There are a couple of leitmotifs lawyers deal with when representing injured people who are either illegal immigrants or appear to be. First, if they are legally here in this country, you have to get that out on direct. There are some jurors who - let's face it - are going to view anyone with an accent as an illegal immigrant. In the real world, there is a prejudice against illegal immigrants. If you can kill that perception, do it.

Conversely, you need to move in limine to bar any evidence, suggestion, or argument regarding the immigration status of plaintiff (or any witness, for that matter) simplly because it is prejudicial. Put in front of a jury that the plaintiff is legally working in this country, yet suppress any mention of immigration status if the plaintiff is undocumented? Is firing off these two seemly contradictory statements in the span of seconds lawyer double talk or even duplicitous. Actually, it is not. Juries don't say "Gee, we have a documented immigrant, let's open up the checkbook" but they might discriminate against a plaintiff because they don't think he/she belongs in this country. Doors don't always swing both ways.

First, it is worth noting that everyone means well. The hospitals know they have made a mistake and want to (1) get the clients to a competent malpractice lawyer, and (2) get a deal going where the attorneys' fees are reduced by as much as a fourth of what they would otherwise be. The lawyers who get the referrals are trying to maximize the value of the case and try to get the client as much as possible.

But there are some cases where the appropriate strategy- or the client's wish - is just to wage war. It is hard to wage war against someone where your relationship is such that they are recommending you to people they just malpracticed. If you repeatly go scorched earth and decide that early resolution is not the answer and a lawsuit is, you can expect these referrals to dry up pretty quickly. You can't fault the hospitals if they stop referring patients to that "wage war" malpractice lawyer. It is just the way of things.

The hospital is not referring over every potential medical malpractice case. I'm sure these are the "Oh, gosh, we totally screwed up, let's make it right" malpractice cases. The only remaining question issue is damages. But, as Jerry Seinfeld would say, that's a pretty big matzo ball hanging out there. Ninety percent of the car accident cases we have in suit are admitted liability cases where the only dispute is damages. Establishing liability is only half of the equation. In serious injury cases, very reasonable people see the values of cases differently, which is why we need the adversarial system to operate at its fullest.

The conflict here is not just a problem for the bad guys, but also for good, honest malpractice lawyers. The big picture colors your thinking even when you specifically are trying hard not to let it. History of man reminds us over and over that self-interest colors the calculations of even the good guys.

Remember when Justice Antonin Scalia came under fire for not recusing himself in a case involving Vice President Dick Chaney, after the pair had recently hopped on Air Force Two for a little hunting trip. Who have you ever gotten on a plane with, and went on a trip with that you were not incredibly tight with? Seriously. If I'm getting on a plane with you, we are tight. Scalia's retort: “If it is reasonable to think that a Supreme Court Justice can be bought so cheap, the nation is in deeper trouble than I had imagined.” It is a good line (give him credit, Scalia has lots of good lines). But just because Scalia was not aware of how such a bias could influence him on his ultimate thinking and decision from the bench, it does not mean that it does not exist.

Hello Mr. Miller:

My name is Mary [deleted], and I'm working with Allstate Insurance to ensure they are being accurately and effectively represented online.

I was reading your article "I Support Allstate" at http://www.marylandinjurylawyerblog.com/2012/01/i_support_allstate_1.html and noticed that while you discuss Allstate (thank you for your interesting thoughts) there is no link to Allstate's website for your readers to click on.

I wanted to provide you with Allstate's site in the hopes that you would include a link within your piece. Allstate's website is located at http://www.allstate.com/. Please let me know if you require more information in order to make this edit possible.

Thanks so much for your consideration.

Mary
[Name Deleted]
Performics
On Behalf of Allstate Insurance
111 E. Wacker, Suite 1500
Chicago, Illinois 60601
e:[deleted]

I found on my Google +1 (come join me there, and Miller & Zois too) a post from someone who worked for Reagan, that looks at what he actually said about tort reform. Apparently, all of his years of public life, Reagan gave only one tort reform speech in his political career in which he specifically said the issue is one for individual states. He never followed up on this speech.

I found on my Google +1 (come join me there, and Miller & Zois too) a post from someone who worked for Reagan, that looks at what he actually said about tort reform. Apparently, all of his years of public life, Reagan gave only one tort reform speech in his political career in which he specifically said the issue is one for individual states. He never followed up on this speech.

Allstate decided to stop writing home insurance policies in Southern Maryland, the Lower Eastern Shore, and some properties on or near the waterfront in Anne Arundel County. Why? Allstate thinks that the spate of of hurricanes that have pounded the eastern seaboard in recent years may not be anomalous but instead are the result of increases of tropical sea surface temperatures (or whatever else it might be). Allstate does not care why. What Allstate does know is that it no long wants to bear the risk of catastrophic financial losses if a hurricane hits these at risk areas.

The Court of Appeals agreed that Allstate had a reasonable basis. Judge Harrell, in his dissent, says that Allstate has decided not to write new homeowner’s insurance policies in these areas because of an unsubstantiated fear of a hypothetical force of nature, a Category 2 or greater hurricane making landfall in Maryland. I agree. But is he sure? Couldn't reasonable minds differ on this? Does anyone really have an handle on the degree that global warming is going to impact the future? I think the answer is that no one really has a clue and, accordingly, Allstate should be given the discretion to decide for itself. I also think the applicable laws - § 19-107 and § 27-501 of the Maryland Insurance Article - give them that ability.

Actos is another drug for type 2 diabetes that has helped treat the diabetes, but can get the patient into problems that they did not anticipate (Avandia has also had its share of problems). With Actos, studies have shown that people who take Actos for more than a year are 40 percent more likely to develop bladder cancer than those never exposed to Actos.

Actos does an effective job of treating diabetes. Actos improves blood sugar levels by increasing the body’s sensitivity to insulin in patients who have been diagnosed with type 2 Diabetes. Clearly, diabetes is a serious disease and the medications to treat diabetes come with - as most medications do - risk. Certainly, if you have life threatening diabetes and Actos is the only drug that works for you, maybe you take on otherwise unacceptable risks. I get that. But Actos users did not sign up for this risk of bladder cancer. There are too many patients over the years that would not have used Actos if they knew it caused bladder cancer.