Attorney Fee Schedule Under Maryland Workers Compensation Law

.25 Schedule of Attorneys' Fees.
A. The Commission shall approve attorneys' fees in accordance with the schedule of fees established from time to time by the Commission and set forth in §B.
B. Schedule of Fees.
(1) Final Award—Definition. For the purpose of this section, "final award" means the award of compensation determined by the Commission after exhaustion of all applicable appeals, regardless of whether the award is increased or decreased as a result of any appeal.
(2) Fee in Excess of Limits. The Commission may approve an attorney's fee in excess of the limits set forth in this section only if exceptional circumstances are shown.
(3) Permanent Partial Disability.
(a) General. Except as otherwise provided in §B(3)(b), in a case in which a final award of compensation is made for permanent partial disability, the Commission may approve an attorney's fee in a total amount not exceeding 20 times the State average weekly wage and computed as follows:
(i) Up to 20 percent of the amount due for the first 75 weeks of an award of compensation awarded;
(ii) Up to 15 percent of the amount due for the next 120 weeks of an award of compensation; and
(iii) Up to 10 percent of the amount due for an award of compensation in excess of 195 weeks.
(b) Disability Due to Amputation or Loss of Vision. In a case in which a final award of compensation is made for permanent partial disability due to the amputation of an arm, leg, hand, or foot, or total loss of vision in one eye, and the sole issue before the Commission is the nature and extent of disability, the Commission may approve an attorney's fee in an amount up to 5 percent of the compensation awarded, but not exceeding 6 times the State average weekly wage.
(4) Permanent Total Disability.
(a) General. Except as otherwise provided in §B(4)(b), in a case in which a final award of compensation is made for permanent total disability, the Commission may approve an attorney's fee in an amount not exceeding 20 times the State average weekly wage.
(b) Special Cases. The Commission may approve an attorney's fee in an amount not exceeding 13 times the State average weekly wage in a case in which compensability is not an issue and an award of compensation is made for permanent total disability established either pursuant to:
(i) Labor and Employment Article, §9-636(b), Annotated Code of Maryland, for the loss of two or more scheduled members; or
(ii) The stipulation on the extent of disability.
(5) Temporary Total and Temporary Partial Disability. The Commission may not approve an attorney's fee in a case in which final award of compensation is made for temporary total or temporary partial disability or temporary total disability paid while a claimant is receiving vocational rehabilitation services unless the claimant's right to the compensation is contested and the issue is resolved by evidentiary hearing or by stipulation. In such a contested case, the fee may be in an amount not exceeding 10 percent of the compensation that has accrued as of the date of the award.
(6) Dependency Claims.
(a) In a case involving a claim of dependency, if compensability is not contested, but the extent of dependency, partial or total, or the identity of a dependent, or both is contested, the Commission may approve a total attorney's fee for attorneys representing all dependents in an amount not exceeding five times the State average weekly wage in a case of partial dependency and not exceeding 12 times the State average weekly wage in a case of total dependency.
(b) In a case involving a claim of dependency, if neither compensability nor dependency is contested and a record is being made solely to determine to whom payments of compensation shall be made, the Commission may approve an attorney's fee in an amount not exceeding two times the State average weekly wage.
(c) In a case involving a claim of dependency, if compensability and dependency are contested, the Commission may approve an attorney's fee in an amount calculated under §B(3)(a) in a case of partial dependency and calculated under §B(4)(a) in a case of total dependency.
(7) Settlement Agreements. Notwithstanding a case of a structured settlement of a claim, in a case in which an agreement for final compromise and settlement is approved, the Commission may approve an attorney's fee in a total amount not exceeding $7,500 and computed as follows:
(a) Up to 20 percent of the first $10,000 of compensation awarded;
(b) Up to 15 percent of the next $15,000 of compensation awarded;
(c) Up to 10 percent of the compensation awarded in excess of $25,000.
(8) Increase in Last Award of Compensation for Permanent Partial Disability.
(a) Except as otherwise provided in §B(8)(b) of this regulation, in a case in which the Commission increases the last award of compensation for permanent partial disability upon which an attorney's fee was previously approved, the Commission may approve an additional attorney's fee in an amount not exceeding the difference between the fee approved for all prior awards and the fee computed under §B(3) or (4)(a), as the case may be, of this regulation on the increased award.
(b) In a case in which the Commission increases the last award of compensation for permanent partial disability upon which the attorney or attorneys were previously awarded the maximum fee permitted under §B(3) of this regulation, the Commission may approve an additional attorney's fee in an amount up to 5 percent of the difference between the prior awards of compensation and the increased award of compensation, but not exceeding five times the State average weekly wage.
(9) Appeals.
(a) When a compensation award of the Commission is appealed to a circuit court and the case is tried on appeal, the Commission may approve an additional attorney's fee in an amount up to 5 percent of the final award of compensation, but not exceeding six times the State average weekly wage.
(b) When a decision of a circuit court on an appeal from a compensation award of the Commission is appealed to a higher appellate court and the appeal is briefed and decided on its merits, the Commission may approve an additional attorney's fee for each appeal in an amount up to 5 percent of the final award, but not exceeding six times the State average weekly wage.
(c) When an appeal from a compensation award of the Commission to a circuit court is not tried, or an appeal to a higher appellate court is not briefed and decided on its merits, the Commission may approve an additional attorney's fee in an amount up to 2.5 percent of the final award, but not exceeding three times the State average weekly wage.
(d) When a final award has not been made and a decision of the Commission on the issue of compensability of a claim is appealed to a circuit court, if the claim is determined on appeal to be compensable, the Commission, upon remand of the case to the Commission for the passage of a final award, may approve an additional attorney's fee in an amount up to 5 percent of the final award, but not exceeding six times the State average weekly wage.
(10) Attorney's Fee Not Allowed.
(a) Absent exceptional circumstances, the Commission may not approve an attorney's fee in a case in which it is determined that the claimant is not entitled to any compensation or benefits.
(b) Absent exceptional circumstances, the Commission may not approve an attorney's fee in a case involving issues such as medical care and treatment, or vocational rehabilitation, in which the claimant does not receive any monetary award.

Slip and Fall Maryland Personal Injury Lawyer

It is that time of the year again. When snow and ice are the reason for a person to slip and fall and be injured there is a potential for liability to the owner of the property. Where a injured party can show that a dangerous condition has been created by the owner such as when an owner has permitted water or ice to accumulate in a manner not apparent to the injured person and the injured person is forced to encounter the condition the owner may be liable. Additionally even if the owner of the property undertakes the effort to remove, but fails to correct or creates an artificial condition, the owner may be liable. In order for a property owner to be liable, the property owner must have had actual or constructive notice of the unsafe condition in sufficient time prior to the injury to have it corrected or to have warned the party that was injured. There are countless examples where persons have fallen on ice in parking lots of shopping centers where the owner has been held liable. Maryland courts have stated when the public is led to believe that the premises have been offered for this entry, the law is clear that the occupation assumes the duty of reasonable care. The court has further found that a land owner may be liable when it allows the snow removal service to pile snow at one end of a parking lot while the parking lot drains at the opposite end. In such an example the court has found that the owner knew that the water from the melted snow would flow across the parking lot to the drain and on cool evenings the water would freeze. This is a perfect example of when an owner has created the dangerous condition. If you a family member or friend has been injured in a slip and fall accident please feel free to call my office 1-888-760-7339.

Estatblishing permanent Injury in a Maryland Personal Injury Case

Before you can establish that the effects of an injury are permanent you first need to establish that the injury was caused by this accident at issue. Typically this is accomplished by the timing of the onset of the complaints of pain and for some people diagnostic test confirming injury. Once you have established this causal connection you will may need expert testimony to establish that the effect of the injury is not likely to change. The only exception to this requirement for expert testimony to establish permanency is when the injury is of such a nature that common knowledge is sufficient to justify its probable permanent nature. For example in Cluster v Upton, 165 Md. 566 (1933), the issue of permanent injury was submitted to the jury without expert testimony where the plaintiff's finger, fractured in the accident, was still crooked 11 months after the accident.

Lost Wages and Future Loss of Income as Damages in Maryland Personal Injury

I receive several communications each week either by telephone calls or e-mails from people inquiring about the difference between lost wage claims and loss of future earnings arising out of injury in a Maryland personal injury case.

Lost wages from the date of the accident to the date of trial or to the date that you return to work, even if in some modified capacity, represent your claim for lost wages.

Future loss earnings represents the lost income you can expect from the date of trial forward into your future. Proof of future loss earnings typically requires a doctor who is familiar with your work requirements and your physical limitations as a result of your injury caused by the accident to testify within a reasonable degree of medical probability that you cannot return back to your prior employment. Coupled with that you will need a vocational rehabilitation expert, or someone of like credentials, to tell us what your post accident physical capabilities are and what job markets exist for people with your capabilities. Finally, you will need an economist to calculate the total amount of your future loss earnings. They will then have to reduce those future loss earnings to a present value. The only other piece of evidence you will need to prove future loss earnings will be the work life expectancy calculations which will be provided by the economist.

If you have any questions on these issues or any other issues affecting Maryland personal injury please feel free to call me at 1-888-760-7339.

Maryland Products Liability Lawyer

In a typical product liability suit one who designs, manufacturers or sells any product in a defective condition unreasonably dangerous to the user or consumer is subject to liability for physical harm caused to the user or consumer. The liability claim can be grounded in strict liability and also negligence. An issue sometimes arises in situations where the defective condition causes injury not to the user or consumer rather to a bystander. In the case of Valk Mfg. Co. v. Rangaswamy 74 Md. App. 304 (1987) the Court of Special Appeals addressed strict liability asserted by a bystander, plaintiff. In this case the plaintiff was killed in a car accident. The plaintiff's counsel argued his client's death could have been avoided had the arms of a snow bucket assembled to the front of a truck been removed prior to the impact. Testimony indicated the assembly was not easily removable as design. As such, the workers who had completed all of their snow removing responsibilities failed to remove the fixture and subsequently crashed into the plaintiffs vehicle. Unfortunately the fixtures projecting forward from the front of the vehicle pierced through the plaintiffs passenger side window making contact with this person and causing his death. The plaintiffs successfully argued that the projecting arms enhanced the injury and could have been removed with little effort had the assembly been properly designed. In fact the plaintiff produced an expert to testify that the fix to the design was as simple as a quick disconnect hose. The importance to the plaintiff's case in proceeding on strict liability was the elimination of the defendants claim to contributory negligence. You see in a strict liability claim the only defense a defendant can raise is assumption of risk.

Methods to Prove Facts in Maryland Personal Injury

I receive several calls each weeks from people who visit my web site. asking how they can prove their cases. What is evidence and what do they need to do. There are many ways to prove the facts necessary to establish your claim or your defense. Facts can be proven by eyewitnesses, who can be either or both friendly and/or adversarial/adverse witnesses. Facts may be proven through real and demonstrative evidence, tangible articles, photographs, models, maps, drawings, documents, or opinions of experts. Under certain circumstances facts may be established thru the opinions of non -experts and by the use of out of court statement. These out of court statements must qualify as hearsay exceptions. In some instances a fact may be admitted in pleadings or even in situations where an adverse party admits the fact in discovery by deposition testimony or admission or failure to deny in a request for admission under Maryland Rule 2-424. Facts may be proven by circumstantial evidence provided the evidence to establish the facts is not conjecture or speculation. The ability to see the relevant facts of a case coupled with the knowledge of how to secure the introduction of the facts into evidence is essential to proof of any case in court. Many attorney's create a formula for presentation. It consist of pre outlined time schedules for issuing subpoenas, securing witnesses under subpoena, issuance of discovery, seeking stipulations and identifying and securing expert witness testimony.

Maryland Personal Injury Offsets to Underinsured Coverage by Workers Compensation Benefits Received.

In a Maryland personal injury case, there is a some what complicated situation that exist when multiple policies of insurance are all at play in the plaintiff's recovery. An interesting case was recently decided in the matter of Blackburn v Erie involving under insured coverage and workers compemsation insurance. This situation involves a fairly complicated mess of who gets what from the insurance coverage and who is entitled to what as off sets to avoid a wind fall recovery to the plaintiff. The first part of the equation is easy. When the under insured coverage is greater then the liability coverage the under insured coverage must pay the deficient. Of course this assumes a policy limits offer. It becomes more interesting and perhaps more complex when you throw in a workers compensation policy. You encounter this situation when a worker is injured in car accident for example. In this case when the workers compensation carrier has paid benefits the under insured carrier wants an off set to their coverage equal to the benefit received by the plaintiff. As such no wind fall by coverage duplication. Normally this argument arises when the workers compensation carrier has reduced their lien by some figure. In this case the under insured carrier says well then reduce what we owe to plaintiff by the amount of the reduction in the workers compensation lien. And guess what the courts in Maryland agree with the under insured motorist on this point.

Underinsured personal injury issues in Maryland accident cases

In Maryland every driver is required to carry automobile liability insurance. However the law only requires a 20/40 policy. As such you can end up with a situation where your personal injury claim exceeds the value of the defendant's liability policy. Assuming you do not have adequate under insured motorist coverage yourself, then what are the prudent steps to follow to verify there is no other source of coverage for your personal injuries after the defendant insurer offers policy limits. I recommend you secure an affidavit from the defendant. This can be a bit tricky since you will need to communicate through the defendant's insurance company. However it is necessary in the serious accident cases. The affidavit should attest to no agency, and no insurance from business, household or any and all other sources. In the event you have reason to believe the defendant has personal assets, sometimes unlikely when there is only a 20/40 policy, however, not impossible, then I suggest an asset check. The asset checks are fairly limited in my opinion, but can find real property, which often times have value. If you have any questions on this issue please feel free to call me. I am a Maryland personal injury lawyer.

Removal from District Court To Circuit Court In Maryland Personal Injury

In Maryland personal injury cases the District Court has jurisdiction over cases up to the limit of a damage demand not to exceed $30,000.00. Like everything else in the law there are several rules that guide the Maryland personal injury lawyer thru the process of removal. For example the defendant can remove only if the request is made with in 15 days of the due date of their Notice of Intent to Defend. see Maryland Rule 3-307. Notice of intention to defend

(1) Generally.- Except as provided by subsection (b)(2) of this Rule, the notice shall be filed within 15 days after service of the complaint, counterclaim, cross-claim, or third-party claim.

With in 10 days after the Notice of Intention to Defendant is to be filed the Defendant may request his jury trial see Maryland Rule 3-325 A defendant, counter-defendant, cross-defendant, or third-party defendant may elect a trial by jury of any action triable of right by a jury by filing a separate written demand therefore within ten days after the time for filing a notice of intention to defend. The failure of a party to file the demand as provided in section (a) of this Rule constitutes a waiver of trial by jury of the action for all purposes, including trial on appeal.

When a timely demand for jury trial is filed, the clerk shall transmit the record to the circuit court within 15 days. At any time before the record is transmitted pursuant to this section, the District Court may determine, on motion or on its own initiative, that the demand for jury trial was not timely filed or that the action is not triable of right by a jury.

The Maryland Rules thereafter pick up the case under Maryland Rule 2-326. Certain transfers from District Court

(a) Notice.- Upon entry on the docket of an action transferred from the District Court pursuant to a demand for jury trial or a demand for transfer pursuant to section (d) of Rule 3-326, the clerk shall send to the plaintiff and each party who has been served in the District Court action a notice that states the date of entry and the assigned docket reference and includes a "Notice to Defendant" in substantially the following form:

Notice to Defendant

If you are a "defendant," "counter-defendant," "cross defendant,"
or "third-party defendant" in this action and you wish to contest the case
against you, you must file in this court an answer or other response to the
complaint, counterclaim, cross-claim, or third-party claim within 30 days
after the date of this notice, regardless of whether you filed a notice of
intention to defend or other response in the District Court.

If an action is transferred and a defendant or third-party defendant has not been served with process, the burden is on the plaintiff or third-party plaintiff to obtain service, as if the action were originally filed in a circuit court.

(b) Answer or other response; subsequent proceedings.- Regardless of whether a notice of intention to defend or other response was filed in the District Court, a defendant, counter-defendant, cross defendant, or third-party defendant shall file an answer or other response to the complaint, counterclaim, cross-claim, or third-party claim within 30 days after the clerk sends the notice required by section (a) of this Rule. Following the expiration of the 30-day period, the action shall thereafter proceed as if originally filed in the circuit court.

As such once served the defendant has 25 days to seek a removal of the case from the district court to the circuit court. With in 15 days after the clerk transfers the case the plaintiff can object to the removal on the basis of an untimely request. After the case is transferred and docketed the defendant has 30 days to file his new answer to the complaint.

Slip and Fall Lawyer

The owner of a property can be held liable to pay for your injury. In Maryland the owner's liability depends on what kind of property he has (business or residential) and why you were there in the first place (business reasons, social reasons or trespasser). For example, if the property is a business or the property is some one's home. In each case the owner has a different duty to you the visitor. If you are invited there or you are a trespasser the owner has a different duty to you. Most times premises liability is difficult to prove. Not impossible but difficult. I personally have had very good success with the premises liability claims. My largest recovery was against a hotel in Ocean City where my client slipped on ice. It was late on New Years eve the hotel had left the outdoor hot tub open and available. My client a wonderful women in her early 50's had gone with friends to the hotel. After dinner they looked outside and saw the hit tub was still open. They changed cloths and as my client exited onto the patio approaching the tub, down she went. Our theory of liability focused on the hotel's knowledge that water turned to ice in the cold. Hard to dispute that truth. And oh yeah people in hot tubs get wet. And when wet people walk from the hot tub to the door to enter the hotel they drip water. The long and short of it, don't leave the hot tub open in the freezing cold. If you do then at least warn people that is might be slippery between the patio door and the hot tub. That seems to make sense since the hotel owners have been there for many winters and knew or should have known of the danger they created and this was my client's first time ever to this hotel. You see the basis of this type of liability involving a business and a business invitee is the knowledge the owner has of the danger and the opportunity they had to correct it or warn. One of the first questions to ask a client on a slip and fall is where did you fall and secondly what made you fall. Where tells you the duty owed by the owner to your client. What made you fall is critical to success. As a lawyer you must establish the owner knew of the danger. This knowledge can be established if you can prove the danger was there for a long time or the owner created the danger. I had a slip and fall at a gas station which I won. The client slipped on oil. The owner argued the oil could have been left by the car immediately before my client arrived. In which case how could they know there was a danger in time to fix or warn. I was able to prove by eyes witnesses that the oil spill had tire marks thru it and foot prints in it. The foot prints lead directly to the glass windowed pay booth. Had the attendant been looking he would have seen the oily foot prints and could have taken corrective action to make the area safe or warned my client of the danger. It is important to note the owner of a property is not an insurer of the safety of the visitors. Giant Food v Mitchell 640 A 2d 1134. As a plaintiff you need to prove the business owner had knowledge and an opportunity to clean or warn and you the plaintiff had no reason to know or expect there was a danger there. Three ways to prove knowledge to the owner: 1. owner created the danger (Ocean City Hotel above); 2. an admission by the owner or an employee that they knew (extremely rare); and 3. constructive knowledge of the danger (the oily gas station above). Do appreciate the owner must have had an opportunity to clean or warn. So proving how long the danger existed is critical.
If you or your family member has been injured in a slip and fall, please feel free to call me. I am happy to discuss the case with you over the phone at no cost to you.

Experts in Maryland Injury Cases

For an expert to be permitted to testify first they must qualify as an expert. Then the experts opinions will be permitted only when

1). The opinions assist a jury in understanding questions that inexperienced people are not likely to decide correctly without the assistance of an expert. In circumstances where knowledge, training, and experience enable the expert witness to form an opinion that is going to aid the jury then an expert witness will be permitted to offer his testimony.

2). When the opinions are based on facts in evidence. The facts upon which the opinion of an expert witness is predicated must be stated. The jury must be informed of the facts or the assumed facts upon which the expert's opinion is based. An expert witness may not deliver his opinions in a factual vacuum. Furthermore, there must be evidence to support these facts. Beyond that it is for the jury to determine whether the facts exist or not. It has been the practice in Maryland for some years to permit an expert to express his opinion upon the facts in evidence which he has heard or read on the assumption that these facts are true. Twombley v. Fuller Brush Co., 221 Md. 476, 158 A.2d 110 (1960). Although expert opinion that assumes the truthfulness of disputed testimony is generally admissible, the expert opinion that asserts that the disputed testimony is true is not admissible. Hall v. State, 107 Md. App. 684, 670 A.2d 962 (1996. Md. Rule 5-703 If the jury's finding on controverted questions of fact is contra to the premise upon which the expert bases his opinion, his opinion falls with the premise. Mehlman v. Powell, 281 Md. 269, 378 A.2d 1121 (1977).

It is generally true that the opinion of an expert may not be based in whole or in part on the conclusions and opinions of other witnesses. Jackson v. Jackson, 249 Md. 170, 238 A.2d 852 (1968); nor on reports of others if they contain only opinions, inferences or conclusions. Pennsylvania Threshermen and Farmers' Mut. Cas. Co. v. Messenger, 181 Md. 295, 29 A.2d 653 (1943), Experts may rely on opinion evidence, based in part on reports of others which are not in evidence, but which the expert customarily relies on in the practice of his profession. Cohen v. Rubin, 55 Md. App. 83, 460 A.2d 1046 (1983).Where an expert relies on reports of others, he must demonstrate to the court not only that the reports were made in a reliable manner, but that they are reliable sources of information for the purposes to which the expert puts them. Madden v. Mercantile-Safe Deposit & Trust Co., 27Md. App. 17, 339 A.2d 340(1975).

In many personal injury case in Maryland I encounter situations where defense counsel seeks to introduce an expert for the sake of having an expert impress the jury. It is worth the fling of a Motion in Limine to challenge the use of experts that add nothing to the jury's need to understand and are no more then window dressing.

Medical Malpractice In Maryland Areas Of Liability

The areas of liability in a Maryland medical malpractice case fall generally into four categories. Plaintiff's will often find liability in general medical care, surgical errors, radiological errors and pathological areas. Once liability is determined the theories of liability generally fall into the following list.
1. Failure of proper treatment
2. Failure to tell the patient of test results
3. Lack of informed consent
4. Failure to refer a patient to a specialist.
5. Failure to preform surgery properly, including the failure to use proper tools and equipment.

Minimal Property Damage and Personal Injury In Maryland

The defendants are always making the argument that minimal property damages equals no personal injury. For example how can the person inside the car be hurt when the car is hardly hurt. The argue has some persuasive value in spite of the fact that it ignores the human factor that people are not cars. I use the example in trial of going to the play ground and seeing children pushing children at play. The child falls get back up and the game continues. Well if you push an elderly person the force of the push would break the person in half. The same is true of people not in shape or turned in an odd way at the point of impact, or susceptible to injury due to pre-existing conditions. The list goes on depending upon the facts of your case. In any event the Maryland Court of Appeals addressed the issue of whether property damage photographs can be offered into evidence with out expert testimony to establish the relationship, if any, between property damage and personal injury. The Court in the matter of MASON v. LYNCH. 388 Md. 37, 878 A.2d 588 held "Courts have generally held that photographs and testimony, showing or describing vehicular damage or the nature of the impact, are relevant with respect to the personal injuries suffered in a motor vehicle accident and, in the trial judge's discretion, are admissible." In this matter Plaintiff argued because greater vehicular damage does not result in greater personal injuries, and lesser vehicular damage does not result in lesser personal injuries, in every accident, there can be no correlation between vehicular damage and personal injuries; therefore, vehicular damage evidence is not relevant. However, the Court determined this is not the test for relevancy. Maryland Rule 5-401 defines “ relevant evidence” as follows: ‘Relevant evidence’ means evidence having any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence.”
Courts, almost uniformly, have taken the position that there is in motor vehicle accident cases, as a matter of probability, a correlation between the nature of the vehicular impact and the severity of the personal injuries. As the plaintiff herself acknowledges in Morgan, “[t]here apparently exists among laypersons a belief ... that significant injuries are unlikely in the absence of substantial property damage.” Courts have generally taken the position that this belief is rooted in common sense. Moreover, in personal injury actions based on motor vehicle accidents, evidence, including photographs, of the accident scene and of the damage to the vehicles, is, within the trial court's discretion, admissible under Maryland law.
In sum, the trial court in the instant case did not abuse its discretion in admitting the photographs showing the damage to the plaintiff's automobile.

Injured During Work Driving the Company Vehicle

If you have been injured during work while driving the company vehicle you have two claims to bring in a Maryland injury case. The first claim is against the driver of the other vehicle. This is what we call the third party claim. The other case you have is a claim for workers compensation benefits against you employer. There are a few things you need to know before you start. One is you can not get both PIP benefits and TTD (lost wage benefits) in this situation. Additionally, the workers compensation insurer will have a credit against your third party recovery. Furthermore, in the event your third party case also gives rise to a UM claim. The workers compensation insurer will argue for a credit against the UM recovery as well. I have negotiated three cases in the past 12 months involving these issues. Each case resulted in a mid six figure recovery for my clients. Each case involved a third party claim, a UM claim, and a workers compensation claim. If you think fighting one insurance company per case is interesting try fighting three at the same time. Fortunately we were successful in each case. If you have any questions regarding this type of case, please feel free to call me I am happy to help you through this maze.

Maryland Personal Injury 19-511 UM Insurance

In Maryland personal injury law you may encounter the situation where the defendant's insurance carrier has offered the liability policy limits as a full and final settlement. In this circumstance the UM carrier must be notified of the settlement offer (see Maryland Injury Attorney for information on this statute). That procedure is simple enough. However,the circumstances become a bit more complicated when the liability insurer makes this offer with in 60 days of the trial date. In this situation the UM carrier does not have the respond before the trial is held. As such arguably the parties risk the loss of the benefit of settlement or the plaintiff losses the opportunity to proceed against the UM carrier, if the plaintiff should choose to accept the settlement before the UM carrier responds. The solution is to postpone the trial to allow the UM carrier time to respond. I have had success with this approach and citing the case of Ohio Casualty Insurance Company v Chamberlin, 172 Md. App. 229, 914 A.2d 160 (2007), which reviewed section 19-511. In Chamberlin the Court soundly determined that the statute “was enacted to protect the innocent victim from irresponsible drivers with out insurance”. Or as in this case a driver with inadequate insurance. Furthermore, the Court stated the statute “is not intended to deprive the insured of the benefit of a settlement with the liability carrier.” Please feel free to call me if you encounter this problem.