Personal Injury Protection Workers Compensation and Third Party Claims

There are other circumstances where you are injured while driving your vehicle during the scope of your employment. In this instance the accident gives rise to three separate insurance claims as well as two actions. (For example the workers compensation claim as well as the third-party claim against the negligent driver) Specifically as to the insurance claims: the injured party is entitled to make a claim for personal injury protection benefits, workers compensation benefits as well as a recovery from the third-party who is at fault. However, there is a sequence of filings that you should properly adhered to to maximize your personal injury damages but also not to prejudice your entitlement to the various piles policies of insurance that are available to you. For example you should always file your personal injury protection claim first, followed by the workers compensation claim, followed by the third-party liability claim. This is true because in Maryland the personal injury protection carrier has no right up subrogation against third-party recovery. See Maryland Advocated Code Insurance Article 19-507 (d.). Conversely, Maryland law does recognize the right of the workers compensation carrier and their subrogation rights against third-party recovery. See Maryland Annotated Code Labor and Employment Article 9 -- 902 (e.) and (f). The net effect of filing in this manner allows the injured party to reap the benefits of personal injury protection coverage while avoiding a portion of the workers compensation lien. It is important when selecting a personal injury attorney that you put experience on your side. If you, your family members or friends have been injured and an accident in Maryland please feel free to call my office at 1-888-760-7339.

Septic Shock Due to Delayed Diagnosis

Was there a timely diagnosis and treatment for this patient’s septic shock? Should this patient have undergone an exploratory laparotomy surgery sooner? Sepsis needs to be treated as soon as possible for older patients who may have further co-morbidities. The patient would have benefited from earlier surgical intervention such as rapid exploration within a time period less than 4-6 hours. This case involves a sixty-seven year-old male patient who presented to the emergency room via ambulance with severe abdominal pain, hypotension and the appearance of being extremely ill. The patient had a past medical history of prior abdominal surgery eight weeks before the date of the presenting complaint for multiple hernia repairs. The hernia repairs were performed with no reports of complications and the patient was discharged without incident. On arrival at the emergency room a CT scan of the patient’s abdomen was which revealed a large ventral hernia with small and large bowel contained within the hernia sac. On physical examination of the surgical wound there was cellulitis in the anterior abdominal wall and inflammatory changes suggestive of peritonitis. The patient was admitted for dehydration and a suspected small bowel obstruction. The patient was transferred to the medical floors for intravenous fluid resuscitation and pain medication. It was not until more than thirty-six hours after admission that the patient was finally taken to the operating room for an exploratory laparotomy. By this time that patient’s condition had worsened drastically and he was severely unwell. During the procedure a perforation of the cecum was discovered and a colostomy was placed. The patient was started on Imipenem and Diflucan and transferred to the intensive care unit post-operatively. The patient was in a critical state following the surgery. He was not responding to pressor or fluid boluses. A ‘Do Not Resuscitate’ order (DNR) was obtained from the patient’s family and the patient died one day following the exploratory procedure. The cause of death was listed as small bowel perforation leading to septic shock and cardiopulmonary demise. If you, a family member or friend have been the victim of medical negligence. Please feel free to call my office for a free case evaluation. Find out what really happened, 1-888-760-7339.

Cancer Misdiagnosis

This case involves a forty-three-year-old female patient who originally presented to her primary care physician in 2005 with complaints of a newly discovered breast lump that was associated with pain in the area of the breast. Her physician advised her that it was likely not cancerous because it was painful and most likely a cystic formation. She underwent a mammography and biopsy that was consistent with a benign cyst. In 2011 the patient felt a new lump in the right breast that was in the area of the previous cyst that was removed. The mass continued to grow and an ultrasound performed in July of 2012 revealed the presence of a suspicious lesion. A biopsy of this new mass was consistent with a breast carcinoma. The patient then had a PET scan that showed a suspicious pelvic lesion and it was at that point she was offered chemotherapy which consisted of eight cycles of treatment with Adriamycin, Cyclophosphamide and Taxotere. The patient underwent a double mastectomy after completing the chemotherapy regimen, with no apparent lymph node evaluation done at this time. It was later determined after further investigation that the patient was positive for a BRCA mutation. Should the patient’s breast carcinoma have been discovered earlier? Should this patient have been followed more closely to prevent the development of her disease? Should this patient have been sent for BRCA testing sooner to plan for a targeted treatment regimen? Expert opinions find as follows: “This is certainly one of those unfortunate cases where a previously normal work-up may have delayed a diagnosis of a new problem, in this case breast cancer. From the information provided, it is unclear if there were any efforts made in 2011 to diagnose the new breast mass, or if the patient delayed an evaluation until the mass began to grow. If medical attention for the mass was sought in 2011, it would have been standard of care to perform imaging such as mammogram with or without ultrasound. Any abnormalities on mammogram would have triggered some type of biopsy, which would hopefully have identified an underlying malignancy. If the imaging were negative for suspected malignancy, more frequent follow-up with breast exams and repeated imaging would have been helpful to ensure that a malignancy was not developing.” Please feel free to call me whenever you have a question. Please feel free to refer me to your family, friends and relatives. I have offices in Anne Arundel County, Baltimore County, Baltimore City, Howard County, and Prince Georges County. I practice in the areas of personal injury and medical malpractice Please feel free to visit my website at yourMarylandLawyer.com For additional information.

Intubation Error During Cholecystectomy Found Negligent

“One of the main objectives for an anesthesiologist is to protect the patient’s airway. In a case involves a forty-four-year-old woman who was admitted to a hospital for a cholecystectomy. The woman had a history of smoking, and her vitals were normal, with a blood pressure of 124/82. She was properly prepped by both the surgeon and anesthesiologist, and was informed that she would be receiving Ketalar as her anesthetic. However, during intubation, the patient’s oxygen count began to slightly decline, and the anesthesiologist shifted the tube. The shift caused the patient’s oxygen’s level to decline further, and the endotracheal tube was removed approximately 45 seconds later. The operation was stopped, and the operating physician had the patient checked for any signs injury. It was determined that the trauma from the tube damaged the thyroid cartilage, causing a loss of oxygen and had a severely negative impact on the patient’s voice. The surgery was never completed, and the patient’s quality of life decreased substantially due to the damage on the vocal cords. The patient was a secretary, and was unable to return to work due to her loss of voice. Experts have opined, intubation is a commonly practiced technique, and the anesthesiologist failed to notice that something was wrong during the first attempt. It is a standard technique and one of the most vital. Various tools exist to ensure proper execution in a timely manner. By shifting the tube, he caused further damage to the patient, and put the patient at risk of complete lack of oxygen. Loss of oxygen can be damage many parts of the human body, with the brain being a high possibility. The patient was also at risk for neurological damage as well, which could cause an even further reduction in quality of life. The tube should have been removed sooner than 45 seconds after complications arose.” www.theexpertinstitute.com I you have questions regarding medical error please feel free to call my office. We can help you NOW. 1-888-760-7339

Local Government Tort Claims Act

Local Government Tort Claims Act (“the LGTCA”), Md. Code Ann., Cts. & Jud. Proc. Art. (1987, 2013 Repl. Vol.) (“CJP”) § 5-301 et seq.; Under the LGTCA, “an action for unliquidated damages may not be brought against a local government . . . unless: the notice of the claim . . . is given within 180 days after the injury.” CJP § 5-304(b)(1). “The notice shall be in writing and shall state the time, place, and cause of the injury.” CJP § 5-304(b)(2). [T]he notice shall be given to the corporate authorities of the defendant local government.” CJP § 5-304(c)(4).5 Even if a plaintiff does not strictly comply with the LGTCA notice requirement, a plaintiff substantially complies with the LGTCA notice requirement where: 1) the plaintiff makes “some effort to provide the requisite notice”; 2) the plaintiff does “in fact” give some kind of notice; 3) the notice “provides . . . requisite and timely notice of facts and circumstances giving rise to the claim”; and 4) the notice fulfills the LGTCAnotice requirement’s purpose, which is to apprise [the] local government of its possible liability at a time when [the local government] could conduct its own investigation, i.e., while the evidence was still fresh and the recollection of the witnesses was undiminished by time, sufficient to ascertain the character and extent of the injury and [the local government’s] responsibility in connection with it. This standard does not unduly burden potential plaintiffs. We hold that, to substantially comply with the LGTCA notice requirement, a plaintiff must indicate–either explicitly or implicitly–that the plaintiff intends 1. to sue the local government regarding an injury. A plaintiff does not “apprise a local government of its possible liability[,]” Faulk, 371 Md. at 298, 808 A.2d at 1272 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted), where the plaintiff simply demands that the local government fix a defect. Additionally, a plaintiff does not “provide[] ... requisite and timely notice of facts and circumstances giving rise to [a] claim[,]” where the plaintiff threatens to sue the local government, but neither explicitly nor implicitly indicates that the plaintiff intends to sue the local government regarding any injury. If you have been involved in a accident involving a local government, city, state or federal employee is important that you take action immediately to contact an accident attorney to be sure that your legal rights are protected. If you have questions please feel free to call me at 1-888-760-7339

Expert Opinions of Percent of Disability in Accident Cases in Maryland

An expert is permitted to render an opinion as to the percentage of disability suffered by the Plaintiff in personal injury cases Provided: (1) the doctor is expert in rating percentages and has a medical basis for the opinion and(2) the doctor is familiar with the Plaintiff's work, occupation and activates. The opinion can cover how the physical disability affects personal and economic disability. See 228 A 2d. 300 and also 165 A 2d. 898. I suggest if you are heading in the direction of loss earning capacity this percentage opinion affecting performance at work will need to be coupled with a vocational rehab expert to get the loss of earnings as a result of the disability. If you have questions regarding personal injury or car accidents in Maryland, Call the Accident Attorney. I will answer your questions over the phone at NO Cost to You. 1-888-760-7339

Sidewalk Slip and Fall

In order to hold the owner of a property adjacent to a sidewalk liable for injuries caused by deviations in the elevation of the sidewalk slabs it is necessary to prove that the deviation is more than de minimus. Uniformly states throughout the United States who have addressed this issue through the litigation process have determined that the deviation, to be actionable, at a minimum, must exceed in some instances 1/2 inch and in other instances 3/4 of an inch. It is anticipated that the threshold requirements are the byproduct of expected variations that occur naturally during the construction process and are naturally expected to occur with the erosion of time. If you, your family member or friend has suffered a slip and fall injury as a result of a sidewalk deviation it is important first and foremost to secure photographs of the dangerous condition and to do so in the company of the measurement device to determine the actual configuration and size of the deviation. If you have questions regarding slip and fall injuries in Maryland please feel free to call my office at 1-888-760-7339