Litigation Team » Blog

Snyder files two new cases—one for $20M and another for $10M

MikeSnyder — Wed, 23 Jun 2010 18:23:28 +0000

Parents file $20M lawsuit for wrongful birth

A Baltimore couple filed a wrongful birth lawsuit Monday after a sonogram showing fetus abnormalities was sent to a doctor with the same name as the treating obstetrician.

Jessica Young only learned of her baby’s problems days before Antonio Jesse McLeod was delivered prematurely last July with a hole in his diaphragm, among other complications. A lawyer for Young and Antoine McLeod, the baby’s father, estimated Antonio’s “lifetime of care” could cost the couple more than $20 million.

The lack of information prevented McLeod and Young from “making an informed decision” about bringing Antonio to term earlier in the pregnancy, Michael B. Snyder said.

“Had they known at the time they did the sonogram, the family would have made the difficult decision to terminate the pregnancy,” said Snyder, of Snyder & Snyder in Pikesville.

The lawsuit names as defendants American Radiology Services and its insurer, The Johns Hopkins Health System Corp., as well as Dr. Karen Y. Perkins, Young’s ob-gyn.

A spokesman for Hopkins said lawyers there have not yet seen the lawsuit. A call to Pikesville-based American Radiology Services was not returned. Efforts to reach Perkins, whose practice is based in Randallstown, were unsuccessful.

Young first saw Perkins in December 2008 and underwent her first sonogram at American Radiology that same month, according to the complaint. A sonogram report was sent to Perkins’ office, according to the complaint. The doctor referred Young to American Radiology for another sonogram in March 2009, according to the complaint.

The second sonogram showed fetal abnormalities, including the possibility of Antonio’s stomach being in his chest cavity. But a report was sent to Dr. Karen E. Perkins, a family practice doctor in Baltimore, rather than Perkins the ob-gyn, the lawsuit states.

Dr. Karen Y. Perkins called American Radiology several days later to learn the results of the sonogram and was told “everything was OK and normal,” the lawsuit states.

Young went to Mercy Medical Center in early July after experiencing contractions; a sonogram showed an “abnormally large amount of amniotic fluid,” the lawsuit states.

Perkins sent Young to American Radiology on July 13, when an ultrasound showed the hole in Antonio’s diaphragm, the lawsuit states. The sonogram report also noted “again” that the stomach appeared to be in the chest and the heart was on the right side of the chest, the lawsuit states.

Perkins told Young about the sonogram findings the following day and explained the mix-up with the March sonogram, the lawsuit states. The doctor also told the mom-to-be the baby would probably need surgery soon after birth, the lawsuit states.

Antonio was born July 18 at the University of Maryland Medical Center and immediately placed on a ventilator, the lawsuit states. He was transferred to Hopkins, where he was given cardiac and respiratory support and experienced liver and kidney failure, among other ailments, the lawsuit states. The hole in his diaphragm was repaired when he was two weeks old, the lawsuit states.

Second suit against Hopkins

Separately on Monday, Snyder’s firm filed another lawsuit against Hopkins, this one on behalf of a Baltimore woman who alleged a botched surgical procedure left her partially paralyzed. Elizabeth Wright was treated for bleeding in her lungs in January 2009. The problem returned a month later, however, and Wright returned to Hopkins for additional treatment.

Doctors once again attempted to seal off arteries supplying blood to the lungs. Tests during the procedure showed it was affecting blood flow to the spinal artery, the lawsuit states. Doctors continued trying to seal off the lung arteries “despite this alarming new discovery” but closed the spinal artery instead, the lawsuit states.

The surgery cost Wright the use of her left leg and caused numbness on her left side, according to the complaint. Snyder said Wright is confined to a wheelchair and that her long-term care expenses and lost wages could total more than $10 million.

The Hopkins spokesman said lawyers there also had not seen Wright’s lawsuit.

While the lawsuits involve different plaintiffs, Snyder saw a common thread.

“These cases are so upsetting and emotional because they deal with lives which have been truly devastated,” he said. “In both cases, the injuries were absolutely preventable had the health care providers acted within the standards of care.”

Reprinted from the Maryland Daily Records–Written By Danny Jacobs
Daily Record Legal Affairs Writer

The “Away Games” in mass tort litigation..

MikeSnyder — Wed, 23 Jun 2010 18:20:10 +0000

Many highly successful plaintiff lawyers develop practices that often require no more travel than it takes from their office or the closest jurisdictional courthouse. However, with law firms such as our own, that have sought to fight injustice at the highest corporate echelons across the country and succeeded, the reality of having to fight malfeasance on the enemies “home turf” often becomes a reality. As this office prepares to wage a passionate and righteous war against one of the largest insurance companies in the country, our lawyers are getting emotionally prepared to live out of suitcases and hotel rooms for several months in anticipation of a case we all feel extremely passionate about. The thought of being away from home for significant periods of time is at once daunting and also exciting. This type of travel can be taxing, but can also be more stimulating than running back and forth to district and circuit court, day in and day out for years. One is obviously no better than the other, but we chosen to “go to the fight” in some cases whether it requires extensive travel and the sacrifice of “home” or not. For the time being, there is a buzz in the air that maybe be similar to playing a championship game on your opponents “home field”, an “away game”. Either way, we are getting psyched and fired up as preparations are being made to bring justice to a large group of undeserving victims of corporate injustice, racism and corruption in another state. Let the games begin!

Jason Timoll

What is the time period to file a Lawsuit in Maryland?

MikeSnyder — Mon, 21 Jun 2010 18:53:42 +0000

Often times, the law regarding medical malpractice claims in Maryland and when you can file these claims becomes confusing. Please don’t hesitate to call or email us if you have questions regarding your potential medical malpractice claims. We are experienced Medical Malpractice Lawyers and we are here to advise you on your potential claims. The Law gets even more confusing when you are dealing with a child suffering from a disability or condition such as cerebral palsy.

Some people believe that if a cerebral palsy related medical malpractice suit is not filed shortly after birth, then there is no case. This is not correct. The time in which someone has to file suit in a medical negligence or malpractice case is governed by whats known as the statute of limitations, which is different among the states. In Maryland, for example, the parents of a child injured from medical malpractice generally can file their case up to three years from the date the injury was discovered, but no more than five years from the date the malpractice was committed. Children in Maryland, however, have a longer time to file suit. In general, a child has until his/her 21st birthday to file a medical malpractice suit. There are exceptions to these rules, however, which may limit or extend the time to file suit, so you should always speak with a qualified cerebral palsy lawyer to determine the statute of limitations for your case. Even if these guidelines dissuade you or your loved one from filing suit, you should check with us anyway, just to be sure. Please call or email the experienced Maryland Cerebral Palsy and Medical Malpractice lawyers at Snyder & Snyder today to discuss your legal rights. If you have any questions about the Statute of Limitations in your potential case, please do not hesitate to call us.

Lawyers step-up advertising in BP disaster

MikeSnyder — Mon, 21 Jun 2010 18:48:37 +0000

One thing you are always sure to find amongst a major disaster is a good lawyer to help out the “little people”. The BP oil spill in the Gulf Coast is the largest environmental disaster on American soil, affecting Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama and Florida for the time being. It is likely that if the spill is not contained soon, it will affect the rest of the coast line as well as many other businesses across the country. So what do you do if your business has been decimated by a disaster that should have never happened? What do you do when you can no longer sustain your family because your livelihood no longer exists? What else, you find a good lawyer and call them.

With the technology that exists today, it seems that you may not even have to make the call. Lawyers all over the country are flocking to the Gulf Coast region in order to help out their fellow citizens, or jump on the bandwagon, whichever you prefer to say. Advertising that we have never dreamed of, is spreading across the nation. All along the major roads throughout the Gulf Coast region, billboards are popping up with names of law firms across the country, offering services to the people and companies who were affected by the spill. Some of the billboards are respectable, but others go well beyond tacky and maybe downright immoral. It is a mad rush to see who will represent this downtrodden group of people.

On the internet, websites are going up by the hundreds, offering assistance to everyone and their brother. Many firms are actually calling residents and walking door- to- door to local Gulf Coast businesses, with one law firm actually opening up a store-front location on the beach with a big sign reading “Oil Spill Law Firm This Way”. Is it over the top, or do the citizens of this country need as many sharks in their corner as possible? Now that the $20Billion fund has been set up as part of the Governments way of controlling the disbursements, it looks like it will be up to Pay Czar Kenneth Feinberg to figure out who gets what, but the “little people” still need a lawyer to help them out.

It is important to contact a lawyer who not only has experience in environmental disasters, but also has experience going up against these oil giants, who can and will railroad plaintiffs unless they are properly represented. What is also important to remember is you need to find a firm that not only has experience going up against the oil giants, but winning as well. If you need some sound advice from our firm, please do not hesitate to call. After coming off a $150Million verdict against ExxonMobil, the lawyers at Snyder and Snyder may be able to help you navigate this process to come out on top.

Contributed by Daniel J. Miller, Esquire

Snyder and Snyder

Is Ken Feinberg the Right Person for the Job?

MikeSnyder — Mon, 21 Jun 2010 18:44:03 +0000

This past week, President Obama announced that Ken Feinberg would be the independent “3^rd party” to be in charge of the dispersing of a $20 Billion escrow fund developed to compensate people and businesses harmed by the BP oil spill. With an extremely large amount of claimants’ likely seeking compensation and reimbursement, the task ahead of Feinberg is nothing short of daunting.

Last year, Feinberg was given the title of “Special Master for Compensation.” With this title came the responsibility of determining the executive pay of many of the top employees of companies receiving federal bailout money. The job ahead in regards to the BP spill in the Gulf however is quite a different type of challenge. Feinberg will be faced with gut wrenching stories by all claimants, but each different and unique. Family businesses that have been around for over 100 years are on the brink of bankruptcy, restaurants relying on tourism are empty, fisherman who make a living on the gulf are docked, and many families are having problems paying their mortgages. To hear these claims and be able to discern a monetary value takes intelligence, patience, and confidence (among many other traits). What these cases will take more than anything however is time, and time is the one thing that these people do not have. For all these reasons, Kenneth Feinberg is the appropriate choice.

Beyond determining how the bailout money will effect top company executives, Feinberg has been involved in some of the more emotionally charged payouts in American History, most notably being in charge of the government’s compensation fund for victims of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. Years later, Feinberg was involved in the dispersing of funds to the victims of the Virginia Tech attacks. With these two roles (as well as many others not mentioned), Feinberg was given the duty to hear the stories of tragedy and the effect on the victims, all the while still make appropriate and responsible determinations on the financial value to those victims. The BP compensation fund will present those same challenges. Kenneth Feinberg has proven time and time again, that he will be prepared to deal with all issues that may arise, and most importantly, to make determinations in a timely manner so that people can continue their way of life as best possible.

Snyder Litigation Team Joins Social Networks

admin — Sat, 13 Mar 2010 03:49:53 +0000

We finally set up pages on Youtube, Facebook, Linkedin and Myspace. Just do a search for Snyder Litigation Team and visit us.

Also, for the latest legal news, see the RSS feeds, on this this page to the right, and on our home page on the left.

MDE oders ExxonMobil to resume bottled watter delivery to families

admin — Sat, 13 Mar 2010 03:42:36 +0000

MDE orders ExxonMobil to resume bottled water delivery to families
Posted: 3:58 pm Fri, March 12, 2010
By Danny Jacobs
Daily Record Legal Affairs Writer

The Maryland Department of the Environment has told ExxonMobil Corp. to resume delivery of bottled water to Jacksonville families affected by a 2006 gas station leak, according to Baltimore County Executive Jim Smith.

The decision comes less than a month after Exxon informed 126 homes and businesses it had received permission from MDE to stop the deliveries. The agency also permitted Exxon to test half as many drinking wells as part of its remediation efforts connected to the 25,000-plus-gallon gas leak.

Exxon’s MDE-approved actions drew protests from residents, lawyers representing them in civil lawsuits against the company and Gov. Martin O’Malley, who earlier this month asked MDE to revisit its decision.

The department has appointed an independent review team that will issue a report by the end of April, according to Smith.

The county executive announced the decision as part of an e-mailed statement, but MDE could not immediately confirm the information.

“The simple fact is that people in Jacksonville deserve to know for certain that the drinking water from their wells is safe long-term; and until that can be definitively known, it is only right that the company provide them with bottled water,” Smith said.

Illinois Supreme Court strikes down medical malpractice law

admin — Wed, 03 Mar 2010 14:53:13 +0000

Court says limiting damages violates separation-of-powers clause by allowing lawmakers to interfere with a jury’s right to determine damages

By Bruce Japsen and Ameet Sachdev, Tribune reporters

February 4, 2010

The Illinois Supreme Court on Thursday struck down the state’s medical malpractice law, saying limits on damages awarded to victims of medical negligence are unconstitutional.

The much-anticipated ruling deals a blow to doctors and hospital officials who say caps on damages are a way to tame rising health care costs.

State lawmakers in 2005 passed legislation, which was signed into law by then-Gov. Rod Blagojevich, that established limits on pain and suffering and other non-economic damages of $500,000 in cases against doctors and $1 million against hospitals. Illinois followed other states, such as California, that capped damages years ago.

The court said the law violates the state’s separation-of-powers clause between the branches of government by allowing lawmakers to interfere with a jury’s right to determine damages. “The crux of our analysis is whether the statute unduly infringes upon the inherent power of the judiciary,” the majority opinion said.

Justices also said they were not persuaded by arguments used in other states. “That ‘everybody is doing it,’ is hardly a litmus test for the constitutionality of the statute,” wrote Chief Justice Thomas Fitzgerald in delivering the opinion for four siding in the majority of the seven-member court.

Justices Lloyd Karmeier and Rita Garman dissented on certain key points of the decision and expressed sympathy to providers of medical care, citing President Barack Obama’s recent address to a joint session of Congress that they said admonished the nation’s collective failure to enact health care reform.

But limiting medical liability is no silver bullet for controlling health costs. The Congressional Budget Office reported in September that reforms, such as capping non-economic damages, would lower the nation’s health care bill by only 0.5 percent.

The majority said the court’s decision was not made with Washington’s health care reform efforts in mind.

Still, the ruling could figure in the national debate of stalled health care legislation. Though Obama and Democrats have said they are unlikely to cap damages in federal health care legislation, they have been open to a compromise on liability reform.

The Obama administration, Republicans and doctor groups have made attempts to scale back the practice of “defensive medicine,” in which doctors perform medical procedures that are not necessary because of legal concerns. The CBO said recent studies have shown that liability reforms can slightly reduce the use of health care.

Thursday’s decision will not end the heated debate over whether lawsuits affect the quality and costs of medical care.

One area where there is agreement is on establishing evidence-based medicine, which offers guidelines for doctors to follow when treating patients.

“The high cost of potential damages impacts how insurers rate different types of practices,” said Larry Boress, chief executive of Midwest Business Group on Health, a coalition that represents some of the region’s largest employers. “While we encourage physicians to practice evidence-based medicine to ensure high quality medical care is provided, we know that not all of medicine has evidence-based guidelines. Our state and nation need alternative methods of addressing malpractice allegations.”

The state law came after more than two years of political battle in Springfield between trial lawyers and providers of medical care and their insurers. Doctors blamed the lack of malpractice reform for an exodus of physicians from the state, particularly neurosurgeons and obstetricians, who typically have higher insurance premiums.

But government studies have found little evidence that rising malpractice premiums have forced doctors to retire early or move to another state.

Thursday’s high court decision upset physicians, who say a return to high premiums and a loss of physicians are likely.

“Today’s court decision threatens to undo all that Illinois patients and physicians have gained under the cap, including greater access to health care, lower medical liability rates and increased competition among medical liability insurers,” said James Rohack, president of the American Medical Association.

Rohack said patient access to medical care worsened in Illinois after the court overruled the state’s previous cap on non-economic damages in 1997.

“Severe problems with patient access to care emerged as the unrestrained excesses of the state’s legal system forced Illinois physicians to limit services, retire early or move to other states where liability premiums were more stable,” Rohack said. “Without a cap on non-economic damages from 1997 to 2005, Chicago physicians saw their liability premiums increase an average of 10 to 12 percent each year.”

When the cap was reinstated in 2005, Rohack said, premiums for Chicago physicians stabilized and even began to shrink.

In 2008, the total volume of malpractice premiums written in Illinois was $600 million, according to the state insurance division. That was down 10 percent from 2006.

But consumer groups and insurance industry officials say the fact that rates have stabilized has nothing to do with the caps. It has more to do with insurance market cycles and other factors, such as increased competition and new insurance regulations that were included in the cap legislation, they said.

As a result of the new regulations, the state’s largest medical malpractice insurer, ISMIE Mutual Insurance Co., was subject to hearings regarding a proposed rate increase in 2005. The insurance division ordered ISMIE to return excess premiums to doctors and set a target rate reduction of 3.5 percent.

“Illinois rates have followed national trends,” said Bill Yurek, president of Chicago-based Avreco, a wholesale insurance broker. “I don’t think the caps really did much.”

Removing the caps, though, could potentially increase the cost of claims, said Jeff Weigel, chief underwriting officer at Medicus Insurance Co. of Austin, Texas, which started underwriting insurance in Illinois in 2007. He also said he believes insurance rates would have come down if the caps had been upheld. Despite the court’s ruling, Medicus plans to stay in Illinois, Weigel said.

Twice before, Illinois lawmakers have adopted caps, and both times the state’s highest court nixed them.

The latest case before the high court comes on appeal from Cook County Circuit Court. In 2007, Circuit Judge Diane Larsen decided that caps on malpractice awards violated the Illinois Constitution’s “separation of powers” clause, in effect ruling that the state Legislature can’t interfere with the right of juries and judges to determine fair damages. Larsen’s ruling falls in line with a 1997 Illinois Supreme Court decision that overturned a 1995 law implementing caps on personal-injury cases.

The first case to test the 2005 law was that of 4-year-old Abigaile LeBron, who suffered a severe brain injury during her birth at Gottlieb Memorial Hospital in Melrose Park. In a lawsuit filed in 2006, her family charged the hospital, her doctor and nurse with negligence.

Her lawyer, Jeff Goldberg, and members of the Illinois Trial Lawyers Association praised the court for lifting arbitrary limits on damages.

“We can now focus on the real issue — providing meaningful insurance reform that will keep costs down for doctors and patients alike,” said Peter Flowers, president of the lawyer group.

Damage caps hurt the most serious cases of medical negligence, said Tom Baker, a professor at the University of Pennsylvania Law School and author of “The Medical Malpractice Myth.” Personal injury lawyers are less likely to take cases from lower-earning people because the potential recovery is smaller when damages are limited to economic losses.

“Caps don’t solve the problems of the medical liability system,” Baker said. “Doctors still have tremendous distrust of the system. And people that are the most deserving don’t get the money.”

O’Malley wants MDE to reconsider Exxon decision

admin — Wed, 03 Mar 2010 14:35:35 +0000

baltimoresun.com

Two parts of post-spill remediation discontinued

By Nick Madigan | nick.madigan@baltsun.com

March 3, 2010

Acting with what he called “great concern,” Gov. Martin O’Malley urged Environment Secretary Shari T. Wilson in a letter Tuesday to “expeditiously and carefully revisit” her agency’s decision to allow ExxonMobil to discontinue two elements of the remediation efforts it began in 2006 after a huge gasoline spill in northern Baltimore County.

“It is imperative that public confidence is maintained and that regulatory decisions are effectively communicated and understood,” O’Malley wrote after reading in The Baltimore Sun about a decision by the Maryland Department of the Environment to allow ExxonMobil to stop monitoring 130 residential groundwater wells in the Jacksonville area and to cease delivering free bottled water to 126 households affected by the underground leak.

In asking for Wilson’s “prompt attention to this matter,” the governor pointed to “the many challenges in maintaining groundwater purity over a large area” and the “uncertainties surrounding the detrimental effects of even minute levels” of gasoline additives such as methyl tertiary butyl ether, commonly referred to as MTBE, which has been shown to cause cancer in rats.

Reached later in the day between meetings in Annapolis, Wilson confirmed that she had heard from the governor.

“We will expeditiously review our decision,” Wilson said. O’Malley’s letter, she said, “demonstrates the governor’s concern for the safety of Marylanders, and we wholeheartedly concur.”

ExxonMobil continues to test for groundwater contamination in the area using water samples from hundreds of monitoring wells that it built after the 26,000-gallon leak was discovered in February 2006. The wells that it sought to stop testing are all privately owned.

“For nearly four years, ExxonMobil has worked with MDE, and under its guidance, to make sure that the groundwater is safe to use and drink,” Kevin M. Allexon, a Virginia-based spokesman for the oil giant, said after hearing of the governor’s letter. “We will continue to do so.”

In a Feb. 1 letter to ExxonMobil, the MDE said it would grant the oil company’s request to stop monitoring 130 of the 248 private wells it was sampling and to end its deliveries of bottled water. The company’s clean-up efforts, the MDE letter said, have produced “significant improvements in groundwater conditions.”

Lawyers for residents have disputed those assertions. Michael B. Snyder, a member of a Baltimore legal team that sued ExxonMobil on behalf of more than 300 residents affected by the spill, welcomed O’Malley’s request Tuesday to reconsider the matter.

“This is great news for the community and those living with the everyday fears, concerns and frustrations caused by ExxonMobil’s misconduct,” Snyder said. “Thankfully, Gov. O’Malley recognizes that the state of Maryland and its agencies have not only a duty to protect the citizens of Maryland but also a duty to ensure their safety, health and well-being once a disaster occurs.”

Snyder said he hoped the MDE “will change its mind and require Exxon to continue providing bottled water and water testing to these families.”

Another positive reaction came from Baltimore County Executive James T. Smith Jr. “We want MDE to make sure the drinking water is safe for the people of Jacksonville,” he said. “They’ve been through enough.”

Medical Malpractice Payments at All-Time Low: Report

admin — Tue, 02 Mar 2010 15:16:00 +0000

According to a new report from Public Citizen, a consumer and public policy watchdog group, payments for medical malpractice lawsuits are at an all-time low and have fallen steadily throughout most of the last decade, contrary to popular belief.

Public Citizen released the medical malpractice report last week in advance of Obama’s health care summit, indicating that medical malpractice litigation has fallen steadily throughout most of the last decade and the entire cost of medical liability is only 0.6% to 1.3% of the cost of national health care.

Utilizing data from the National Practitioner Data Bank and other sources, the report contends that the real dollar impact of litigation is being blown out of proportion by health care reform opponents seeking political points and takes away from changes that would actually make medical care safer and better for patients.

In addition to the database, Public Citizen analyzed the results of about seven years of Texas tort reform laws, the strictest in the nation. Public Citizen’s findings suggest that the cost of health care in Texas skyrocket 50% faster than the national average after the reforms were enacted, and Texas still has the highest percentage of uninsured residents in the nation.

“Setting the clear moral implications aside, lawmakers who think medical malpractice litigation is a place to look for significant cost savings are simply mistaken. Medical malpractice litigation is already rare,” the report states. “Most of the compensation goes to seriously injured people who need lifelong medical care as a result of their injuries or to the families of patients who died due to negligence.”

The results of the data from the national database indicate that the number of medical malpractice payments on behalf of doctors in 2008 was the lowest it’s been since reliable records were made available in 1991. Payments for the first three quarters of 2009 were lower than those of 2008, suggesting that 2009’s numbers would be even lower. Fourth-quarter data was unavailable.

Public Citizen’s report, and previous reports released by the organization, urge lawmakers to address the quality of health care in the country, thus reducing the need for medical malpractice lawsuits and saving lives.

“The best course is clear,” the report concludes. “Policymakers from both parties should set their partisan instincts aside and reduce patients’ needs to seek redress instead of limiting their rights to it.”