualified as an expert, whether the testimony is appropriate, and whether there is a sufficient factual basis to support the testimony.

A recent decision of the Supreme Court of Virginia considered whether a trial court properly excluded expert testimony in a wrongful death case arising from “an unexplainable single-vehicle accident” in which both occupants died. According to the decision, one morning, a tractor-trailer owned by a company left its lane of travel on a highway and rolled down an embankment in Rockbridge County, Virginia. The crash killed both of the occupants of the vehicle: an employee of the company, who was transporting fertilizer, and the plaintiff, who was a friend of the employee and accompanied the employee on the day of the crash.

The plaintiff (administrator of the friend’s estate) filed a complaint against the employer and against the administrator of the employee’s estate, seeking damages for wrongful death.

Contact Information