by

Yesterday I googled the name of our personal injury law firm “Miller & Zois.”  I was doing some research and I knew our page had the answer I needed.  When I did the search, I found a paid ad result for “Big Al Legal Team – Car Accident Lawyer Baltimore.”

big al baltimore legal group

Big Al  Legal Years Ago Under Another Name

When something shows up as an ad result in a Google search page, it means that whoever owns the website in that result is paying Google to have their site pop up on the SERP anytime someone searches for certain keywords. This system of selling spots on the SERP is called Google Adwords (also commonly known as “pay-per-click”).

Continue reading

by

Distracted driving is a big thing these days thanks to the proliferation of smartphones and the millions of people in the U.S. who are hopelessly addicted to using them. As recently as 10 years ago, distracted driving was not really even a “thing.”

As of 2021, however, distracted driving claims an estimated 3,000 lives each year, and states across the U.S. have enacted targeted laws making it illegal. In this post, we will explain what impact a ticket for distracted driving could have on your auto insurance rates.

Does a Distracted Driving Ticket Affect Your Car Insurance?

Continue reading

by

In Giant of Maryland LLC v. Karen Webb, No. 413, Sept. Term 2019, was asked to decide whether Giant could be liable for an injury to a customer caused by a Pepsi delivery driver while stocking Pepsi products on the shelves. The Pepsi driver was not a Giant employee so the issue was whether Giant could still be liable for his negligent actions based on the level of control they had over him inside the store.

The COSA held that Giant did not have enough control to be liable for the actions of the Pepsi driver. Giant’s “general control” over the work of its product delivery drivers at the store was not enough. In order to be liable, Giant would need to have maintained control over the “operative details and methods” of the independent contractor’s work, including the “very thing from which the injury arose.”

Summary of Giant of Maryland v. Webb

Continue reading

by

The discovery of a carcinogenic chemical in the popular heartburn drug Zantac prompted thousands of victims to file a Zantac lawsuit. The Zantac lawsuits in federal courts have been consolidated into a “class-action” MDL before Judge Robin Rosenberg in the Southern District of Florida.

Judge Rosenberg is meeting with counsel for both sides to hammer out the details for how individual cases will be selected for “bellwether” trials, which will begin a little over a year from now. Bellwether cases are expected to be selected based on the type of cancer involved.

The outcome of these initial test trials will be critically important in determining whether the Zantac lawsuits get resolved in a global settlement.

Continue reading

by

In Thomas v. Shear, the Court of Appeals held in an unreported opinion that a malpractice claim alleging a surgical clip was left inside a patient in 2000 was barred by the statute of limitations. Although the surgical clip was not actually discovered in the plaintiff’s body until 14 years later, her own expert witnesses offered testimony suggesting that her statute of limitations began to run in 2006 at the latest.

Facts of Thomas v. Shear

This medical malpractice case began in May 2000.  The plaintiff underwent a surgical procedure performed by the defendant surgeon at GBMC.

Continue reading

by

In Williams v. Baltimore City, the Court of Special Appeals of Maryland examined the establishment of actual or constructive notice.

The court found that the mere fact that a municipality knows of a defective hydrant does not ordinarily include notice of a particular danger. Rather, there must be actual or constructive notice of a particular defect that caused the injury.

The court concluded that there was no error in granting summary judgment in favor of the municipality because the plaintiff failed to produce sufficient evidence that a leaking hydrant created a dangerous roadway condition that caused her accident, even though the plaintiff did provide evidence that the hydrant itself was defective.

Continue reading

by

The Maryland Court of Appeals is still working during the coronavirus shutdown.  The court put out a new opinion Monday in Nationwide v. Shilling that addressed the question of when the 3-year statute of limitations begins to run on a claim for underinsured motorist benefits.

The gist of the court’s holding is good for plaintiffs.  The court found that a claim for underinsured motorist benefits is basically a breach of contract action. So the statute of limitations begins to run when the insurance carrier breaches the contract by denying the insured’s UIM claim.  Our lawyers have always interpreted the law this way.  But we always pretended that the statute of limitations was not extended because even having to fight this issue and win is not worth the trouble of not fighting the issue at all.

But this case has dicta that has two big problems that are very troubling with respect to the insurance company’s ability to modify the statute of limitations in uninsured motorist cases by putting a different statute of limitations in their contracts.  This would be a disaster and lead to a ton of litigation over any issue that is well understood by everyone.

Continue reading

by

Maryland nursing home lawyers have been battling arbitration clauses for years. These clauses deny nursing home residents the right to take nursing homes to court for harm that they cause to the residents such as physical abuse and neglect and sexual assault.

Almost everyone realizes nursing homes force these agreements on residents as a precondition of admission. They are just not fair.

In 2016, the Maryland Court of Special Appeals decided Peeler v. FutureCare, which was a Miller & Zois case. In this case, FutureCare tried to use the arbitration clause to prevent a wrongful death claim. Our firm won at the trial level and won before the appellate court, making new clear law that a nursing home agreement cannot compel wrongful death beneficiaries to arbitrate. This new case pushes Maryland law further from enforcement of these Draconian agreements.

Continue reading

by

Defense lawyers in love blaming empty chairs.  A jury trial is about assigning blame and the easy out for the defense is to get the jury to blame another doctor who is not named at trial.  (This is also why plaintiffs’ lawyers get maligned over naming too many defendants — sometimes there is no choice.)

Usually, the doctor’s lawyer will not provide expert testimony to blame the doctor.  Normally,  the allegation is made indirectly with the hope that the jury blames a non-defendant doctor on their own.

This is a good strategy.  Jurors like reaching their own conclusions without getting beat over the head and most malpractice defense lawyers do not blame the empty chair directly for fear of running afoul of Maryland law.

Continue reading

by

While Botox is primarily associated with anti-aging cosmetics, you might be surprised to find out that it can be used to treat cerebral palsy (CP).

Botox is not a miracle drug for CP.  But if the patient has spasticity, Botox can help.

Let’s talk about cerebral palsy and why Botox is bringing about good outcomes for some patients. Before you can understand the use of Botox as a treatment for CP, you first need to understand a little about CP itself and how it affects individuals.

Continue reading