Discovery Admission of Fact

I have often had limited success using this form of discovery in personal injury cases. Defendants normally simply deny all requested admissions. There is no penalty in the rules for a denial that ends up being true, other then the potential that I can recover cost incurred in proving a fact denied. However, I came across an idea from a very good blog that sent me to another blog that proposed an interrogatory question to be filed post the admission denials. The author of the blog proposed an interrogatory as follows:
"To the extent that any of your responses to any of Plaintiff's requests for admissions is other than an unqualified admission, list all facts on which you based any part of your response that is not an unqualified admission, identify all documents memorializing each such fact, and identify all persons with knowledge of each such fact."

This is interesting enough to try. After all I like the idea of an admission of fact. But what value when the dog has no bite.

Copy Right 2007 Your Maryland Lawyer; Maryland Injury Attorney

Discovery Of Pre-Existing Conditions

I normally propound an interrogatory question to the defendant requesting information they may have regarding my client's pre-exisitng conditions, if any, or if they contend a pre-exisiting condition was aggravated by the accident. Generally, the defendant objects, stating this is work product. I came across a Discovery opinion that states the defendant is required to answer. However, their response is limited to information provided by the plaintiff. I agree this is maybe of limited value to the plaintiff absent the defendant failing to identify the condition in their answers to interrogatories, post plaintiff's disclosure, and later being denied the opportunity to make the argument at trial. Daily Record Sperti v Muhr August 10, 1966.

Copy Right 2007 Your Maryland Lawyer and Maryland Injury Attorney

Pre-Existing Conditions and Damages

Yep here we go again. Plaintiff with a pre-existing condition gets into rear end accident. Plaintiff says you are responsible for my subsequent surgery. Defendant says we did'n't do nutin, ya'll had dat conditin prior too da axel dent. Wrong high insurance premium breath. Take me as I am and love me with all my susceptible body parts. You think I aggravate you well guess what you aggravate me and my pre-existing condin tin too. See MPJI 10.3 SUSCEPTIBILITY TO INJURY The effect that an injury might have upon a particular person depends upon the susceptibility to injury of the plaintiff. In other words, the fact that the injury would have been less serious if inflicted upon another person should not affect the amount of damages to which the plaintiff may be entitled. See MPJI 10:4 AGGRAVATION OF PREVIOUS CONDITION A person who had a particular condition before the accident may be awarded damages for the aggravation or worsening of that condition. And just to mention all foreseeable consequences. See Empire Reality 305 A 2d. 144 (1973). I ma comin ta geet ya boz and hidden hind dem pre-sistin arguments ain't stoppin me no wayza.

Copy Right 2007 Your Maryland Lawyer and Maryland Injury Attorney