• Paul Luvera deposes the CEO of Medtronic and gives thoughts on how he approached it.
• Defendants hit with $3 million verdict claim judge allowed 'zombie-like' evidence; Seek new trial (Madison County Record). From Defendants' motion: "This court dismissed the plaintiffs' spoliation claims pre-trial in light of the plaintiffs' request for the application of Missouri law, and then let the plaintiff raise the issue zombie-like as if reincarnated, during trial. The Court went further and decided the issue in plaintiffs' favor, telling the jury Defendants destroyed relevant and material evidence..." Zombie-like as if reincarnated. And you said the law can't be fun.
• Maybe Twombly/Iqbal is not such a big deal (Max Kennerly). The Drug and Device Law Blog disagrees with these 19 posts on the subject. Here is a crazy quote: "Iqbal will have a more significant impact on American jurisprudence than Marbury v. Madison." (Note: I may have made up that quote.)
• Criminal opinion on social media evidence that might be applied in civil cases in Maryland (Byron Warnken)
• A theory on why a police officer would give a ticket to a 13 year-old girl in the hospital (Eric Turkewitz).
• Jury awards $14.4 million in wrongful-death lawsuit (Sign On San Diego). What made this case easier to try? Having settled out with other defendants for over $8 million.
• Jury Awards $500,000 in Slip and Fall Verdict Against CVS in West Palm Beach (Sites Makes). A good, old fashioned "Cleaning the Floor and Didn't Tell Anyone" slip and fall case.

Originally posted at Maryland Injury Lawyer Blog. Please visit http://www.marylandinjurylawyerblog.com/.

• Top 5 Stories of the Week (Maryland Daily Record)
• Editorial: Judges shouldn't be able to toss out verdicts on a whim. The writer is talking about the criminal case involving the death of Anna Nicole Smith... I am sorry... former Playboy model Anna Nicole Smith. Apparently, even after her death, she needs a salacious lead in for her name. Anyway, the problem is one man's whim is another man's deeply help principle )
• "Social media is seriously threatening the impartiality of juries." It is a problem. No doubt. But let's not overstate the case. I think justice will survive Twitter and Facebook.
• Joint tortfeasor releases in Maryland medical malpractice cases. I think 1% of Maryland tort lawyer lawyers understand joint torfeasor releases
• Oh, my, speaking of hyperbole, check out this one: Medical Malpractice Causing Threat For The Civilization. This is a new blog. The smart money: it won't last.
• Overlawyered writes about tow truck scams. The Maryland Accident Lawyer wrote about this last month.
• Albuterol recall last week.
• A Chamber of Commerce files yet another lawsuit. Man, they file a lot of lawsuits.

Originally posted at Maryland Injury Lawyer Blog. Please visit http://www.marylandinjurylawyerblog.com/.

• The Baltimore Injury Lawyer Blog on the difference between how accident lawyers handle truck accident claims and how they handle car accident claims
• The New York Personal Injury Law Blog writes about infamous Stella Liebeck of McDonald's coffee spill fame. Apparently, there is a film at Sundance on Stella Liebeck that offers the real story on the McDonald's coffee spill case and what it was all about. (My favorite movie at Sundance? Queen's Boulevard starring Vincent Chase. Great film! Better than Aquaman in my opinion). Personally, I don't care about the real facts in Stella Liebeck's case anymore. It was 18 years ago. Who cares anymore? I think it is a sad commentary that a case this old is a rallying cry. Tort reform folks need better writers. We have a jury system which is invariably going to lead to some injustices because humans are human. Grab on to those examples and quit focusing on an 18 year old case you have misunderstood anyway.
• DePuy hip replacement recall lawsuits find a home in an MDL in Ohio. I was hoping the cases would get transferred to New Jersey under Judge Susan B. Wigenton. Why? Because DePuy didn't want that. So it must be a good thing.
• Choosing between the LSAT and your grandmother's funeral (Above the Law).
• Soon-to-be Anne Arundel County Circuit Court Judge Alison Asti has a controversial fundraiser that I don't think is that big of a deal.
• The South Carolina Lawyer Blog reports on a settlement with Crocs, Inc. after a man was injured while wearing Crocs on an escalator. Plaintiff's lawsuit claimed that Crocs are "prone to entrapment when pressed against the skirt guard of step riser." My wife hates them but I have Crocs. I figured they were prone to entrapment when pressed up against a moving escalator. Phillip Howard should immediately call a press press conference to announce that this case is bigger than Stella Liebeck.
• Sean Wajert makes a decision for Dechert on the Mass Torts Defense Blog: the law firm does not want any business from the City of San Francisco. Big firm or not, I'm glad Sean is willing to speak his mind which makes his blog a good read even though I often disagree with it.

Originally posted at Maryland Injury Lawyer Blog. Please visit http://www.marylandinjurylawyerblog.com/.

The Maryland Court of Appeals reinstated a wrongful death accident lawsuit today, finding in a 6-1 opinion that a Baltimore City trial judge erred in failing to give an instruction on the inapplicability of assumption of the risk in FELA cases. The case involved a man who was killed when the mounted roof of his work vehicle came into contact with an energized wire.

I just took a quick look at the opinion. I will write more here if I find anything of particular interest.

Originally posted at Maryland Injury Lawyer Blog. Please visit http://www.marylandinjurylawyerblog.com/.

As expected, Maryland voters overwhelmingly rubber stamped approved by a two-to-one margin a constitutional amendment to increase the damages threshold for civil jury lawsuits from $10,000 to $15,000. What does this mean? Currently, any case pled in District Court in Maryland for more than $10,000 can be "bumped up" to a jury trial. This new law increases the amount to $15,000.

There was no real debate on this issue. Pretty much everyone supported it, including small businesses, except for car insurance companies (you can find my overview of this issue here).

My theory on this, that I expressed back in April, is that most voters are like me: if there is constitutional change on the ballot and you have not heard a debate about it, you figure there is a good reason for it. Why? Because given the absence of public debate that would make me more knowledgeable on the topic, I defer to the Maryland legislature and figure they put it on the ballot for a reason. Of course, some people are going to vote against everything they don't fully understand because they have a different world view. I suspect that most people who voted for or against the bill last night did so more because of how they view the big picture on these types of questions as opposed to the merits of the bill (which is why I made the rubber stamping joke).

I received two phone calls today from lawyers who have read my prior posts on this and wanted to know what the effective date will be for this new law. After the law is approved by the Maryland Board of Elections, Governor O'Malley will then "proclaim" that the amendment has passed. This will probably happen late this year or early next year. But it does not apply to the loss date but to the date a lawsuit is filed. So a lot of Maryland accident lawyers with smaller cases that they want to file for $15,000 to avoid the potential of removal to Circuit Court may want to keep those cases on hold if there are no statute of limitations issues until after the effective date of this new law.

I wish they had had the foresight and wisdom to include a modest escalation clause for inflation. Because $15,000 is going to be worth $7,500 in 10 years and we will be back to the drawing board.

Originally posted at Maryland Injury Lawyer Blog. Please visit http://www.marylandinjurylawyerblog.com/.

As expected, Maryland voters overwhelmingly rubber stamped approved by a two-to-one margin a constitutional amendment to increase the damages threshold for civil jury lawsuits from $10,000 to $15,000. What does this mean? Currently, any case pled in District Court in Maryland for more than $10,000 can be "bumped up" to a jury trial. This new law increases the amount to $15,000.

There was no real debate on this issue. Pretty much everyone supported it, including small businesses, except for car insurance companies (you can find my overview of this issue here).

My theory on this, that I expressed back in April, is that most voters are like me: if there is constitutional change on the ballot and you have not heard a debate about it, you figure there is a good reason for it. Why? Because given the absence of public debate that would make me more knowledgeable on the topic, I defer to the Maryland legislature and figure they put it on the ballot for a reason. Of course, some people are going to vote against everything they don't fully understand because they have a different world view. I suspect that most people who voted for or against the bill last night did so more because of how they view the big picture on these types of questions as opposed to the merits of the bill (which is why I made the rubber stamping joke).

I received two phone calls today from lawyers who have read my prior posts on this and wanted to know what the effective date will be for this new law. After the law is approved by the Maryland Board of Elections, Governor O'Malley will then "proclaim" that the amendment has passed. This will probably happen late this year or early next year. But it does not apply to the loss date but to the date a lawsuit is filed. So a lot of Maryland accident lawyers with smaller cases that they want to file for $15,000 to avoid the potential of removal to Circuit Court may want to keep those cases on hold if there are no statute of limitations issues until after the effective date of this new law.

I wish they had had the foresight and wisdom to include a modest escalation clause for inflation. Because $15,000 is going to be worth $7,500 in 10 years and we will be back to the drawing board.

Originally posted at Maryland Injury Lawyer Blog. Please visit http://www.marylandinjurylawyerblog.com/.

Alison Asti circulated flyers today encouraging voters to vote for her and Circuit Court Judge Laura S. Kiessling. The flyers look similar to those put out by Judge Kiessling and Judge Ronald Jarashow, who have campaigned together. Judge Jarashow, according to the Capital Gazette, did not mince words, calling Alison Asti’s flyers "despicable," and said they showed her "lack of integrity." Wow.

Meanwhile, the early returns are not looking good for Judge Jarashow. I've previously posted my thoughts on the race and predicted the loss of Judge Jarashow which sadly appears to have come true. Hopefully, Governor O'Malley puts him right back on the bench.

Originally posted at Maryland Injury Lawyer Blog. Please visit http://www.marylandinjurylawyerblog.com/.

One thing I really don't do is rubberneck traffic accidents. When I am king, rubbernecking will be a felony.

Except for traffic accidents, I am a rubbernecker. My worst rubbernecking comes in comment sections of articles and blog posts. I found this one this morning talking about the election of Maryland Court of Special Appeals judges. Really, I would like to get all of the time back in my life that I have spent reading this kinda garbage. It reminds me of what that guy said when looking at The Kramer: "He is a loathsome, offensive brute... yet I can't look away." I need to do a better job of looking away. (Memo to my 2011 New Year's resolutions file.)

In an "election" for the Maryland Court of Special Appeals, Marylanders are given an up/down vote on judges. Think Soviet Union 1958 (hey, look, Khrushchev won again - good for him). But having these judges on the ballot is a waste of time. All of the Maryland Court of Special Appeals judges should be retained because none of them have been accused of any ethical violations. We should just skip the show altogether and give these judges a single term or life tenure (of course, Maryland defines life as age 70 but that is a whole other story). Practically, this is what we are doing anyway.

Some people are going to vote against the Maryland Court of Special Appeals judges. This is fine. Voters are playing within the system. But I would like to poll the voters who vote against the CSA judges and ask them, "What opinion did the judge write that made you vote no?" I will bet you that less than 1% of people voting "no" can answer.

The big race in my jurisdiction is Kratovil-Harris. I'm not sure who is going to win and I'm worried my choice is going to lose. Still, I feel like the electorate will have spoken. I think if Kratovil loses, it will be a referendum vote on President Obama's first two years more than a vote for Harris. I think this is completely unfair but I don't think it is unreasonable (if that makes sense). But in all of these judicial elections in Maryland (certainly Ronald Jarashow/Laura Kiessling/Alison Asti is the closest example to home), I don't think voters are really in a position to make reasonable choices.

Originally posted at Maryland Injury Lawyer Blog. Please visit http://www.marylandinjurylawyerblog.com/.

Lester Brickman writes a guest blog for the TortsLawProf on the stealth litigation explosion in this country. Even though tort cases only make up 5% to 10% of the filed lawsuits in this country, Professor Brickman argues this number is artificially low because of class actions and cases filed with more than one Plaintiff.

Many things are left unexplained. Haven't cases always been counted like this? How is this evidence of an explosion? Aren't there zillions of consumer class actions that also mask the number of non-tort plaintiffs?

Moreover, the whole idea that "it is more than you think" tells us nothing. So how many claims are there if claims are not properly estimated. And, again, why is this evidence of an explosion?

The only meaningful data provided to show a national litigation explosion is the number of claims that have been filed against New York City (not in, just against) between 1984 and 2004. Sure, payout rose in claims against the city. But quoting data from six years ago covering a 20 year period showing a rise in payouts (that, parenthetically, approximates the rising cost of health care during a 20 year period where that city came back from the abyss, ergo more activity in the city) against one municipality just does not tell us anything. At all.

I don't have feelings set in concrete on whether there has been a "litigation explosion" in this country. I could be swayed with the right evidence. But the lack of substance of this blog does not strengthen the case for a litigation explosion. In fact, it does the exact opposite.

Originally posted at Maryland Injury Lawyer Blog. Please visit http://www.marylandinjurylawyerblog.com/.

A Mississippi lawyer was jailed for five hours for refusing to recite the Pledge of Allegiance. This is not the first time this lawyer has had a problem over his refusal to say the Pledge of Allegiance. In June, he was asked to leave another courtroom for refusing to recite the Pledge. This is the contempt order.

Although this story has no real personal injury connection, I thought it was interesting enough to pass on to my readers. I instinctively started typing out a commentary in the space that houses this paragraph because that is what I do here. But who cares what I think about this? You can read the story and draw your own conclusions.

Originally posted at Maryland Injury Lawyer Blog. Please visit http://www.marylandinjurylawyerblog.com/.