News 2007

Goodell, DeVries, Leech & Dann, LLP Wins Summary Judgment in "Failure To Warn" Case Involving HRT Drugs. On June 15, 2007, Richard M. Barnes and Michael L. Lisak obtained summary judgment in Minnesota for a leading pharmaceutical company and its related corporate entities in a case in which the plaintiff alleged her ingestion of our client's and a co-defendant's medications caused her breast cancer.  The case, Patricia A. Zandi v. Wyeth, Pfizer Inc.,  et al. (case no. 27cv06-6744), involved allegations that the plaintiff’s long-term use of hormone replacement therapy (HRT) manufactured by both defendants failed to adequately warn of the risks associated with their respective hormone medications.  Judge George F. McGunnigle ruled, in response to our briefing and oral arguments, that the plaintiff had failed to carry her burden of proving through admissible evidence that she ingested our client’s medication.  GDLD’s Bonnie J. Beavan was scheduled to try this case in November, and was an instrumental part of our success in this case.

 

Goodell, DeVries, Leech & Dann Successfully Defends Doctor in Malpractice Case Arising From a Rare Gynecologic Condition.

Craig B. Merkle and Nichole Nesbitt obtained a defense verdict on behalf of their physician client after a jury trial in the Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County on April 27, 2007.  The case, SBL v. Annapolis Ob/Gyn Associates, P.A., et al., involved a patient who sustained vaginal and perineal lacerations in the course of childbirth.  Although the lacerations were repaired at the time of delivery, the patient alleged that she experienced pain in the immediate post-partum period.  The defendant obstetrician-gynecologist saw the patient five days following delivery and again ten days later and determined that the lacerations were healing and that the patient’s pain was improving.  When the patient returned for her regularly-scheduled post-partum visit four weeks later, a portion of her labia had agglutinated, or fused together, over the vaginal opening, which required corrective surgery.  The patient claims that she developed Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder as a result of the agglutination and that she still experiences chronic pelvic pain.  She alleged that the obstetrician-gynecologist failed to appropriately follow her post-partum course and prevent the agglutination from occurring.  The defense argued that the post-partum care was appropriate and that the formation of an agglutination in a post-partum patient is exceedingly rare and could not have been predicted.  The jury concluded that the doctor met the standard of care in the treatment of the patient and therefore was not liable for her alleged injuries.

 

Goodell, DeVries, Leech & Dann, LLP Obtains Summary Judgment for Client in Lead Paint Case. On April 18, 2007, attorney Richard L. Nilsson obtained summary judgment in favor of his client, a property owner, in a lead paint case filed in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City. The now adult Plaintiff contended that he had sustained brain damage as a result of residing at the client's property while he was a toddler. The Plaintiff had no direct evidence of the presence of any lead based paint upon the property, but attempted to prove through expert causation testimony that the property had been a contributing source of his elevated blood lead levels. After submission of memoranda and oral argument, the Court ruled that the expert's opinion was too speculative to be considered by a jury and granted the motion.

 

In Majchrzak v. J et. al, Susan Preston and Danielle Dinsmore obtained a defense verdict after a jury trial in the Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County. The personal representative of a 31 year old woman, her husband and five young children sued alleging that the defendant surgeon abandoned her after performing emergency surgery to reconstruct the common bile duct which had been transected by the patient's private surgeon during a laprascopic cholecystectomy. The defendant surgeon had responded to a call to assist the private surgeon in the repair of the common bile duct and traveled to a distant hospital to perform the surgery on a grant of emergency privileges. After an offer to take over the post operative care of the patient by having the patient transferred to the defendant's hospital was declined by the private surgeon, the post operative care was delievered by the private surgeon. The defendant surgeon was called once during the post operative course about the significance of some of the diagnostic testiing, offering again to accept the patient in transfer to the defendant's hospital which was declined. The private surgeon failed to recognize and treat a leaking anastomosis during the post operative course and the patient died of ovewhelming sepsis. The jury concluded that the standard of care was not breached after only one hour of deliberation.

 

Goodell, DeVries, Leech & Dann, LLP Obtains Dismissal of Citizen’s Suit against Local Government in Long-Running Environmental Litigation.  On March 15, 2007, Attorneys Linda S. Woolf, K. Nichole Nesbitt, and Ace McBride secured the dismissal of Carroll County, Maryland from a federal law suit alleging violations of the Clean Water Act.  Piney Run Preservation Ass’n v. Carroll County, Maryland, United States District Court for the District of Maryland, Case No. AMD 06-3019.

This suit was the latest action in a long history of attempts by certain Baltimore County landowners to impose liability on the Carroll County government for alleged thermal pollution of the Piney Run stream.   Carroll County operates a wastewater treatment plant that discharges treated wastewater into the Piney Run, which runs through the landowners’ properties.  In this suit, the landowners alleged that the County is in violation of the federal Clean Water Act because, on isolated occasions during the hottest days of the year, the temperature of the treated wastewater exceeds the temperature limit contained in the plant’s discharge permit by one or two degrees.  The plaintiffs argued that the County should be required to construct million-dollar mechanical cooling towers to chill the wastewater before discharging it into the Piney Run.

Carroll County moved to dismiss the suit for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, arguing that any permit violations were being “diligently prosecuted” by the Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE), the governing agency.  MDE had brought an enforcement action against Carroll County and subsequently executed a comprehensive Consent Judgment, pursuant to which the County is required to pay stipulated penalties for any violations of the permit while implementing an Environmental Plan that would utilize a holistic, non-mechanical approach to improve the environmental wellbeing of the Piney Run and its aquatic and plant life.  The County argued that, under the terms of the Clean Water Act, such diligent prosecution is a bar to any Citizen’s Suit, such as the one brought by the plaintiffs.

The United States District Court for the District of Maryland agreed and dismissed the action with prejudice.  The Court held that, even though the Consent Judgment does not mandate the plaintiffs’ preferred remedy (installation of the cooling towers), the terms of the Consent Judgment “comfortably come within the relevant standards of diligent prosecution” and thus the plaintiffs could not maintain their Citizen’s Suit.  

 

Sipes-Sellers v. Doe, M.D., et al., Circuit Court for Washington County (January 2007). Craig B. Merkle and Marianne DePaulo Plant obtained summary judgment in favor of their client, an obstetrician/gynecologist, in a medical malpractice claim alleging failure to diagnose and treat breast cancer. During discovery, Plaintiff's medical expert testified that the physician defendant was negligent for failing to properly evaluate this 31-year-old patient's breast lump. He further testified that Plaintiff's initial treatment was unsuccessful, and that Plaintiff's cancer had progressed to Stage IV. Based on the deposition of the plaintiff's expert taken by GDLD, the Circuit Court for Washington County granted the motion for summary judgment. The court found that the testimony of Plaintiff's expert on staging, available treatment and progression of the disease during the period of alleged delay in diagnosis was inadequate to prove a worsening of plaintiff's condition or any legally compensable damages under Maryland law.

 

Goodell, DeVries, Leech & Dann, LLP Obtains Summary Judgment for Physician Consultant on Grounds of No Physician-Patient Relationship. On January 11, 2007, Attorneys Donald L. DeVries, Jr., Kelly Hughes Iverson and K. Nichole Nesbitt obtained summary judgment on behalf of Washington Hospital Center and one of its physicians in a multi-million dollar medical malpractice action pending in the District of Columbia.  The case, Gilbert, et al., v. Washington Hospital Center Corporation, et al.,  (D.C. Superior Court Case No. 05-CA-7696), asserted that Ilyaas Gilbert was born with severe neurologic injuries after his mother experienced a rupture of her uterus in labor in an attempt to have a vaginal birth after having two previous cesarean section deliveries.  In addition to suing the midwives who provided the mother’s prenatal care, the plaintiffs sued a physician with whom one of the midwives consulted about the plan of care prior to her delivery.  Granting summary judgment, the court determined that the physician owed no duty to the mother, as he had no physician-patient relationship with her. 

The plaintiffs asserted that the mother, Saara Abdul-Haqq, was an inappropriate candidate for vaginal birth in light of her two prior cesarean sections and that she was not given appropriate information concerning her risks.  Although all of her prenatal care was provided by certified nurse midwives employed by a non-profit birthing center, one of the midwives consulted with the defendant physician on one occasion approximately 5 weeks before Ms. Abdul-Haqq’s delivery. 

The plaintiffs contended that the physician owed a duty to Ms. Abdul-Haqq to instruct the midwives and, if necessary, the patient herself, that she was not an appropriate candidate for vaginal delivery.  The defense argued that the brief consultation between the physician and Ms. Abdul-Haqq’s treating midwife did not give rise to a duty because the physician never treated, evaluated, spoke with, saw, or met Ms. Abdul-Haqq, but rather simply provided his advice – which the midwives were free to accept or reject – during a less than 10-minute discussion.

The Superior Court for the District of Columbia granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment, holding that the consulting physician’s “isolated and non-binding consultation” failed to give rise to a duty on his part to Ms. Abdul-Haqq.  Importantly, the Court also expressed concern over the negative impact on public policy that would result from the imposition of a legal duty in this situation.  In the District of Columbia, midwives are independent practitioners who are permitted to provide care for pregnant women without the supervision of a doctor.  The Court held that, under these circumstances, “encouraging the nurse-midwives to consult with obstetrics professionals is in the public interest.  Conversely, extending liability to such consultations, without more, contradicts that interest.”

Fields. v L.G. (Jan 2007, Baltimore County Circuit Court). Attorneys Susan Preston and Craig Brodsky obtained a defense verdict after a seven day trial in a wrongful death and survival action brought by the wife and son of a 52 year man who died from lung cancer. The jury concluded that any breach in standard of care did not cause the death and returned a verdict for the defense.

News 2006

Goodell DeVries Obtains Two Victories as Maryland Court of Special Appeals Affirms Circuit Court's Dismissal Based on Mandatory Arbitration.  (Nov. 2006)  On November 30, 2006, the Court of Special Appeals of Maryland affirmed a dismissal obtained by attorneys Linda S. Woolf and Nichole Nesbitt in the St. Mary’s County Circuit Court on behalf of Edward Jones, a national investment company, and one of its employees in a breach of contract and defamation matter. The case, Arban v. Edward Jones, et al. (CSA No. 0055, Sept. Term 2006), was brought by a former investment representative for Edward Jones who claimed that, following the termination of his employment, he was denied certain commissions owed to him and was defamed by statements made by another Edward Jones employee to his potential new employer.  Ms. Woolf and Ms. Nesbitt filed a Motion to Dismiss and Compel Arbitration on the grounds that the plaintiff had signed an employment agreement that contained a mandatory arbitration clause.  The plaintiff argued, among other things, that the arbitration clause was unenforceable and that it was inapplicable to his claims for defamation, which he contends did not “result from” his employment.  The Circuit Court for St. Mary’s County dismissed the action and the Court of Special Appeals affirmed, holding that, because the arbitration clause applied to both the employer and employee, it was enforceable, and that arbitration clauses should be construed broadly.  Because the alleged defamatory statements related to the plaintiff’s employment, the defamation claim fell within the arbitration provision, and the plaintiff was not entitled to bring his action in circuit court.

 

David and Patricia Lester v. St. Joseph Medical Center, Inc.  (Nov. 2006) After a week-long trial, a jury in Baltimore County Circuit Court returned a verdict on October 27, 2006 in favor of a hospital represented by Tom Monahan and Kelly Donohue. The plaintiff, a 58-year-old man, alleged that nurses at the hospital injured his foot causing him to sustain a fracture of the mid-foot and to later undergo a below-the-knee amputation. Evidence offered in defense of the hospital showed that the plaintiff's foot had multiple fractures before he was admitted to the hospital and that he suffered from a disease process which was destroying the bone in the foot. The jury deliberated for less than an hour before returning the verdict in favor of the defendant hospital.

 

Press Release 
October 16, 2006

Goodell, DeVries, Leech & Dann, LLP Successfully Defends Orthopedic Surgeon in Breach of Contract Action     

Attorneys Kelly Hughes Iverson and K. Nichole Nesbitt of Goodell, DeVries, Leech and Dann, LLP, achieved a jury verdict for the defendant in a breach of contract action tried in the Circuit Court for Charles County, Maryland on October 12, 2006.  Ms. Iverson and Ms. Nesbitt successfully defended Shaheer Yousaf, M.D., an orthopedic surgeon, against a claim by his patient, Glenn Edwards, alleging that Dr. Yousaf had failed to complete a disability form that Mr. Edwards needed to obtain leave from his employer under the Family Medical Leave Act.  Mr. Edwards sought upwards of $300,000 in lost income, claiming that Dr. Yousaf's failure to fill out the form caused the termination of Mr. Edwards's employment.  Ms. Iverson and Ms. Nesbitt introduced evidence that Dr. Yousaf had completed several disability forms on behalf of Mr. Edwards but that there was no indication that Mr. Edwards had given Dr. Yousaf's office the particular form he needed to obtain leave under the Family Medical Leave Act.  Thus, the defendant argued, there was no "contract" that would support the plaintiff's breach of contract claim.   At the end of the three-day trial, the jury returned a defense verdict following deliberations lasting less than two hours, finding that Mr. Edwards had failed to establish a breach of any contract.

Goodell, DeVries, Leech & Dann, LLP, located in Baltimore, Maryland, has fifty-two attorneys all of whom practice in the area of complex litigation and litigation management. The firm is best known for its expertise in the defense of serious medical malpractice and product liability cases and also has an extensive practice in commercial, employment and insurance coverage litigation. www.gdldlaw.com

 

Spool v. World Child International Corporation, S.D. N.Y. (October 2006).  Jeff J. Hines and Craig  Brodsky  successfully moved to dismiss a RICO, Computer Fraud and Abuse, Wrongful Adoption and Breach of Contract claim filed against their client, World Child International - an international adoption agency and children's relief organization.   Plaintiffs alleged that World Child engaged in criminal and fraudulent conduct against a New York social worker with whom it formerly associated, and wrongful conduct in foreign adoptions.

 

Congratulations to Linda S. Woolf and Donald L. DeVries, Jr. for being honored as outstanding members of Maryland's legal community with The Daily Record's 2006 Leadership in Law award.

 

Press Release

July 31, 2006

Recent Goodell, DeVries, Leech & Dann, LLP Victory Will Benefit Local Governments Throughout the State

On July 20, 2006, Goodell, DeVries, Leech & Dann, LLP obtained summary judgment on behalf of Caroline County, Maryland in an employment matter that has been closely followed by counties across the state. Attorneys Linda Woolf and Nichole Nesbitt represented Caroline County in Runnels, et al. v. Caroline County, et al. (Worcester County Cir. Ct. Case No. 23-C-04-1174), a case brought by two former employees of the Caroline County State's Attorney's Office. The employees, who held administrative positions in the office, argued that their First Amendment rights to free speech were violated when the newly elected State's Attorney terminated their employment, allegedly because the plaintiffs supported his opponent in the race for election. They also contended that they were required to work overtime for which they were not properly compensated.

In asserting their claims against both the State of Maryland and Caroline County, the plaintiffs argued that the two entities were "joint employers" for the purposes of the wrongful termination and overtime claims. They also contended that, while the incoming State's Attorney possessed the final authority to terminate their employment, the County's acquiescence in this decision constituted a "conspiracy" for which it could be held directly liable. Ms. Woolf and Ms. Nesbitt argued on summary judgment that the County was not a joint employer of the plaintiffs because it did not possess the power to hire and fire them, did not supervise their performance, did not set their work schedules, and did not require them to work overtime. They also argued that the County did not "conspire" to deprive them of any rights, because the decision rested with the State's Attorney, a State-elected official.

The Honorable Theodore R. Eschenburg of the Worcester County Circuit Court agreed with the County and entered summary judgment on the County's behalf as to all counts. He held in his memorandum opinion that Caroline County is not a "joint employer" of the administrative staff of the State's Attorney's Office and did not conspire with the incoming State's Attorney to terminate the plaintiffs' employment. Because each county in the State of Maryland is required to fund a State's Attorney's Office and pay the wages of its staff, many questions have arisen as to the extent of the employment relationship between a county, the state's attorney for that county, and the employees of the state's attorney's office. Until now, there was very little guidance on this issue. The court's opinion in Runnels is favorable to counties across the state and may help to make the issues more clear.

Goodell, DeVries, Leech & Dann, LLP, located in Baltimore, Maryland, has fifty-two attorneys, all of whom practice in the area of complex litigation and litigation management.  The firm's commercial and employment division is one of its fastest-growing departments.  www.gdldlaw.com

 

Press Release
June 29, 2006

Goodell, DeVries, Leech & Dann, LLP is Victorious In Baltimore City Lead Paint Exposure Action

On June 28, 2006, Goodell, DeVries, Leech & Dann, LLP achieved a Defense verdict in a lead paint action tried in Baltimore City Circuit Court. Attorneys Tom Cullen and Michele Kendus, of Goodell, DeVries, Leech & Dann, LLP, obtained a defense verdict on behalf of the property owners and managers, Daniel Realty, Danny Perlberg and Wendy Perlberg in this lead paint exposure case. Brian Brown of Saul E. Kerpelman & Associates, P.A. represented the minor plaintiff and her guardian, asking the jury to return a verdict in the amount of $4 million, $414,153 in economic damages and over $3.5 million in non-economic damages. After a 7 day trial, the jury found that the property did not contain a lead hazard, chipping and peeling paint. The jury returned the defense verdict following deliberations lasting an hour and twenty minutes. The jury believed the defendants' evidence that the property was in good condition before, during and after the plaintiff lived there, and returned their verdict in favor of the defendants.

Goodell, DeVries, Leech & Dann, LLP, located in Baltimore, Maryland, has fifty-two attorneys all of whom practice in the area of complex litigation and litigation management. The firm is best known for its expertise in the defense of product liability, toxic tort and serious medical malpractice cases and also has an extensive practice in mass tort, commercial, employment and insurance coverage litigation. www.gdldlaw.com

 

Powers et al. v. Katz, et al., Circuit Court of Maryland for Montgomery County (June 2006). Michael L. Lisak and Laura L. Rose obtained summary judgment on behalf of their client, a former sales representative of the now-defunct California company Fax.Com, Inc. The client was a target defendant sued by eight Plaintiffs, the recipients of hundreds of alleged unsolicited faxes. Plaintiffs’ sued for violations of the federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act, Maryland’s Consumer Protection Act, civil conspiracy as well as aiding and abetting others’ tortious conduct. Plaintiffs sought statutory damages in excess of $5,000,000. The Court agreed that our client did not send the faxes as defined under the applicable statutes, and that his specific employee status precluded him from liability for these corporate acts.

 

Lanay Brown, et. al. v. Daniel Realty Company, et. al., Circuit Court of Maryland for Baltimore City (June 2006). Tom Cullen and Michele Kendus obtained a defense verdict on behalf of the property owners and managers, Daniel Realty, Danny Perlberg and Wendy Perlberg in this lead paint exposure case. Brian Brown of Saul E. Kerpelman & Associates, P.A. represented the minor plaintiff and her guardian, asking the jury to return a verdict in the amount of $4 million, $414,153 in economic damages and over $3.5 million in non-economic damages. After a 7 day trial, the jury found that the property did not contain a lead hazard, chipping and peeling paint. The jury considered evidence presented by the defendants that the property had been extensively painted and wallpapered before the plaintiff lived there. They also considered the testimony of the minor plaintiff's guardian that the property deteriorated to chipping, flaking and peeling paint a few months after she and the minor plaintiff moved in. The jury believed the defendants' evidence that the property was in good condition before, during and after the plaintiff lived there, and returned their verdict in favor of the defendants. Several jurors interviewed by counsel following the verdict said that they also did not believe the minor plaintiff sustained any injury as a result of her elevated blood lead levels. The plaintiff had introduced expert evidence that the minor plaintiff had documented elevated lead levels at two times the CDC Action Level. The plaintiff also presented psychological evidence that the minor plaintiff suffered significant brain damage. The defendants introduced expert and fact witness evidence that the plaintiff did not have brain damage, and that she was capable of performing well in school and in the workforce. The jury returned the defense verdict following deliberations lasting an hour and twenty minutes.

 

Jones v. Defendant Hospital, Circuit Court for Baltimore City (June 2006). Tom Monahan and Ace McBride obtained summary judgment on behalf of a hospital sued by the family of a 60-year-old patient who suffered severe brain damage and died 12 days later.  The patient underwent a total knee replacement at the Defendant Hospital. After the surgery, the patient developed complications that required that she be observed in the cardiac care unit. On the sixth day after the surgery, she aspirated and experienced cardiac arrest. According to the Complaint, the patient had experienced 17 minutes of low oxygen saturation before the arrest without any response from the nursing staff. The Court agreed with the hospital's argument that the Plaintiffs' exclusive remedy was to file a claim with the Worker's Compensation Commission (which already occurred) and dismissed the suit against the hospital.

 

Altvater v. Allen, et al, Circuit Court of Maryland for Baltimore County (June 2006). Susan Preston and Kristin Kremer received a defense verdict after a 7 day trial in the Circuit Court of Maryland for Baltimore County.  Plaintiffs alleged that neither she nor her treating GYN were advised for 13 months of the results of a diagnostic mammogram interpreted to be suspicious for malignancy. Plaintiff claimed that the delay in treatment caused the cancer to grow from less than 2cm to 3.5cm in size, thereby necessitating that a mastectomy rather than a lumpectomy be performed and more cycles of chemotherapy to be needed. Plaintiff also claimed as damage anxiety and fear arising out of the presence of the cancer untreated for an additional 13 months. The jury concluded that there was no breach in the standard of care by the radiology practice represented by Ms. Preston and Ms. Kremer.

April 2006 - GDLD is proud to announce that Kathleen McGuigan has rejoined the firm and will be practicing in the area of Medical Malpractice.

March 2006 - Marcus Green, Amy Paulick, Joseph Wolf, Kristin Kremer, John Gilman and Ace McBride have joined the firm as associates. 

 

Janet MacDonald has joined the firm as "Of Counsel".

 

Press Release
April 28, 2006

Donald L. DeVries, Jr. of Goodell, DeVries, Leech & Dann, LLP Inducted Into The International Academy of Trial Lawyers

On April 8, 2006 Donald L. DeVries, Jr. was inducted into the International Academy of Trial Lawyers (IATL).

Membership in the Academy is limited to 500 Fellows from the United States. The qualifications for membership are rigorous and the consideration of nominees is extensive and thorough. Outstanding skills and extensive experience as trial lawyers, unimpeachable personal and professional character, integrity and honesty, are a few of the necessary qualities of every nominee. Mr. DeVries has been evaluated by his colleagues and the judges in his jurisdiction and has been highly recommended by them as possessing these qualifications and characteristics.

The IATL was chartered in 1954. In general, its purpose is to cultivate the science of jurisprudence, promote reforms in the law, facilitate the Administration of Justice, elevate the standards of integrity, honor, and courtesy in the legal profession. “We are very pleased, but not surprised, that the International Academy of Trial Lawyers has recognized Don as a top practitioner amongst national trial lawyers,” said Linda Woolf, Managing Partner at Goodell, DeVries, Leech & Dann, LLP in Baltimore.

Download PDF copy

 

Garvey v. Morris, et al., Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County (3/2006). Craig B. Merkle and Tara M. Clary obtained a defense verdict on behalf of an obstetrician and gynecologist after a four day jury trial. The Plaintiff claimed to have suffered from foreshortening following the performance of a vaginal hysterectomy, requiring surgical grafting of a new vaginal canal. The defense presented expert testimony that the hysterectomy was indicated and the defendant physician appropriately performed the gynecologic surgery. The defense maintained that the Plaintiff gradually developed unusual postoperative scarring. The Plaintiffs requested over $500,000 in damages for pain and suffering and past medical expenses. The jury found no breach in the applicable standard of care and returned a defense verdict.

 

Crossley v. Springbrook, et al., Circuit Court for Montgomery County (3/2006). Kelly Hughes Iverson and Marianne DePaulo Plant obtained a defense verdict on behalf of a geriatrician after a five day jury trial. Seeking over $1.2 million in damages for pain, suffering, and wrongful death, Plaintiffs alleged that an improper combination of medications (so-called “polypharmacy”) and negligent monitoring led to the patient’s urosepsis and death. The defense presented expert testimony that the defendant physician appropriately considered the risks and benefits of the medication regimen of the patient, and that the side-effects from medication were properly monitored and addressed. The defense further maintained that urosepsis was not the patient’s cause of death, rather, she suffered from an acute event. The jury returned a defense verdict after only 40 minutes of deliberation.

 

Levy v. Defendant Manufacturer, United States District Court for the District of Maryland (2/2006). Along with co-counsel, Thomas J. Cullen, Jr. and Mark A. Kaifer participated in a two week jury trial before U.S. Magistrate Judge Paul W. Grimm. Plaintiffs sought substantial past and future damages as a result of the alleged failure of a femoral head component of a hip prosthesis. Although the Defendant had stipulated to liability, the jury followed the suggestion of Defense counsel and awarded Plaintiffs $183,875 -- far less than Plaintiffs' $6,500,000 plus claim and their $2,750,000 pre-trial settlement demand. The jury refused to award Plaintiffs future noneconomic damages or damages for future loss of earnings and earning capacity

top

 

News 2005

We are pleased to announce that Linda S. Woolf was named the firm's Managing Partner effective January 2005.  Ms. Woolf, who has been with the firm since it's founding, is the head of the firm's commercial litigation department.  She is a member of and has held leadership positions in various organizations, including the Federation of Defense and Corporate Counsel, The Network of Trial Law Firms, and the Maryland Association of Defense Counsel.

 

Walker v. Seldman, et al., District of Columbia Court of Appeals (12/2005). Craig S. Brodsky obtained summary affirmance from the District of Columbia Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals affirmed the Superior Court of the District of Columbia's dismissal of a legal malpractice/wrongful foreclosure claim against attorneys who served as Substitute Trustees on a Deed of Trust. In the case Plaintiff-Borrower alleged that the attorneys permitted the wrongful foreclosure on a property the Plaintiff owned in the District of Columbia. The case was dismissed on the first day of trial when Plaintiff was unable to present any evidence at all at trial. The District of Columbia Court of Appeals summarily affirmed the trial court's decision.

 

Coates v. DA, et al., Circuit Court for Baltimore County (12/2005). Susan T. Preston and Craig S. Brodsky obtained a defense verdict in a medical malpractice case after an eleven day trial. The Plaintiffs alleged that the defendant radiologist violated the applicable standard of care by failing to directly communicate biopsy results to the surgeon. Plaintiff alleged that because the radiologist did not telephone the biopsy results to her referring surgeon she went two years without having her breast cancer diagnosed. The defense maintained that the standard of care did not require direct communication. In addition, the defense maintained that the results of the biopsy were properly communicated to the referring surgeon. At the close of the trial, after both sides had presented expert testimony from radiologists and oncologists, Plaintiffs asked for a jury award in excess of three million dollars. After deliberating, the jury concluded that the radiologist did not breach the applicable standard of care, and returned a defense verdict.

 

Ryan v. AAMC, Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County (11/2005). Susan T. Preston and Adam Kelley obtained a defense verdict in a medical malpractice case after a five-day trial.  Plaintiff had alleged that AAMC violated the applicable standard of care by directing a 39-year-old mother-to-be, who had arrived at the standard emergency room via ambulance, to AAMC’s special obstetrical emergency room, instead of admitting her directly into the standard emergency room.  The mother and fetus died en route from the standard emergency room to the obstetrical emergency room.  An autopsy revealed that the mother-to-be had died from a massive, spontaneous splenic rupture.  The defense maintained that the patient’s clinical presentation was consistent with premature labor, that there was nothing about the clinical presentation that suggested that it would not be safe to transport the patient from the standard ER to the obstetrical ER, which was only 200 yards away, and that even if the woman had been admitted to the standard ER immediately upon her presentation to AAMC, she still would have died from the splenic rupture.  At the close of trial, after both sides had presented expert testimony from emergency medicine and obstetrical medicine specialists, Plaintiff asked the jury for an award of $3.5 million in damages.  After deliberating for only 40 minutes, the jury concluded that AAMC had not breached the applicable standard of care, and returned a defense verdict.

 

Levitt, et al. v. Fax.com, Inc., et al., United States District Court for the District of Maryland. (10/2005). Michael Lisak successfully blocked Plaintiff's Motion to Remand a certified Telephone Consumer Protection Act state class action from federal court back to Baltimore City Circuit Court. They argued that a case commences against newly named defendants under the Class Action Fairness Act ("CAFA") of 2005 only when additional parties are named, and not when the case was originally filed. CAFA, enacted on February 18, 2005, grants district courts original jurisdiction over any class action where the aggregate amount in controversy exceeds $5,000,000, any member of the class of plaintiffs is a citizen of a state different from any defendant, and the plaintiff class is 100 or more in number. Judge William M. Nickerson determined that adding new defendants to a class action can be considered the "commencement" of a civil action for purposes of CAFA with respect to the newly named defendants.

 

Tartaglia v. Doe, M.D., District Court for Frederick County, Maryland (9/2005). Marianne Plant obtained a Judgment for the Defendant physician at the close of Plaintiff's case. The Plaintiff had alleged negligent surgical technique and lack of informed consent in relation to a reduction mammaplasty. The Court received testimony from an expert in plastic surgery who had initially been retained by the Plaintiff. The expert testified that the surgery had been performed within the standard of care. Judge M. Kenneth Long, Jr. granted Judgment in favor of the Defendant after finding that the negligence had not been proved and that the evidence demonstrated Plaintiff had been fully advised of the risks of surgery.

 

Jones v. RIA, LLC, United States District Court for the District of Columbia (6/2005). K. Nichole Nesbitt obtained summary judgment on behalf of a hotel in a case involving significant damages. It was alleged that a woman was raped on the premises of the hotel by a police officer who also worked as a security guard for the hotel. Judge Rosemary Collyer found that the plaintiff was unable to establish that the incident was reasonably foreseeable, given the absence of prior employee misconduct or similar incidents on or around the premises.

 

Phyllis Phillips v. HVI. et al., U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia (5/2005). George S. Mahaffey Jr., successfully argued a motion for summary judgment before Judge Rosemary Collyer that ended two years of litigation. The case was filed by the estate of a man who was murdered in front of a community correction center/halfway house. The plaintiff alleged that the murder had been foreseeable to the halfway house officials. The court disagreed and concurred with the arguments in defendants' motion for summary judgment that: (1) plaintiff had a heightened burden to demonstrate that the murder was foreseeable; (2) that plaintiff could only meet this burden with the help of expert witness testimony; and (3) that in failing to demonstrate anything other than naked allegations of wrongdoing, plaintiff failed to meet her burden. The Plaintiffs had alleged malpractice in the postoperative management of a patient following a hysterectomy. Specifically, the plaintiff alleged that she developed a massive hematoma and infection that went undiagnosed for 2 weeks and ultimately led to multiple surgeries and hospitalizations. The defense maintained that the patient’s clinical presentation was inconsistent with an immediate post-operative hematoma and that the physician defendant carefully monitored the patient and intervened when it was medically indicated. The jury agreed and found that there was no breach in the standard of care by the defendant. The defense put on expert testimony in the field of obstetrics and gynecology. The jury was out for less than two hours before returning a defense verdict, finding that there was no breach in the standard of care.

 

McCormick v. ABS, Circuit Court of Maryland for Calvert County (4/2005). Craig B. Merkle and Shannon Madden Marshall obtained a defense verdict in a medical malpractice case after three days of trial. The Plaintiffs had alleged malpractice in the postoperative management of a patient following a hysterectomy. Specifically, the plaintiff alleged that she developed a massive hematoma and infection that went undiagnosed for 2 weeks and ultimately led to multiple surgeries and hospitalizations. The defense maintained that the patient’s clinical presentation was inconsistent with an immediate post-operative hematoma and that the physician defendant carefully monitored the patient and intervened when it was medically indicated. The jury agreed and found that there was no breach in the standard of care by the defendant. The defense put on expert testimony in the field of obstetrics and gynecology. The jury was out for less than two hours before returning a defense verdict, finding that there was no breach in the standard of care.

 

Nam v. Koleaseco, et al., Circuit Court of Fairfax County, Virginia (3/2005). Craig S. Brodsky and Christopher M. Corchiarino defended a trucking company and its driver in an auto tort. The Plaintiff alleged that she was rear-ended by a tractor trailer while merging onto Interstate 95. Counsel was able to turn Plaintiff’s testimony against her, arguing to the jury that the Plaintiff was contributorily negligent. After two days of deliberation, the jury was unable to reach a decision and a mistrial was declared.

 

Debnam v. AVCO, et al., Superior Court of the District of Columbia (2/2005). Thomas Waxter, III and Malcolm Brisker handled a two-week arbitration before The Hon. Richard A. Levie ("RET") of JAMS. The case was originally brought in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia, but the parties agreed to binding arbitration with a high/low agreement. The Plaintiff, who had been diagnosed with asbestosis and lung cancer, alleged that he had contracted his disease as a result of exposure to asbestos-containing materials sold, distributed and/or manufactured by several defendants. The arbitration involved testimony from experts in the fields of pulmonology, industrial hygiene, state-of-the-art, pathology and oncology. The result was a decision for the Plaintiff with respect to multiple defendants but in an amount far less than the Plaintiffs' last demand.

 

Disney v. McClain, et al., Circuit Court of Maryland for Anne Arundel County (1/2005). Craig B. Merkle and Kelly Hughes Iverson, obtained a defense verdict in an obstetrical medical malpractice trial. The plaintiffs alleged that the infant claimant sustained cerebral palsy and permanent brain damage as a result of an alleged delay in the diagnosis and treatment of preterm labor in 1997. The plaintiffs also alleged that the failure to diagnose this condition led to the premature delivery of the infant, which in turn led to the development of spastic diplegia and autistic spectrum disorder. During the course of the two-week trial, Mr. Merkle and Ms. Iverson presented expert testimony in the fields of obstetrics, neonatology, placental pathology, neurodevelopment pediatrics, life care planning and vocational and rehabilitation counseling. The jury returned a verdict finding that there had been no breach in the standard of care.

top

 

News 2004

Walton v. CXM, et al., Circuit Court of Maryland for Baltimore County (12/2004). Amy B. Heinrich and Danielle S. Dinsmore obtained a defense verdict on behalf of an anesthesiologist and anesthesiology group in a case in which it was alleged that the administration of a femoral nerve block led to permanent serious injury in a young woman. The one week trial before Judge Michael Finifter involved claims of negligent technique and failure to obtain informed consent.

 

Eleanor Tasher v. two Respondents, National Association of Securities Dealers Washington, D.C. (12/2004). After a three-day securities arbitration, Jeffrey J. Hines and George S. Mahaffey obtained a defense verdict, including an expungement directive for the Respondents. Claimant had made a number of allegations against Respondents including, among others, negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, fraud, and unsuitability, violations of NASD Rules, and failure to supervise. Claimant sought nearly $300,000 in damages, plus punitive damages.

 

Jednorski v. MFSH, Circuit Court of Maryland for Baltimore County (10/2004). Donald L. DeVries, Jr. and Lynn Dymond Hutchinson obtained a defense verdict in a medical malpractice case after a six-day trial. The plaintiffs asserted defendants were negligent in the handling of a labor and delivery in which the child suffered a permanent brachial plexus injury. A verdict was returned in favor of both the physician and the hospital.

 

Hansen, et al. v. DD, Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas (9/2004). As part of a national trial team for a large pharmaceutical company, Richard M. Barnes and Craig B. Merkle tried four consolidated cases involving a diet drug. The trial lasted over several weeks in the fall of 2004 before the Honorable Mark I. Bernstein. The drug was part of a combination of drugs prescribed to patients for the off label purpose of weight loss. While the jury found in favor of the plaintiffs, on post-trial motions, Judge Bernstein entered judgment notwithstanding the verdict with respect to one plaintiff. Judge Bernstein found that the plaintiff had assumed the risk of ingesting the drug. Post trial motions are currently pending with respect to the remaining three cases.

 

Landon, et al. v. AGH, et al., Circuit Court of Maryland for Worcester County (7/2004). Susan T. Preston obtained a defense verdict in a medical malpractice trial that lasted two weeks. Plaintiffs brought a medical malpractice claim against an emergency medicine physician, her group, and a hospital, alleging that the husband was negligently treated in the emergency room, and that he should not have been discharged home. After two weeks, a defense verdict was returned finding no breach in the standard of care by the health care providers.

 

top

News 2003

On August 20, 2003, Thomas J. Cullen, Jr., a partner with the firm, obtained a directed verdict on behalf of Crown Equipment Corporation, a forklift manufacturer, after a two day product liability trial in Mississippi. The case involved a claim by plaintiff for compensatory and punitive damages arising out of injuries sustained during an accident involving a forklift designed and manufactured by Crown. Plaintiff sustained a partial left foot amputation as a result of the accident. The federal court granted Crown's motion for directed verdict at the close of plaintiff's case finding that plaintiff could not sustain her burden of proof without expert testimony. Prior to trial the court had granted Crown's motion to exclude plaintiff's experts on substantive grounds.

top

News 2001

On August 22, 2001, Thomas J. Cullen, Jr., a partner with the firm, obtained a directed verdict on behalf of Crown Equipment Corporation, a forklift manufacturer, after a two and a half week product liability trial in Memphis, Tennessee. The case involved a consolidated claim on behalf of two Plaintiffs who sought compensatory and punitive damages for injuries sustained during accidents on forklifts designed and manufactured by Crown. Both Plaintiffs alleged permanent injuries and one forklift operator had sustained a partial left foot amputation as a result of the accident. The Court granted the Defendant's Motion to Exclude Plaintiffs' Experts on substantive grounds and granted a directed verdict at the close of the Defendant's case as to all claims raised by the Plaintiffs.

On June 6, 2001, Bonnie J. Beavan of Goodell, DeVries, Leech & Dann, LLP presented an Educational Session talk entitled "Failure to Diagnose Breast Cancer: The Legal Perspective". Ms. Beavan's presentation was made at the American College of Nurse-Midwives (ACNM) 46th Annual Meeting in Washington, D.C.

On March 2, 2001, a jury in Annapolis, Md. returned a verdict in favor of a suburban Baltimore hospital defended by Thomas V. Monahan, Jr. of Goodell, DeVries, Leech & Dann, LLP. The plaintiff, a 66-year-old man, had been attacked with a knife by his son 10 days after the son was discharged from the psychiatric unit of the suburban hospital. The attack rendered the plaintiff a paraplegic. He alleged that the hospital's psychiatric team of nurses, a social worker and a physical therapist failed to take appropriate steps to protect or warn the father of the son's violent tendencies and, in particular, threats he had made to kill his father. After a trial lasting seven days, the jury deliberated for two and a half hours before returning its verdict in favor of the hospital.

David Allen, a partner with the firm, has obtained a jury verdict on behalf of his client in a two day jury trial in front of Judge Kathleen Cox of the Baltimore County Circuit Court. The plaintiff had alleged that a recently repaired breast implant was damaged as the result of a rear-end collision, and that she would require total bilateral reconstructive surgery and diagnostic Magnetic Resonance Image examinations for the rest of her life. While much of the trial focused on the medical issues presented by Plaintiff's claim, after only thirty-five minutes of deliberation the jury returned a defense verdict on liability.

top