Did you know that truck accidents involving large commercial vehicles and semi-tractors account for a fourth of all fatalities in multiple vehicle traffic accidents on the highways in the United States? When you consider the fact that only 3% of all registered vehicles on the roadways are large trucks and 18-wheelers, you can see that the number of accidents is disproportionably high when commercial vehicles are involved.
The larger the vehicle, the greater its propensity for damage is. When a bicycle collides with a subcompact car, the bicyclist has the greatest likelihood for serious injury or death. When a subcompact is involved in an accident with an SUV, the occupants of the subcompact are most likely to suffer serious injury. And so on up the ladder it goes. Large truck accidents often cause the most damage of all. When a large commercial vehicle collides with anything, the damages and injuries can be severe.
Owners and operators of big rigs and other commercial vehicles have a responsibility to keep their vehicles in proper working order, and strap loads tightly. Operators are supposed to conduct an inspection of the vehicle at the end of each workday and keep a log of all parts that aren’t in good working condition. Before they operate the vehicle again, all the parts are supposed to be in working order.
The sad fact is that many commercial drivers are lax in conducting their daily inspections. Many simply write in their logbooks that the inspections were conducted, when in fact they are not. Due to such carelessness, spare tires may fly off, tires in poor condition may burst, insufficient load tie downs may cause trailers to lose their loads, air hoses that operate brakes may be in serious disrepair or perhaps may not even be connected to the trailer.
These and many other problems that the motoring public is not aware of can cause countless serious truck accidents. Some innocent victims suffer fatal or life-altering injuries from loose parts flying off trucks and trailers, dropped loads, and tools crashing through automobile windshields. These are only a few of the problems caused by bungling or slothful truckers.
There are hundreds of CVSA (Commercial Vehicle Safety Administration) certified inspectors around the country, but their numbers are insignificant when compared to the number of commercial vehicles on the highways. There simply are not enough inspectors to catch all the unsafe commercial vehicles, or their drivers, that should not be on the highway.
One of the most significant causes of truck accidents is driver fatigue. The law limits the number of hours a commercial vehicle driver may legally drive in a day or a week. To get around this requirement, many drivers carry two logbooks—one to show police or CVSA inspectors, and one to turn in at work for pay. When two logbooks are used, the hours seldom match. In such cases, the logbook turned in at work is probably more accurate, and will likely show that the driver has exceeded the legal number of driving hours. Most any CVSA inspector is replete with stories of truck drivers who carry more than one logbook. When asked to see the second logbook, some drivers will turn them over to inspectors without even trying to deny their existence.
If you have been involved in any kind of truck accident with a big rig or other large truck, be sure you check with a reliable attorney to help you collect any damages you deserve. The commercial enterprise may be liable for damages you aren’t aware of.
In the early history of the United States, just as today, residents of Maryland and each of the other 13 original colonies wanted to remain independent of each other by following their own conscience and enacting their own laws. Therefore, Maryland law is distinct in wording from that of other states. However, much of the time, Maryland statutes are remarkably similar in intent to those of other states.
For example, in regards to driving while under the influence of intoxicating liquor, Maryland law states that a person driving with an alcohol concentration of .05 milligrams of alcohol per deciliters of blood or less is “presumed not under the influence of alcohol.” If the alcohol concentration is more than .05 but less than .07, the “fact may not give rise to any presumption that the person was or was not under the influence of alcohol.” A person driving with an alcohol concentration of at least .07 but less than .08 “shall be prima facie evidence that the person was driving while impaired by alcohol.” If the person has a concentration of .08 or more, “the person shall be considered under the influence of alcohol.”
In Arizona, on the other hand, a .05 alcohol concentration “may be presumed that the defendant was not under the influence of intoxicating liquor.” When the concentration is in excess of .05 but less than .08 “that fact shall not give rise to a presumption that the defendant was or was not under the influence of intoxicating liquor.” If the concentration is .08 or higher “it may be presumed that the defendant was under the influence of intoxicating liquor.”
Notice how the wording changes slightly. However, even nuances such as the words “shall be considered” used in Maryland, and the words “may be presumed” in Arizona can give rise to all kinds of legal arguments in either state. That is one reason you should hire a good lawyer if you are the accident victim of a driver who was driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs.
Maryland law can have such subtleties included in all of its criminal, tort and traffic laws. Auto accidents, truck accidents and motorcycle accidents are some of the most common events following which injured victims most need a good personal injury lawyer to represent them. When another driver is at fault and causes the death or serious injury of you or a member of your family, the insurance company of that driver will likely want to settle quickly, for much less than you deserve.
Check with a good personal injury lawyer before you sign any papers with an insurance company. It could make quite a difference in your life, especially if you have long-term injuries that could threaten your ability to remain fully employed.
Auto accidents are the leading preventable causes of deaths in the United States. They are also one of the leading preventable causes of injuries. Causal agents for traffic accidents include alcohol and drug consumption, drowsiness, talking on cell phones, eating, and myriad other distractions. People who are distracted while driving are liable for the deaths and injuries they cause.
There are several common injuries in auto accidents suffered by victims. Some of these include whiplash, back injuries, head injuries, and numbness and tingling in the extremities. Some of the symptoms of these injuries are:
A whiplash injury involves an injury to the neck. It not only causes extreme discomfort but also can reduce the range of movement in the neck. The most common type of accident involving whiplash is a rear end vehicular collision. It can cause the victim’s head to whip violently backward and forward. A major problem with whiplash is that it is difficult to treat effectively. The pain from a whiplash injury may also not appear immediately, but may arise some days after the accident.
Spinal injuries may include fractures, but often are misalignments in the spine that can cause nerve damage and other serious problems such as harm to discs and ligaments. Nerve pressure increases due to stress on the spine. Such pressure on the spine, if not treated or relieved, can lead to other long-term medical problems. If the spinal cord is damaged, full or partial paralysis may result.
Head injuries—these can range from mild concussions, to fractures, to serious brain damage. Quick diagnosis and treatment is essential for the possible prevention of some long-term effects. The effects and pain from head injuries can vary widely from person to person, and can be temporary or permanent. Head injuries may permanently affect the victim’s vision, among other things. Side impact collisions account for a large percentage of head injuries sustained in auto accidents.
Numbness and tingling in the extremities can occur from a variety of injuries to the body, including spinal damage. The numbness can become more than just a nuisance. It can continue for years, and victims may lose strength of grip, and may have trouble holding things without dropping them. In extreme cases, it can cause disabilities that could even threaten the victim’s employment.
Damage to internal organs may have permanent effects on a victim’s life. Organs can be damaged by severe trauma or broken bones. Organ damage may require surgery, and can cause lifelong problems.
These are just a few of the serious troubles that can arise following a motor vehicle accident. If you or a loved one is involved in an injury accident, contact a competent personal injury attorney to help you learn all your options before settling with an insurance company. Remember, injuries can have long lasting effects of which you may not immediately be aware.
Not surprisingly, police officers develop a variety of skills, not the least of which is investigating auto accidents. You would be hard pressed to find a rookie police officer in any major city in the United States who hasn’t already responded to several motor vehicle accidents. Officers in major metropolitan areas may complete hundreds or even thousands of traffic accident reports during the course of their careers.
At times, it seems that some drivers are on a mission to seek out and destroy as many passing automobiles as they can. You probably know a few such drivers yourself. Here are a few that might sound familiar:
Jasper T. Halibut hates to have anyone driving in front of him—hates it so much, in fact, that he often passes in no passing zones, forcing oncoming drivers to veer off the roadway to avoid head-on collisions. Another problem with Jasper is that once he passes a car, he often quickly decelerates or brakes quickly, creating an additional hazard for the vehicle behind.
Mary K. Blush applies makeup with one hand, while adjusting the rearview mirror with another. She usually seems to be taking no notice whatsoever of what is taking place in front of her vehicle. And who knows what she uses to steer?
C. L. Phone enjoys text messaging in the fast lane.
Sam O. Wich has a seven-course meal spread out on his lap, holds a soda in one hand and reaches to the floorboard to retrieve all the morsels he dropped with the other.
These are just a few of the daily hazards to you and your loved ones. Obtuse drivers travel in a slapdash fashion every day you cruise the highways—but they are not alone. There are, of course, the fools who aren’t satisfied with killing themselves with alcohol and illegal drugs, they try their best to kill you too while driving under their influence.
Other dangerous drivers include those who:
are drowsy
like to watch their passengers while conversing rather than watching the roadway
drop cigarettes in their laps and lose concentration on their driving
You consistently pass more potential killers and mutilators driving motor vehicles than you probably care to know about. It doesn’t matter if swashbucklers, hotheads and daredevils in half-ton metal monsters intend to harm you in auto accidents—their negligence is enough to ruin your life or the life of your loved ones permanently.
Most insurance companies are willing to pay for damage to your vehicle, but many of them urge you to sign away your rights to compensation for pain, suffering, loss of employment, and other benefits. When you or your loved ones suffer injuries in auto accidents due to someone else’s negligence, don’t be in too big a hurry to sign away your rights. Check first with competent legal counsel and make sure you are getting all the compensation you deserve. For a free case evaluation - contact our firm today.
Cramdown legislation to allow bankruptcy judges to modify mortgage interest rates came one step closer to passage on Tuesday when house Democrats amended the legislation to restrict cramdowns only to subprime mortgages as opposed to all mortgages. This is a significant step toward passage of the law that some Democrats were concerned would have the effect of relieving some of mortgagors of debt they were able to afford to repay and who were not victims of fraudulent underwriting and loan approval processes. It is now expected that the legislation will garner the votes needed to pass the House and will then go to the Senate where it will face a very close vote. One major change to the proposed legislation is that homeowners must now demonstrate to a bankruptcy judge considering a judicially forced cramdown that they attempted and failed at obtain a loan modification with the lender.
The lawyers at Belsky, Weinberg & Horowitz strongly urge all individuals contemplating Chapter 13 bankruptcy to use their best efforts to obtain a loan modification to reduce the interest rate on their loans. Do not wait until the last minute to do this as the mortgage company can take more than thirty (30) days to make its decision. Also, do not wait until the eave of a foreclosure sale date for an answer from the mortgage company. If you are less than five (5) days from the sale date and do not want to lose the home, you will need to file the bankruptcy immediate and worry about the cramdown opportunities later. Call us anytime for assistance. (800) 895-5333. We are Maryland attorneys with significant experience with all matters related to bankruptcy.
Here are the major changes made to H.R. 1106 during Committee consideration. Understanding what a cramdown looks like under the present proposed legislation is very important as it appears this is what will likely be signed into law (with minor changes of course):
1. Judicial modifications were limited to existing loans.
2. A "clawback" provision was included to specify that increases in property values over the first four years of the bankruptcy plan would be returned to the lender, based on a sliding scale.
The manager's amendment and second-degree Lofgren-Tauscher-Cardoza amendment made a number of additional changes, including:
1. Ensuring that a judge considers whether a qualified loan modification that is consistent with President Obama's plan was offered prior to considering a judicial modification
2. Incorporating the Administration's debt-to-income and interest rate limits as considerations for determining whether an interest rate reduction in lieu of a principal reduction is warranted.
3. Changes to ensure that judges use FHA appraisal guidelines in determining the fair market value of a property;
4. Improvements in the predictability of payouts by mandating that the debtor make equal monthly payments on their restructured debt;
5. Specifications in the pre-filing requirement that in addition to a phone call requesting a loan modification, the debtor must certify that he or she provided information on income, expenses, and debts to the holder of the mortgage;
6. Extending the pre-filing requirements to request a qualified loan modification from 15 days to 30 days to allow sufficient time for the loan modification process
7. Changes to ensure that judges must deny judicial modification in cases where the debtor could otherwise afford the loan. This will prevent wealthy people from taking advantage or falling real estate prices;
8. A GAO study to determine whether Chapter 13 proceedings are working to prevent foreclosures and the effect this is having on access to credit;
9. Extending FHA, VA and rural housing assistance guarantees to adjustments as a result of judicial loan modifications.
10. Amending the "clawback" provision to increase the amount of appreciation owed to the lender in the case of a home sale during the bankruptcy
As a brief background, Maryland statutory law passed by the General Assembly in the late 1970s carved out a special procedure for persons seeking to sue medical providers for malpractice. The special procedure, known as health claims arbitration, essentially requires that a plaintiff, before he or she files suit in a circuit court for malpractice, must first file their claim with a state agency known today as the Health Claims Dispute Resolution Office. Along with the claim, the law requires that a certificate of qualified expert accompany the claim wherein an expert, board certified in the same field of medicine as the defendant medical provider, attest that the medical records and factual information reviewed reveals that malpractice was committed and caused the plaintiff injury. Once the certification prerequisite is met, the case can be removed from arbitration and can proceed in the circuit court like any other personal injury claim. Obviously, the certification requirement was intended to week out frivolous claims. There are, however, unintended consequences created by the certification requirement.
I was counsel on the case of D'Angelo v. St. Agnes Healthcare, a Court of Special Appeals decision that sent shock waves through the plaintiffs' legal community when the court deemed the two certifications filed by the plaintiffs inadequate and dismissed the case. For many years prior to the decision, plaintiffs' counsel had believed they were complying with the certification requirement by filing a simple statement from an expert attesting that the claim had merit and that the expert was not a "professional witness." In the wake of D'Angelo, many legitimate lawsuits were dismissed, and more were challenged and disposed of by dismissal when the Court of Appeals of Maryland issued its decision in Walzer v. Osbourne, where the court for the first time explained that the certificate must contain certain detail as to the "hows and whys" of malpractice, even though the state statute requiring certification was silent on the specificity of such certificating language.
Now, the problem has been compounded by revised certification requirements as a result of certain 2005 amendments to the certification statute that were passed in haste as emergency legislation by the Maryland General Assembly in response to cries from the malpractice insurance industry who, without any substantive scientifically valid evidence, claims that increasing jury awards were going to drive them out of the state and that physicians would be leaving as well.
When combining the new legislation with the recent flurry of case law on the subject, Maryland medical malpractice practitioners are rightfully concerned that the right of malpractice victims is being circumscribed by laws which serve to remove legitimate claims from the court system and which place an unfair roadblock in the pursuant of claims which, under the medical malpractice legislation, are theoretically not to be abridged by the malpractice legislation and should retain in all respects their common law right of action to sue for malpractice. The abridgment of a malpractice victim's common law right of action in negligence is at the heart of the argument that Maryland's certification requirement, and the court's newly-imposed common law enhancements to that law, have resulted in the unconstitutional deprivation of a person's right to pursue their common law remedies and their right to trial by jury. One state supreme court in Oklahoma reached this very conclusion recently, and deemed unconstitutional its own state's certification statute for malpractice claims which is nearly identical to Maryland's.
In the upcoming months, Maryland's appellate courts are expected to issue additional decisions on the propriety of malpractice certification and challenges asserted by defendant health care providers who have successfully defeated legitimate claims by focusing on technical (and correctable) infirmities in the certificates rather than by prevailing on the merits of the case by asserting valid substantive defenses. The certification requirement and the illusiveness of the law as it exists is creating real problems that were not intended by the General Assembly when the law was first passed.
I am in the process of writing a comprehensive law review article on the topic and expect it will be published in the next eight months. As the article is developed, I will post portions of it here for all to read and comment upon. Please stay tuned for developments in this very important area of malpractice litigation.
In many instances medical providers who render care to those involved in personal injury accidents receive payment from the patient's health insurer. Under Maryland law, those health insurers may have a "lien" against any personal injury recovery. What this means is that before the patient can receive any proceeds of settlement or a judgment award, the health insurer must be reimbursed. The duty to reimburse is frequently contractual. In other words, the health insurance contract provides for the right of reimbursement for treatment which is paid for by insurance but which is the subject of a personal injury claim where reimbursement for medical expenses is part of the claim.
In some instances a lien arises not by contract but by statute. In other words, Maryland legislation provides that certain health insurers are granted a lien by virtue of having paid out money without any contract or notice requirement. For example, bills paid by Maryland Medical Assistance automatically give rise to a lien held by the state against a client's recovery. Such a lien is referred to in the legal community as a "superlien" because it takes priority over other claims, and arises by virtue of the mere payment of a bill by Medical Assistance without any further action being required to establish or "perfect" the lien. Private insurers such as Blue Cross, however, are required to provide the attorney and/or the client/patient with written notice of a lien before that lien will be deemed perfected. An attorney receiving a "lien letter" cannot ignore the letter or the lien, and cannot follow client instructions not to pay the lien. Although a lien letter may not issue, the client may still be held responsible for reimbursing the health insurer even if the lawyer is not provided notice of the lien and does not withhold the funds at the time of disbursement. Liens are frequently reduced through negotiations or by statute. For example, Maryland law provides that a health insurer lien in some instances must be reduced by the percentage the client is paying to the lawyer under their contingent fee agreement. In other words, if the attorney's fee is one-third of the gross recovery, the lien must be reduced by one-third. The rationale behind this reduction requirement is that the health insurer has benefited from the client's retention of an attorney to pursue their claim and without the attorney's assistance, no money would have been paid. Therefore, the health insurer must pay the attorney a fee equal to the fee paid by the client. At Belsky,Weinberg & Horowitz, we negotiate lien reductions very rigorously. In all instances where the insurer reduces their lien, we give that money to our client and do not as a matter of courtesy retain the money even though it is paid to use for our services. This can amount to a sizable benefit to our clients and can increase their recovery by thousands of dollars. In an upcoming article, we will discuss how liens are handled when the amount of medical expenses are huge, and the recovery due to limited liability insurance is limited to an amount below the medical costs incurred. A recent Supreme Court case sheds some light on this issue. Stay tuned.
Maryland Court of Special Appeals Issues New "Sovereign Immunity Opinion that Has Taken Some Practitioners By Surprise Wash. Metro. Area Transp. Auth. v. Deschamps, No. 1707, September Term, 2007, filed December 3, 2008. Opinion by Matricciani, J. http://mdcourts.gov/opinions/cosa/2008/1707s07.pdf
The Maryland Tort Claims Act is a legislatively created limit to the right to sue the state government for negligence and other wrongful acts. This limitation is sometimes referred to a limited "sovereign immunity." As part of the limited immunity afforded the state and its "units" is a $200,000 "cap" on monetary recovery. The definition of the "state and its units" who are protected by the limited immunity laws is ill-defined. At issue in the present case is whether the Washington Metropolitan Transit Authority ("WMATA") is a unit of the state and thus is protected by the immunity statute. The Court of Special Appeals--Maryland's intermediate appellate court--answered this question in the affirmative and upheld a trial court's reduction of a jury award from $351,000 to $200,000 under the immunity cap. The court reasoned that as "an instrumentality and agency" of the State under Md. Code (1977, 2008 Repl. Vol.), §§ 10-204(4) of the Transportation Article, WMATA enjoys limited immunity from suit for proprietary functions it performs under the Maryland Tort Claims Act. SG 12-104(a)(2) of that Act, which provides that "[t]he liability of the State and its units shall not exceed $200,000 to a single claimant for injuries arising from a single incident or occurrence." Although the Act does not define the term "unit," the Court of Appeals has used language suggesting that units are indeed agencies. The circuit court, therefore, did not err in reducing the passenger’s award. The attorneys at Belsky, Weinberg & Horowitz have represented numerous individuals in claims against WMATA and had prevailed against WMATA in one case where the trial judge refused to qualify WMATA as a unit of the state and thus refused to impose the cap on a case where the recovery exceeded $1 million. Other practitioners for many years have had similar success. It appears the recent Court of Special Appeals’ decision gives WMATA a powerful weapon to reduce its exposure to tort claims for personal injury, although we expect the case will be appealed to our state's supreme court--the Court of Appeals of Maryland--who will have to finally answer the question of whether an "agency" of the state is a "unit" of the state under the Tort Claims Act and whether WMATA is a governmental unit of the state.
