There is no question that dog bite claims make up their fair share of serious personal injury claims. Here are some statistics:

• The insurance industry pays more than $1 billion in dog-bite claims each year. State Farm, the insurance company in Solesky, paid more than $109 million on about 3,800 dog bite claims nationwide in 2011. In 2010, State Farm had approximately 3,500 claims and $90 million in payouts.
• The Insurance Information Institute estimated that nearly $479 million in dog bite claims were paid by all insurance companies in 2011, spokeswoman Loretta Worters said. In 2010, it was $413 million.
• The CDC says that approximately 4.7 million people are bitten by dogs each year. Over half of the victims are children. Most of these bites are not serious. But approximately 800,000 people seek medical attention for the bites each year. Sixteen people a year die from dog bites. It has to be said: most of these are from pit bulls. Still, at least 25 different breeds of dogs have been involved in the last 238 dog-bite-related fatalities in the U.S.
• Approximately 92% of fatal dog attacks involved male dogs, 94% of which were not neutered.
• The median (not average) dog bite verdict in Maryland over the last 23 years is $24,600.
• At particular risk for dog bits are (1)children ages 5 to 9 years old, (2) seniors, and (3) postmen. Children are the biggest risk. Kids are 900 times more likely to be attacked than a letter carrier.
• State Farm's average cost per dog bite nationally in 2011 was $28,799.
• Approximately one-fourth of dog bite claims are like Solesky in that they involve unrestrained dogs off of their owners’ property. I think these are the dog bite injuries that most concern the general public.

A married same sex couple from California sought a divorce here in Maryland. Prince George's County Judge A. Michael Chapdelaine denied the divorce petition because the marriage was “not valid” and “contrary to the public policy of Maryland.”

Runaway juries are the big problem in medical malpractice cases. Juries see a sympathic plaintiff and, unchecked by reason, they start writing oversized checks. Liberal judges aid and abet the crime.

This belief has taken deep root in Maryland - and in most states - that has led to the enactment of scores of laws to impede medical malpractice lawsuits. Most notable of these restrictions has been medical malpractice caps. Maryland had a onerous cap that became even more draconian. Why? Because the Maryland State Medical Society’s (MedChi) very skillfully orchestrated what almost everyone now agrees was a a faux crisis.

Trial lawyers have been pretty much outsmarted at every turn by doctors and other tort reform proponents. These advocacy groups have smartly turned the focus away from hard facts and have, ironically, effectively used the quintessential trial lawyer weapons, antidotes, and imagery. Pictures of doctors on highways walking out of the state because of high malpractice premiums. A story about a cute little Doc Hollywood like country doctor who had to close his practice because of frivilous malpractice suits. They have, repeatedly, won. Their lobbyists and PR people have done a great job.

Malpractice defense lawyers learned this trick at the feet of the master: pharmaceutical companies make a concerted effort to use its influence at major universities to blackball anyone who testifies against them.

At least this story has a happy ending. The trial judge sanctioned the defense lawyer.

UPDATE: I fixed the broken link. Sorry about that.

The primary issue on appeal dealt with double jeopardy, merger of offenses, and a bunch of other stuff I have long forgot about since law school. But the case also raised on appeal a rather novel issue with respect to juror notes.

I love juror notes. You spend days trying to read invisible juror tea leaves and then get actual tea leaves of what the jurors are thinking. Yet these are illusory tea leaves. My favorite story was when the jury came back with a single question: "May we see Plaintiff's damages board again?"

Hi Ron,

Your name was passed to me as a potential candidate for a Lead Counsel position on our Personal Injury panel in the Salisbury area. We are currently seeking a qualified attorney who can take additional casework. We do need to verify your qualifications in order to see if you are eligible for this position. This is a four attorney panel and we are only looking to work with one additional attorney. We currently have several candidates in review for the position. If this is something you would like to be considered for; I would need the preliminary info below returned within 24 hours.

How long have you been practicing Personal Injury?

Are you in good standing with your State Bar?

Have you had any client related disciplinary action taken against you?

When is your next available time to have a phone appointment to discuss this position further? Please list a time and date.

Note: Only emails with an appointment time listed will be considered.

Regards,

Colin Richardson
Director of Lead Counsel

Phone: 800-397-3743 ext. 7027
Fax: 800-220-4546
Website: www.lawinfo.com
E-mail: crichardson@lawinfo.com
Need more Clients? www.lawinfolegalmarketing.com

So he sends a cold call email (he left a message, too) agreeing to interview me for the "position" but will only consider me if I quickly follow his explicit instructions and have great credentials (like, you know, being in good standing with the bar). I love the strategy although I have to wonder how effective it is with prospects who have a third grade education.

Are CPT codes necessary for Progressive Insurance to determine whether medical care rendered was fair, reasonable, necessary, and causally related to the car accident? I think the best way to frame the question is to ask whether a jury can render a verdict without CPT codes. The answer, of course, in that I have never in my life heard testimony that included CPT codes at trial.

The big issue in the case was whether appropriate standard of care required the defendant doctor to order additional radiological tests, such as X rays, a CT scan, or an MRI, prior to performing the surgery on a young boy to determine whether his tumor had grown since it was first detected. At trial, the defendants’ medical expert testified, of course, that ‘‘the standard of care did not require additional radiology tests." So, this is hardly a case where the doctor is being accused of practicing defensive medicine. But, for some reason, the doctor felt compelled to point out on direct that he would have ordered them himself, if he was treating the plaintiff. Gee, doc, why?

Well, a few reasons. One, I am with residents, fellows, and medical students all the time. So, we are ordering a lot of tests on everything so they have the opportunity to read them. And you could say, oh, that’s wasteful, but that is part of being at a teaching institution. One. It is for teaching purposes as much as anything, for they have one more chance to look at just one more—they have another dot in their exposure.

Wait, how many times have I heard about how you should not subject patients - not for nothing, a young boy in this case - to unnecessary radiological testing because it exposes the patient to risk (and the annoyance and hassle of the testing itself)? Yet that risk is of no consequence if, you know, we can show those young whippersnappers and extra MRI.

The Maryland General Assembly made history with the bill: nobody is mad. Insurance companies are ecstatic and trial lawyers are largely indifferent.

You can read about the genesis of this bill here.