Bank of America (BOA) announced today (Friday, September 28, 2012) that it has settled a class action lawsuit with investors who owned or bought BOA shares when the bank purchased Merrill Lynch in 2008 for $50 billion. The purchase of Merrill Lynch occurred within days of Merrill's collapse, effectively rescuing Merrill from bankruptcy.
BOA's $2.43 billion settlement agreement to pay the money to the class of investors will satisfy allegations, among other claims, that BOA and certain of its officers made false and/or misleading statements about the financial health of Bank of America and of Merrill Lynch.
As usual, the settlement must be approved by the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York to be implemented.
[NBC News, 9/28/2012, NBCNews.com/ "Bank of America settles Merrill lawsuit, will pay $2.43 billion"; channels.isp.netscape.com/9-28-2012/ "Bank of America to pay $2.43 B in settlement"; investing.business-week.com/ 9-28-2012/ "Bank of America to pay $243 B in settlement"; www.businessweek.com/9-28-2012/ "B of A to Pay $2.43 Billion to End Shareholder Suit Over Merrill"]
Friday, September 28, 2012
POPE'S BUTLER: THE "HOLY SPIRIT" MADE ME DO IT!: A Case Update by Attorney Charles Jerome Ware
Paolo Gabriele, formerly Pope Benedict XVI's butler and a key member of the Pope's inner circle, goes on trial this weekend, along with his accomplice, Claudio Sciarpelletti, formerly a computer expert in the Vatican's office of the Secretary of State.
The trial will be held in a Vatican courtroom by a Vatican tribunal. Gabriele has confessed to stealing personal, sensitive, and confidential documents (including letters) from the Pope and leaking them to Italian media.
A particularly fortunate beneficiary of Gabriele and Sciarpelletti's theft and breach of fiduciary responsibilities has been Italian journalist Gianluigi Nuzzi, who received so many of the Pontiff's private letters and other documents that he used them in a wildly successful book titled "His Holiness: Pope Benedict XVI's secret papers".
If convicted by the Vatican court (and they probably will be), Gabriele and Sciarpelletti face up to 4 years in an Italian prison.
So far, Gabriele's key defense or response has been that he leaked secret Vatican papers to the media "as an agent of the holy spirit" to help clean up corruption in the Catholic Church.
[www.todaysthv.com/news/September 28, 2012/ "Pope Benedict XVI butler Paolo Gabriele goes on trial"; news.yahoo.com/September 27, 2012/ "Pope's ex-butler goes on trial for leaked papers"; www.reuters.com/article/09-27-2012/ "Trial of Pope's ex-butler to shine big light on tiny Vatican"; www.upi.com/09-28-2012/ "Trial of Pope's butler set to begin"]
The trial will be held in a Vatican courtroom by a Vatican tribunal. Gabriele has confessed to stealing personal, sensitive, and confidential documents (including letters) from the Pope and leaking them to Italian media.
A particularly fortunate beneficiary of Gabriele and Sciarpelletti's theft and breach of fiduciary responsibilities has been Italian journalist Gianluigi Nuzzi, who received so many of the Pontiff's private letters and other documents that he used them in a wildly successful book titled "His Holiness: Pope Benedict XVI's secret papers".
If convicted by the Vatican court (and they probably will be), Gabriele and Sciarpelletti face up to 4 years in an Italian prison.
So far, Gabriele's key defense or response has been that he leaked secret Vatican papers to the media "as an agent of the holy spirit" to help clean up corruption in the Catholic Church.
[www.todaysthv.com/news/September 28, 2012/ "Pope Benedict XVI butler Paolo Gabriele goes on trial"; news.yahoo.com/September 27, 2012/ "Pope's ex-butler goes on trial for leaked papers"; www.reuters.com/article/09-27-2012/ "Trial of Pope's ex-butler to shine big light on tiny Vatican"; www.upi.com/09-28-2012/ "Trial of Pope's butler set to begin"]
CHILD BIRTH LAWSUITS: An Update from Attorney Charles Jerome Ware
Charles Jerome Ware, P.A., Attorneys and Counsellors, is a national law firm which is committed to making a positive difference in the lives of our clients. Child birth injuries represent an area of legal expertise in the firm.
Child birth injuries are not uncommon. Ordinarily the child is being delivered through a narrow vaginal canal, so injuries can happen in the process. Newborn babies with large weight and advanced gestational age tend to be more susceptible to these injuries. Other conditions commonly associated with birth injuries include underlying medical problem such as osteogenesis imprefecta (a condition causing extremely fragile bones), cerebral palsy (CP) and arthogryposis (a rare congenital disorder that is characterized by multiple joint contractures, stiff joints and/or abnormally developed muscles).
Conditions that may be associated with a difficult child birth may include, but are not limited to:
In most instances, child birth injuries ("pediatric injuries") can be avoided with proper prenatal medical planning and a highly trained staff.
Keep the conversation going.
[orthopedics.about.com/od/pediatricorthopedics]
Child birth injuries are not uncommon. Ordinarily the child is being delivered through a narrow vaginal canal, so injuries can happen in the process. Newborn babies with large weight and advanced gestational age tend to be more susceptible to these injuries. Other conditions commonly associated with birth injuries include underlying medical problem such as osteogenesis imprefecta (a condition causing extremely fragile bones), cerebral palsy (CP) and arthogryposis (a rare congenital disorder that is characterized by multiple joint contractures, stiff joints and/or abnormally developed muscles).
Conditions that may be associated with a difficult child birth may include, but are not limited to:
- Large babies who have a birth weight over 8 pounds, 13 ounces;
- Babies born before 37 weeks. The bodies of premature babies are more fragile and thus may be more easily injured;
- Inadequacy of the size and shape of the mother’s pelvis;
- Dystocia (difficult labor or child birth);
- Breech Delivery (abnormal birth delivery, such as when the baby’s buttocks comes first); and
- Prolonged labor which allows more time for things to go wrong.
In most instances, child birth injuries ("pediatric injuries") can be avoided with proper prenatal medical planning and a highly trained staff.
Keep the conversation going.
[orthopedics.about.com/od/pediatricorthopedics]
THOUGHT OF THE DAY: From Attorney Charles Jerome Ware
A Native American grandfather talking to his young grandson tells the boy he has two wolves inside of him struggling with each other. The first is the wolf of peace, love and kindness. The other wolf is fear, greed and hatred.
"Which wolf will win, grandfather?" asks the young boy.
"Whichever one I feed," is the reply.
[Native American Proverb, www.quotesea.com]
"Which wolf will win, grandfather?" asks the young boy.
"Whichever one I feed," is the reply.
[Native American Proverb, www.quotesea.com]
Wednesday, September 26, 2012
THOUGHT OF THE DAY: From Attorney Charles Jerome Ware
"Whoever has not made any improvements in one day has lost."
[Islamic Thought, www.islamicthought.co.uk]
[Islamic Thought, www.islamicthought.co.uk]
MUSLIM LEGAL CLIENTS:
WORKING EFFECTIVELY WITH MUSLIM CLIENTS: A Perspective from Attorney Charles Jerome Ware
Charles Ware is a principal in the Columbia, Maryland-based national general law firm of Charles Jerome Ware, P.A., Attorneys and Counsellors. The firm is well-known for its highly successful legal representation of culturally diverse clients.
Attorney Charles Ware has represented clients from virtually all major cultural groups and religious races, creeds, beliefs and nationalities. He has served as the attorney for Catholic priests, Jewish rabbis, Muslim imams, Evangelical pastors, Baptist ministers, et al.
In sum, he is well-qualified to speak on this important subject of "Working Effectively With Muslim Clients."
For Attorney's to work effectively with (practicing) Muslim clients, it is important to understand, inter alia:
1. "Muslim" should not be confused with "Arab". A Muslim is a person who follows the religion of Islam, and he or she can be of any race. Arab refers to a race of people. In fact, an Arab can choose to be of any religion or belief system, including Islam, Christianity, Buddhism, Hinduism, atheism, or any faith.
2. The Laws of Islam (The Islamic Shariah).
Shariah is the divine code of practice which guides a Muslim in all affairs of his/her life. It is divided into two categories: Ebadat (system of worship), and Muamalat (system of dealing).
Shariah law does not control within the jurisdiction of the United States. An attorney is well-advised to make sure his or her Muslim client understands this basic fact. Shariah law is very different from America's fundamental common-law (and in a few jurisdictions such as Louisiana, the [civil law] Napoleonic Code).
The attorney is well-advised to be clear with the Muslim client precisely what the applicable law is for the legal matter being handled.
3. With wisdom being the better part of valor, it is probably best that the attorney not voluntarily make references to "Jihad" nor "Holy War" when communicating with his or her Muslim client.
In Islam Jihad does not mean "Holy War". And is not a declaration of war against other religions and certainly not against Christians and Jews, as some people want it to be perceived. Jihad literally means "striving, struggling or exerting more effort than usual for the betterment of one's self and the community at large." It has an internal, societal dimension.
[www.islamicbulletin.com; www.differencebetween.net; Understanding the Law: A Primer, Charles Jerome Ware, iUniverse (2008)]
Attorney Charles Ware has represented clients from virtually all major cultural groups and religious races, creeds, beliefs and nationalities. He has served as the attorney for Catholic priests, Jewish rabbis, Muslim imams, Evangelical pastors, Baptist ministers, et al.
In sum, he is well-qualified to speak on this important subject of "Working Effectively With Muslim Clients."
For Attorney's to work effectively with (practicing) Muslim clients, it is important to understand, inter alia:
1. "Muslim" should not be confused with "Arab". A Muslim is a person who follows the religion of Islam, and he or she can be of any race. Arab refers to a race of people. In fact, an Arab can choose to be of any religion or belief system, including Islam, Christianity, Buddhism, Hinduism, atheism, or any faith.
2. The Laws of Islam (The Islamic Shariah).
Shariah is the divine code of practice which guides a Muslim in all affairs of his/her life. It is divided into two categories: Ebadat (system of worship), and Muamalat (system of dealing).
Shariah law does not control within the jurisdiction of the United States. An attorney is well-advised to make sure his or her Muslim client understands this basic fact. Shariah law is very different from America's fundamental common-law (and in a few jurisdictions such as Louisiana, the [civil law] Napoleonic Code).
The attorney is well-advised to be clear with the Muslim client precisely what the applicable law is for the legal matter being handled.
3. With wisdom being the better part of valor, it is probably best that the attorney not voluntarily make references to "Jihad" nor "Holy War" when communicating with his or her Muslim client.
In Islam Jihad does not mean "Holy War". And is not a declaration of war against other religions and certainly not against Christians and Jews, as some people want it to be perceived. Jihad literally means "striving, struggling or exerting more effort than usual for the betterment of one's self and the community at large." It has an internal, societal dimension.
[www.islamicbulletin.com; www.differencebetween.net; Understanding the Law: A Primer, Charles Jerome Ware, iUniverse (2008)]
Tuesday, September 25, 2012
THOUGHT OF THE DAY: From Attorney Charles Jerome Ware
"Only a life lived for others is a life worthwhile." - Albert Einstein
Keep the conversation going.
Keep the conversation going.
Monday, September 24, 2012
REPRESENTING THE CELEBRITY CLIENT: Advice from Celebrity Attorney Charles Jerome Ware
From the best-selling book, UNDERSTANDING THE LAW: A PRIMER, Chapter 21, "Representing the Celebrity Client", pages 225-252, by Attorney Charles Jerome Ware (2008).
Keeping the celebrity client grounded is absolutely essential. If you lack the ability to keep your client grounded, do not represent them.
I have had the fortune and misfortune, pleasure and agony, opportunity and experience of representing several celebrities during my more than thirty years in the business of law. Most of them have been wonderful clients. Many have presented "special" issues or problems that necessitated additional care and concern regarding the impact on their careers and on the successful outcome of their legal matters. All of them have blessed me with wonderful legal challenges to deal with. I thank them profusely for these challenges.
When it comes to celebrities and the justice system, both civil and criminal, the differences between the advantages of fame and the disadvantages of fame can be stark.
Former United States Secretary of State Dr. Henry Kissinger, in the Nixon Administration, was frequently called "Super K" because of his many travels and foreign policy adventures in the 1970s. One of his more prominent trips during the Nixon Administration was to China to discuss trade with China's leader, Mao Zedong, in 1973. As recently as 2003, thirty years after the trip, a celebrity feminist client of mine approached me with the idea of filing a lawsuit against "someone in our government" because of overtures allegedly made to the United States by way of Kissinger from Mao. The proposed plan by this client was that the lawsuit would raise awareness to women's issues in China. I declined to file the suit.
The following, as I recall, was the subject raised by my celebrity client: In the middle of a presumably very serious discussion of proposed increased trade between China and the United States, as Secretary of State Kissinger reported, Chinese Leader Mao Zedong proposed, or offered, to send up to ten million Chinese women to the United States to live. Apparently the response of the stunned but ever diplomatic Kissinger to the ludicrous proposal was, 'We will have to study it." I believed it would have been frivolous use of my client's celebrity to have brought a lawsuit against anyone under the circumstances presented.
If you cannot keep your celebrity client grounded, do not represent them. To do otherwise will be a disaster for both of you.
Publication Date: 11/18/2008
Number of Pages: 253
Keep the conversation going.
http://amzn.com/1440111456
Keeping the celebrity client grounded is absolutely essential. If you lack the ability to keep your client grounded, do not represent them.
I have had the fortune and misfortune, pleasure and agony, opportunity and experience of representing several celebrities during my more than thirty years in the business of law. Most of them have been wonderful clients. Many have presented "special" issues or problems that necessitated additional care and concern regarding the impact on their careers and on the successful outcome of their legal matters. All of them have blessed me with wonderful legal challenges to deal with. I thank them profusely for these challenges.
When it comes to celebrities and the justice system, both civil and criminal, the differences between the advantages of fame and the disadvantages of fame can be stark.
Former United States Secretary of State Dr. Henry Kissinger, in the Nixon Administration, was frequently called "Super K" because of his many travels and foreign policy adventures in the 1970s. One of his more prominent trips during the Nixon Administration was to China to discuss trade with China's leader, Mao Zedong, in 1973. As recently as 2003, thirty years after the trip, a celebrity feminist client of mine approached me with the idea of filing a lawsuit against "someone in our government" because of overtures allegedly made to the United States by way of Kissinger from Mao. The proposed plan by this client was that the lawsuit would raise awareness to women's issues in China. I declined to file the suit.
The following, as I recall, was the subject raised by my celebrity client: In the middle of a presumably very serious discussion of proposed increased trade between China and the United States, as Secretary of State Kissinger reported, Chinese Leader Mao Zedong proposed, or offered, to send up to ten million Chinese women to the United States to live. Apparently the response of the stunned but ever diplomatic Kissinger to the ludicrous proposal was, 'We will have to study it." I believed it would have been frivolous use of my client's celebrity to have brought a lawsuit against anyone under the circumstances presented.
If you cannot keep your celebrity client grounded, do not represent them. To do otherwise will be a disaster for both of you.
Publication Date: 11/18/2008
Number of Pages: 253
Keep the conversation going.
http://amzn.com/1440111456
IMMIGRATION JUDGE CHARLES JEROME WARE: Best-Selling Author of the Book, "THE IMMIGRATION PARADOX: Fifteen (15) Tips for Winning Immigration Cases"
Published: 09/23/3009
Number of pages: 168
An Immigration Paradox develops when American immigration policy is subjected to Government benign neglect. Additionally, although frequently used by many in the public, the word “illegal” is technically not recognized as a legal term in American immigration law as it applies to people. Surprised? Read further.
Immigration has always been a controversial, complex, and very important issue historically in American public policy. In fact, the historic and fundamental importance of immigration in American culture, in combination with the increasing controversy and inevitably complexities involving it, has created inevitable the above-referenced immigration paradox. This book presents an overview of American immigration history, trends, policies and practices, and addresses the “paradox” issue from the perspective of a former United States Immigration Judge. Nothing written in this book is intended or designed in any way to diminish, malign, or disparage any person, group, country, organization, institution, or people. This important book contains “Fifteen (15) Tips for Winning Immigration Cases.”
http://amzn.com/B007PLY6WA
Number of pages: 168
An Immigration Paradox develops when American immigration policy is subjected to Government benign neglect. Additionally, although frequently used by many in the public, the word “illegal” is technically not recognized as a legal term in American immigration law as it applies to people. Surprised? Read further.
Immigration has always been a controversial, complex, and very important issue historically in American public policy. In fact, the historic and fundamental importance of immigration in American culture, in combination with the increasing controversy and inevitably complexities involving it, has created inevitable the above-referenced immigration paradox. This book presents an overview of American immigration history, trends, policies and practices, and addresses the “paradox” issue from the perspective of a former United States Immigration Judge. Nothing written in this book is intended or designed in any way to diminish, malign, or disparage any person, group, country, organization, institution, or people. This important book contains “Fifteen (15) Tips for Winning Immigration Cases.”
http://amzn.com/B007PLY6WA
DR. CHARLES JEROME WARE: AUTHOR, ATTORNEY, MICROECONOMIST --- Best-Selling Author of Book, "THE SECRET SCIENCE OF WINNING LOTTERIES, SWEEPSTAKES AND CONTESTS: Laws, Strategies, Formulas and Statistics"
Book Description
There is a science of winning lotteries, sweepstakes and contests! When it comes to lotteries, sweepstakes and contests, there are ways to improve your odds or probability of winning. They are discussed in this book, with a lot of detail and some humor. Blind reliance on luck or chance is not necessary to win lotteries, sweepstakes and contests. The "4Ps" of persistence, preparation, poise and a positive mental attitude are necessary to win on a consistent or regular basis. Therefore, just about anyone is capable of winning. Charles Jerome Ware is a noted author and attorney, microeconomist, lotterician, sweepstaker and contester. He is a principal in the national law firm of Charles Jerome Ware, Attorneys and Counselors. Dr. Ware is a highly successful and life-long sweepstaker and contester. He is also a successful lotterician who, for several years, has investigated, monitored and researched lotteries throughout the United States and several foreign countries. Dr. Ware is the recipient of numerous awards for his accomplishments in law and other areas. He lives in Columbia, Maryland.
Product Details
- Paperback: 166 pages
- Publisher: Outskirts Press (July 26, 2012)
- Language: English
- ISBN-10: 1432793888
- ISBN-13: 978-1432793883
Available: Amazon; all major bookstores, etc.
http://amzn.com/1432793888
El Juez de Inmigrácion Charles Jerome Ware: Autor de "QUINCE (15) CONSEJOS PARA GANAR CASOS DE INMIGRACION"
Fecha de alta: 11/16/2011
Mimero de páginas: 34
Disponibilidad: Amazon y todos los medios de otro libro.
[see, www.CharlesJeromeWare.com]
Mimero de páginas: 34
Disponibilidad: Amazon y todos los medios de otro libro.
[see, www.CharlesJeromeWare.com]
CHARLES J. WARE: CONSISTENTLY RANKED AMONG THE "BEST LAWYERS AND COUNSELLORS IN THE UNITED STATES". Columbia, Howard County, Maryland.
CHARLES J. WARE: CONSISTENTLY RANKED AMONG THE "BEST LAWYERS AND COUNSELLORS IN THE UNITED STATES". Columbia, Howard County, Maryland.
[Martindale Hubbell; ABA; NBA; MSBA; D.C. Bar; Pennsylvania Bar, Virginia Bar, California Bar, Maryland Bar; Charles Hamilton Houston Award Winner for Outstanding Litigation; "Original Super Lawyer]
[Martindale Hubbell; ABA; NBA; MSBA; D.C. Bar; Pennsylvania Bar, Virginia Bar, California Bar, Maryland Bar; Charles Hamilton Houston Award Winner for Outstanding Litigation; "Original Super Lawyer]
"MENSA-SMART": Charles Jerome Ware
Attorney Charles Jerome Ware is MENSA-smart, and consistently ranked one of the best lawyers and counsellors in the United States [and see, Dr. Lancelot Ware, British scientist and lawyer, Lincoln College, Oxford, England]
Friday, September 21, 2012
LAW AND DEBATE IN AMERICA: PROTEST & POLARIZATION --- A Report by Attorney Charles Jerome Ware
The Howard University School of Law will hold its prestigious Ninth (9th) Annual Wiley A. Branton/Howard Law Journal Symposium on Thursday, November 1st, 2012, in the law school's Moot Court Room in Washington, D.C., all-day from 8:30 AM to 4:30 PM [www.CharlesJeromeWare.com].
The Symposium will include two major speakers and three (3) panels to discuss wealth disparities, the state of protest and civil disobedience, and political polarization.
[Visit the Symposium's website at www.law.howard.edu]
The Symposium will include two major speakers and three (3) panels to discuss wealth disparities, the state of protest and civil disobedience, and political polarization.
[Visit the Symposium's website at www.law.howard.edu]
ADULTERY IN MARYLAND: PART 3 OF THE DIVORCE SERIES BY SHAVINA MUKESH, ESQUIRE
Shavina Mukesh, Esquire is a family law attorney associated with the national general practice law firm of Charles Jerome Ware, P.A., Attorneys and Counsellors. This law firm's motto is: "Still working. Still committed. Still here to make a difference."
This blog, titled "Adultery in Maryland", is Part 3 of the series of blogs by Ms. Mukesh titled Maryland Divorce Law.
This blog, titled "Adultery in Maryland", is Part 3 of the series of blogs by Ms. Mukesh titled Maryland Divorce Law.
ADULTERY
Adultery as used in Maryland Divorce law means voluntary sexual intercourse with someone other than one's spouse. Due to the strict definition of sexual intercourse (penetration of the vagina by the penis) adultery does not occur between same sex partners. Thus, same sex intimate conduct cannot be classified as adultery. However, such conduct may amount to constructive desertion.
In order to use adultery as a ground, there need not be an on-going extra marital affair; one act of adultery is sufficient because the details of adultery are rarely known to both parties, it is usually proven by circumstantial evidence. The evidence must show that a party had the opportunity and inclination to commit adultery.
How proving adultery can help your case.
Proving adultery may have an impact on custody of the children involved if adultery is proved to have harmed or impaired the children. For example, if the children have witnessed the art of adultery taking place.
If the adulterous spouse is claiming alimony, proving alimony may effect their ultimate award.
Naming the co-respondent.
The co-respondent (also known as paramour) is the person who is alleged to have committed adultery with the respondent. Although naming a co-respondent in the divorce proceedings may make you feel better - be careful! It can be tricky, particularly if your facts are incorrect or cannot be proven. Not only have you harmed your case, but you may also have a potential claim of defamation against you.
Adultery Forgiven.
If after learning about the adultery, you forgave your spouse, continue to live and cohabit as a married couple; courts will interpret that as you having 'condoned' the adultery. Condonation will also be inferred if you have had sexual intercourse with your spouse after knowing about the adultery. However, if your partner continues the adulterous relationship, without your knowledge, you can then sue on the grounds of adultery. Alternatively, if your spouse has multiple affairs and you only condoned one, you may be able to sue on the grounds of adultery based on the newly discovered information. In Maryland, condonation is not an absolute bar, but it is a factor to be considered by the court in determining whether the divorce be decreed.
5th Amendment Privilege.
The 5th Amendment Privilege against self incrimination is sometimes asserted in divorce claims, usually when the adulterous partner refuses to answer specific questions about the adultery.
Part 4 of this blog on Maryland Divorce Law will be forthcoming on the subject of "Desertion".
[See, sources and references at the end of Part 2 of this series]
DIVORCE ATTORNEY SHAVINA MUKESH: MARYLAND DIVORCE LAW, PART 2
Part 2 of Attorney Shavina Mukesh's "Maryland Divorce Law" is sponsored by the law offices of Charles Jerome Ware, P.A., Attorneys and Counsellors, a national general practice law firm [WWW.CHARLESJEROMEWARE.COM].
"Contested" versus "Uncontested" Divorce
A divorce can be uncontested or contested. In an uncontested divorce the parties are not blaming each other for this separation. In fact, the parties agree on the terms of the divorce. The ground for divorce is usually "twelve month separation". The pleadings emphasize that "irreconciable differences have arisen and there is no hope for reconciliation. The terms of such a divorce are finalized in a written Separation Agreement.
A contested divorce is one in which the parties cannot agree on the terms or the grounds for divorce.
In order to file for a divorce in Maryland, at least one of the parties must reside in Maryland or the grounds must have occurred in Maryland. During a divorce proceeding the following claims may also be settled: Property distribution, child custody, spousal support/alimony and restoration of name.
ABSOLUTE DIVORCE
The court may decree on Absolute Divorce on the grounds of:
1) Adultery
2) Desertion
3) Voluntary Separation
4) Conviction of a felony or misdemeanor
5) Two year separation
6) Insanity
7) Cruelty of Treatment
8) Excessively vicious conduct
Parties may use more than one ground in petitioning the court for a divorce - that is - if they are eligible to do so.
Part 3 of this blog will be forth coming on the topic of ADULTERY IN MARYLAND.
[see: Title 7, Family Law, Maryland Code 2010; Title 7, Section 7-103, Family Law, Marland Code 2010; How To Do Your Own Divorce In Maryland, by Richard S. Grant (2011); Maryland Family Law, by John F. Fader II and Richard J. Gilbert (1990); Legal Rights in Marriage & Divorce in Maryland, 3rd Edition, The Women's Law Center of Maryland, Inc. (2008)]
BEST-SELLING AUTHOR AND ATTORNEY CHARLES JEROME WARE FEATURED AT "NBF" and "BBF" (2012)
Best-selling author and renowned attorney Charles Jerome Ware will be one of the featured authors at two upcoming book festivals: the 12th Annual Library of Congress National Book Festival (NBF) in Washington, D.C., September 22nd-23rd, 2012, as well as Baltimore Book Festival, celebrating the Baltimore Sun newspaper's 175th Anniversary in Baltimore, Maryland, September 28th-30th, 2012 [twitter.com/charlesjware; www.CharlesJeromeWare.com]
Recent featured books by Attorney and Author Charles Jerome Ware include best-sellers:
(1) The Secret Science of Winning Lotteries, Sweepstakes and Contests;
http://amzn.com/1432793888
(2) Understanding the Law: A Primer;
http://amzn.com/1440111456
(3) The Immigration Paradox: 15 Tips for Winning Immigration Cases;
http://amzn.com/1440171920
(4) Legal Consumer Tips and Secrets: Avoiding Debtors' Prison in the United States; and
http://amzn.com/1462051847
(5) Quince (15) Consejos Para Ganar Casos Del Inmigracion.
http://amzn.com/1462068952
[and see, www.loc.gov/bookfest; www.charlesjeromeware.com; facebook.com/BaltimoreBookFestival/ Baltimore Office of Promotion & The Arts; charlesware.blogspot.com/2012/09/the-baltimore-sun's-anniversary; thelawyersmailbox.blogspot.com/2012/09/national-book-festival; twitter.com/CharlesJWare]
Recent featured books by Attorney and Author Charles Jerome Ware include best-sellers:
(1) The Secret Science of Winning Lotteries, Sweepstakes and Contests;
http://amzn.com/1432793888
(2) Understanding the Law: A Primer;
http://amzn.com/1440111456
(3) The Immigration Paradox: 15 Tips for Winning Immigration Cases;
http://amzn.com/1440171920
(4) Legal Consumer Tips and Secrets: Avoiding Debtors' Prison in the United States; and
http://amzn.com/1462051847
(5) Quince (15) Consejos Para Ganar Casos Del Inmigracion.
http://amzn.com/1462068952
[and see, www.loc.gov/bookfest; www.charlesjeromeware.com; facebook.com/BaltimoreBookFestival/ Baltimore Office of Promotion & The Arts; charlesware.blogspot.com/2012/09/the-baltimore-sun's-anniversary; thelawyersmailbox.blogspot.com/2012/09/national-book-festival; twitter.com/CharlesJWare]
NATIONAL BOOK FESTIVAL (NBF), PRESIDENT & MRS. BARACK OBAMA, AND LAURA BUSH: AN UPDATE BY ATTORNEY AND AUTHOR CHARLES WARE
The 12th Annual Library of Congress National Book Festival (NBF) will be held on the National Mall in Washington, D.C., on Saturday and Sunday, September 22nd and 23rd, 2012, rain or shine. The event is free and open to the public.
Nearly 200,000 people were in attendance at the 2011 event.
President and Mrs. Obama are co-chairs of the 2012 festival.
Former First Lady Laura Bush first hosted the NBF when it was established in 2001.
More than 100 award-winning authors, illustrators and poets will be in attendance at this year's (2012's) festival.
Recent books by Attorney and Author Charles Jerome Ware include best-sellers:
(1) The Secret Science of Winning Lotteries, Sweepstakes and Contests;
http://amzn.com/1432793888
(2) Understanding the Law: A Primer;
http://amzn.com/1440111456
(3) The Immigration Paradox: 15 Tips for Winning Immigration Cases;
http://amzn.com/1440171920
(4) Legal Consumer Tips and Secrets: Avoiding Debtors' Prison in the United States; and
http://amzn.com/1462051847
(5) Quince (15) Consejos Para Ganar Casos Del Inmigracion.
http://amzn.com/1462068952
[www.CharlesJeromeWare.com; facebook.com/BaltimoreBookFestival; Baltimore Office of Promotion & The Arts]
Nearly 200,000 people were in attendance at the 2011 event.
President and Mrs. Obama are co-chairs of the 2012 festival.
Former First Lady Laura Bush first hosted the NBF when it was established in 2001.
More than 100 award-winning authors, illustrators and poets will be in attendance at this year's (2012's) festival.
Recent books by Attorney and Author Charles Jerome Ware include best-sellers:
(1) The Secret Science of Winning Lotteries, Sweepstakes and Contests;
http://amzn.com/1432793888
(2) Understanding the Law: A Primer;
http://amzn.com/1440111456
(3) The Immigration Paradox: 15 Tips for Winning Immigration Cases;
http://amzn.com/1440171920
(4) Legal Consumer Tips and Secrets: Avoiding Debtors' Prison in the United States; and
http://amzn.com/1462051847
(5) Quince (15) Consejos Para Ganar Casos Del Inmigracion.
http://amzn.com/1462068952
[www.CharlesJeromeWare.com; facebook.com/BaltimoreBookFestival; Baltimore Office of Promotion & The Arts]
Thursday, September 20, 2012
NATIONAL BOOK FESTIVAL: LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 12TH ANNUAL EVENT
Renowned attorney and author Charles Jerome Ware will be participating in the 12th Annual Library of Congress National Book Festival on the National Mall in Washington, D.C., between 9th and 14th Streets, on Saturday, September 22nd, 2012, from 10:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m., and on Sunday, September 23rd, 2012, from noon to 5:30 p.m., rain or shine. The event is free and open to the public.
The national general practice law firm of Charles Jerome Ware, P.A., Attorneys and Counsellors, is a supporter of this two-day event, organized and sponsored by the Library of Congress, with honorary chairs President Barack Obama and Mrs. Michelle Obama.
This wonderful event promises to spark readers' imaginations, creativity and passion for learning as they interact with the nation's best-selling authors, illustrators and poets, including author and attorney Charles Jerome Ware.
Recent featured books by Attorney and Author Charles Jerome Ware include best-sellers:
(1) The Secret Science of Winning Lotteries, Sweepstakes and Contests;
http://amzn.com/1432793888
(2) Understanding the Law: A Primer;
http://amzn.com/1440111456
(3) The Immigration Paradox: 15 Tips for Winning Immigration Cases;
http://amzn.com/1440171920
(4) Legal Consumer Tips and Secrets: Avoiding Debtors' Prison in the United States; and
http://amzn.com/1462051847
(5) Quince (15) Consejos Para Ganar Casos Del Inmigracion.
http://amzn.com/1462068952
[and see, www.loc.gov/bookfest]
The national general practice law firm of Charles Jerome Ware, P.A., Attorneys and Counsellors, is a supporter of this two-day event, organized and sponsored by the Library of Congress, with honorary chairs President Barack Obama and Mrs. Michelle Obama.
This wonderful event promises to spark readers' imaginations, creativity and passion for learning as they interact with the nation's best-selling authors, illustrators and poets, including author and attorney Charles Jerome Ware.
Recent featured books by Attorney and Author Charles Jerome Ware include best-sellers:
(1) The Secret Science of Winning Lotteries, Sweepstakes and Contests;
http://amzn.com/1432793888
(2) Understanding the Law: A Primer;
http://amzn.com/1440111456
(3) The Immigration Paradox: 15 Tips for Winning Immigration Cases;
http://amzn.com/1440171920
(4) Legal Consumer Tips and Secrets: Avoiding Debtors' Prison in the United States; and
http://amzn.com/1462051847
(5) Quince (15) Consejos Para Ganar Casos Del Inmigracion.
http://amzn.com/1462068952
[and see, www.loc.gov/bookfest]
WORKING EFFECTIVELY WITH MUSLIM CLIENTS: A Perspective from Attorney Charles Jerome Ware
Charles Ware is a principal in the Columbia, Maryland-based national general law firm of Charles Jerome Ware, P.A., Attorneys and Counsellors. The firm is well-known for its highly successful legal representation of culturally diverse clients.
Attorney Charles Ware has represented clients from virtually all major cultural groups and religious races, creeds, beliefs and nationalities. He has served as the attorney for Catholic priests, Jewish rabbis, Muslim imams, Evangelical pastors, Baptist ministers, et al.
In sum, he is well-qualified to speak on this important subject of "Working Effectively With Muslim Clients."
For Attorney's to work effectively with (practicing) Muslim clients, it is important to understand, inter alia:
1. "Muslim" should not be confused with "Arab". A Muslim is a person who follows the religion of Islam, and he or she can be of any race. Arab refers to a race of people. In fact, an Arab can choose to be of any religion or belief system, including Islam, Christianity, Buddhism, Hinduism, atheism, or any faith.
2. The Laws of Islam (The Islamic Shariah).
Shariah is the divine code of practice which guides a Muslim in all affairs of his/her life. It is divided into two categories: Ebadat (system of worship), and Muamalat (system of dealing).
Shariah law does not control within the jurisdiction of the United States. An attorney is well-advised to make sure his or her Muslim client understands this basic fact. Shariah law is very different from America's fundamental common-law (and in a few jurisdictions such as Louisiana, the [civil law] Napoleonic Code).
The attorney is well-advised to be clear with the Muslim client precisely what the applicable law is for the legal matter being handled.
3. With wisdom being the better part of valor, it is probably best that the attorney not voluntarily make references to "Jihad" nor "Holy War" when communicating with his or her Muslim client.
In Islam Jihad does not mean "Holy War". And is not a declaration of war against other religions and certainly not against Christians and Jews, as some people want it to be perceived. Jihad literally means "striving, struggling or exerting more effort than usual for the betterment of one's self and the community at large." It has an internal, societal dimension.
[www.islamicbulletin.com; www.differencebetween.net; Understanding the Law: A Primer, Charles Jerome Ware, iUniverse (2008)]
Attorney Charles Ware has represented clients from virtually all major cultural groups and religious races, creeds, beliefs and nationalities. He has served as the attorney for Catholic priests, Jewish rabbis, Muslim imams, Evangelical pastors, Baptist ministers, et al.
In sum, he is well-qualified to speak on this important subject of "Working Effectively With Muslim Clients."
For Attorney's to work effectively with (practicing) Muslim clients, it is important to understand, inter alia:
1. "Muslim" should not be confused with "Arab". A Muslim is a person who follows the religion of Islam, and he or she can be of any race. Arab refers to a race of people. In fact, an Arab can choose to be of any religion or belief system, including Islam, Christianity, Buddhism, Hinduism, atheism, or any faith.
2. The Laws of Islam (The Islamic Shariah).
Shariah is the divine code of practice which guides a Muslim in all affairs of his/her life. It is divided into two categories: Ebadat (system of worship), and Muamalat (system of dealing).
Shariah law does not control within the jurisdiction of the United States. An attorney is well-advised to make sure his or her Muslim client understands this basic fact. Shariah law is very different from America's fundamental common-law (and in a few jurisdictions such as Louisiana, the [civil law] Napoleonic Code).
The attorney is well-advised to be clear with the Muslim client precisely what the applicable law is for the legal matter being handled.
3. With wisdom being the better part of valor, it is probably best that the attorney not voluntarily make references to "Jihad" nor "Holy War" when communicating with his or her Muslim client.
In Islam Jihad does not mean "Holy War". And is not a declaration of war against other religions and certainly not against Christians and Jews, as some people want it to be perceived. Jihad literally means "striving, struggling or exerting more effort than usual for the betterment of one's self and the community at large." It has an internal, societal dimension.
[www.islamicbulletin.com; www.differencebetween.net; Understanding the Law: A Primer, Charles Jerome Ware, iUniverse (2008)]
MARYLAND DIVORCE LAW, PART 1: Shavina Mukesh, Esquire
Shavina Mukesh is associated with the Maryland-based national general law firm of Charles Jerome Ware, P.A., Attorneys and Counsellors. She heads the firm's Family Law Department. This blog is Part 1 of Ms. Mukesh's series of blogs on Maryland Divorce Law.
Shavina Mukesh earned her LL.M. in the area of "Law in the United States" from the University of Baltimore School of Law in May 2010, her LL.B. degree in Law from Middlesex University of London, United Kingdom, in June 2007, and she successfully completed the Legal Practice Course at the College of Law in London, United Kingdom, in June 2008.
In addition, Ms. Mukesh is fluent in multiple languages, including Hindi, Punjabi, and, of course, English. She is based in the Columbia, Howard County, Maryland office of Charles Jerome Ware, P.A., Attorneys and Counsellors.
Divorce is a legal dissolution of marriage. There are two types of Divorce - Absolute Divorce (which is ultimately what parties in divorce proceeding are seeking) and Limited Divorce. Absolute Divorce is permanent, permits re-marriage and permits future property claims. Not all parties wanting a divorce may be eligible for an Absolute Divorce (because the statutory time period has not yet been met). Therefore, in the meantime, one may apply for a Limited Divorce. Limited Divorce allows parties to 'get in-line' for an Absolute Divorce, legalizes the separation and provides financial support Pendente Lite (pending the final hearing). It is not permanent, does not permit re-marriage and does not settle property claims.
Part 2 of this series will be forthcoming.
[This blog, alone, does not establish an attorney-client relationship with the reader. The reader is specifically urged, advised and counselled to consult an attorney with an specific questions he or she may have]
Shavina Mukesh earned her LL.M. in the area of "Law in the United States" from the University of Baltimore School of Law in May 2010, her LL.B. degree in Law from Middlesex University of London, United Kingdom, in June 2007, and she successfully completed the Legal Practice Course at the College of Law in London, United Kingdom, in June 2008.
In addition, Ms. Mukesh is fluent in multiple languages, including Hindi, Punjabi, and, of course, English. She is based in the Columbia, Howard County, Maryland office of Charles Jerome Ware, P.A., Attorneys and Counsellors.
Divorce is a legal dissolution of marriage. There are two types of Divorce - Absolute Divorce (which is ultimately what parties in divorce proceeding are seeking) and Limited Divorce. Absolute Divorce is permanent, permits re-marriage and permits future property claims. Not all parties wanting a divorce may be eligible for an Absolute Divorce (because the statutory time period has not yet been met). Therefore, in the meantime, one may apply for a Limited Divorce. Limited Divorce allows parties to 'get in-line' for an Absolute Divorce, legalizes the separation and provides financial support Pendente Lite (pending the final hearing). It is not permanent, does not permit re-marriage and does not settle property claims.
Part 2 of this series will be forthcoming.
[This blog, alone, does not establish an attorney-client relationship with the reader. The reader is specifically urged, advised and counselled to consult an attorney with an specific questions he or she may have]
Wednesday, September 19, 2012
JUDICIAL FIGHT: JUSTICE SCALIA CALLS JUDGE POSNER'S ASSERTION "A LIE"
From the national law offices of Charles Jerome Ware, P.A., Attorneys and Counsellors: "Still working. Still committed. Still here to make a difference".
Two brilliant and well-respected federal judges are at odds over a book: 7th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals Judge Richard Posner and U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia. And their war of words is escalating.
The spat began when, in June 2012, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, long known as a champion of the legal philosophy of "textualism" (that is, interpreting statutes by the writer's words) released his new book co-authored with Bryan A. Garner, editor-in-chief of Black's Law Dictionary, titled "Reading Law: The Interpretation of Legal Texts". In addition to explaining textualism and originalism (defining the words of the statutes based on the Constitution Founders' meaning) the book lists 70 canons to guide lawyers and judges.
Spring forward two months or so to August 2012. in a relatively blistering review of Justice Scalia's book, Judge Posner skillfully attacks Justice Scalia's argument, arguing, inter alia, that Scalia considered "legislative history" (and did not rely solely on "textualism") in striking down a Washington, D.C. handgun ban. Thus, alleges Posner, Scalia deviated from his own "textualism" philosophy in the case.
Justice Scalia now responds to Judge Posner: "To say that I used legislative history is simply, to put it bluntly, a lie". Oops!
Expect more fireworks to come between these two legal titans.
Keep the conversation going.
[www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/18/ "Atonin Scalia: Judge Richard Posner Lied In Judicial Philosophy Criticism", by Terry Bagnes, Reuters; www.abajournal.com/books/ReadingLaw, by Scalia; www.reuters.com/article/2012/09/18/ "Fanning Furor, Justice Scalia Says Appeals Court Judge Lied", by Terry Baymes; www.Chicagotribune.com/news/ "Justice Scalia Says Chicago Appeals Court Judge lied", 2012/09/18]
Two brilliant and well-respected federal judges are at odds over a book: 7th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals Judge Richard Posner and U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia. And their war of words is escalating.
The spat began when, in June 2012, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, long known as a champion of the legal philosophy of "textualism" (that is, interpreting statutes by the writer's words) released his new book co-authored with Bryan A. Garner, editor-in-chief of Black's Law Dictionary, titled "Reading Law: The Interpretation of Legal Texts". In addition to explaining textualism and originalism (defining the words of the statutes based on the Constitution Founders' meaning) the book lists 70 canons to guide lawyers and judges.
Spring forward two months or so to August 2012. in a relatively blistering review of Justice Scalia's book, Judge Posner skillfully attacks Justice Scalia's argument, arguing, inter alia, that Scalia considered "legislative history" (and did not rely solely on "textualism") in striking down a Washington, D.C. handgun ban. Thus, alleges Posner, Scalia deviated from his own "textualism" philosophy in the case.
Justice Scalia now responds to Judge Posner: "To say that I used legislative history is simply, to put it bluntly, a lie". Oops!
Expect more fireworks to come between these two legal titans.
Keep the conversation going.
[www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/18/ "Atonin Scalia: Judge Richard Posner Lied In Judicial Philosophy Criticism", by Terry Bagnes, Reuters; www.abajournal.com/books/ReadingLaw, by Scalia; www.reuters.com/article/2012/09/18/ "Fanning Furor, Justice Scalia Says Appeals Court Judge Lied", by Terry Baymes; www.Chicagotribune.com/news/ "Justice Scalia Says Chicago Appeals Court Judge lied", 2012/09/18]
Tuesday, September 18, 2012
MEDICAL MALPRACTICE CLAIMS AGAINST THE UNITED STATES: A Primer by Attorney Charles Jerome Ware
Charles Ware is a principal in the national law firm of Charles Jerome Ware, P.A., Attorneys and Counsellors: "Still working. Still committed. Still here to make a difference".
Since medical malpractice laws can frequently be amended or revised on even a yearly basis, including both Federal and state laws, it is important that the reader speak with a knowledgeable attorney with questions and concerns about a claim, and to understand the current medical malpractice laws.
The Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA): A Summary.
All medical malpractice claims against the United States must be filed under a statute called the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA).
The Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) of 1946 was enacted to compensate those who suffer injuries through the wrongful or negligent acts of federal employees. Before the FTCA, the government was basically immune from tortious claims. Through the FTCA however the government waived this sovereign immunity. Under the Federally Supported Health Centers Assistance Acts of 1992 and 1995, both of which arose from the FTCA, HRSA-supported medical centers are effectively federal employees and retain immunity from claims of medical malpractice arising within the scope of their medical duties. However, as the primary insurer of these HRSA-supported health centers the government assumes responsibility for all malpractice settlement claims arising from the malpractice of HRSA-medical providers.
The negligence is defined by the state in which it occurred.
[www.militarymedicalmalpracticeblog.com/4/federal-tort-claims-act-ftca; www.medicalmalpractice.com/resources/medical-malpractice/FTCA; bphc.hrsa.gov/ftca; CRS Report for COngress, "Federal Tort Claims Act"; 28 U.S.C.§§2671, 2680 (a); State Ins. Fund v. United States, 346 U.S.15 (1953); Dalehite v. United States, 346 U.S.15 (1953)]
Since medical malpractice laws can frequently be amended or revised on even a yearly basis, including both Federal and state laws, it is important that the reader speak with a knowledgeable attorney with questions and concerns about a claim, and to understand the current medical malpractice laws.
The Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA): A Summary.
All medical malpractice claims against the United States must be filed under a statute called the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA).
The Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) of 1946 was enacted to compensate those who suffer injuries through the wrongful or negligent acts of federal employees. Before the FTCA, the government was basically immune from tortious claims. Through the FTCA however the government waived this sovereign immunity. Under the Federally Supported Health Centers Assistance Acts of 1992 and 1995, both of which arose from the FTCA, HRSA-supported medical centers are effectively federal employees and retain immunity from claims of medical malpractice arising within the scope of their medical duties. However, as the primary insurer of these HRSA-supported health centers the government assumes responsibility for all malpractice settlement claims arising from the malpractice of HRSA-medical providers.
Prerequisites to Filing a Malpractice Claim
Administrative Claim
Before a claimant can file a claim under the FTCA, he must first file it with the federal agency that employs the person responsible for the negligent act. The claim must contain the specific amount of damages requested as well as provide enough information for the agency to determine the claim's merits. Generally, the claim is filed on Standard For 95, which provides instructional information to ensure proper filing. The claim is then reviewed and the agency has six (6) months in which to admit or alternatively deny the claim. If the claim is denied or if the agency does not provide a decision within the statutory six months, the plaintiff can then file a complaint with the federal court. However, if the plaintiff does not wait for the administrative decision and files with a court too early, the court will dismiss because of lack of jurisdiction.Preconditions
The FTCA applies only in situations where the negligent act was committed by a federal employee. It does not cover actions by a contractor or someone receiving governmental funding. This is true even if the act occurred on government property. Additionally, the broad language of the FTCA applies only to negligent acts and does not grant jurisdiction to claims filed under strict or absolute liability.Burden of Proof and Discovery
In a medical malpractice case against the government, a plaintiff must prove through a preponderance of evidence that the alleged health care provider is responsible for the injury. As with any medical malpractice case, the plaintiff should provide expert testimony to show that the negligent doctor or clinic practiced below the requisite standard of care. Additionally, the attorney must investigate the incident by procuring the relevant medical records and documents as well as interviewing witnesses such as the tending doctor and nurses. The plaintiff may also be required to undergo an independent medical examination by a physician to verify the alleged injury.The negligence is defined by the state in which it occurred.
Settlement
In the several months before a scheduled trial, the parties can enter into settlement negotiations.Trial
If there is no agreed upon settlement, the case can then go to trial. A medical malpractice case brought under the FTCA is tried by a federal judge instead of a jury.Damages
Under the FTCA, awarded damages are measured by the law of the place where the negligent act or omission occurred and is determined by applying the whole law of that jurisdiction. Punitive damages are not awarded.[www.militarymedicalmalpracticeblog.com/4/federal-tort-claims-act-ftca; www.medicalmalpractice.com/resources/medical-malpractice/FTCA; bphc.hrsa.gov/ftca; CRS Report for COngress, "Federal Tort Claims Act"; 28 U.S.C.§§2671, 2680 (a); State Ins. Fund v. United States, 346 U.S.15 (1953); Dalehite v. United States, 346 U.S.15 (1953)]
Monday, September 17, 2012
THE BALTIMORE SUN'S ANNIVERSARY --- 175 YEARS!!! BALTIMORE BOOK FESTIVAL (BBF): Author and Attorney Charles Jerome Ware
In celebration of The Baltimore Sun newspaper's 175th Anniversary, the annual Baltimore Book Festival (BBF) will be held at Mount Vernon Place, September 28-30, 2012. Admission is free.
Among many other interesting events such as exhibitors, panel discussions, cooking demos, walking tours, live music, workshops, etc., the festival will feature over 200 celebrity and local authors.
Recent books by Attorney and Author Charles Jerome Ware include best-sellers:
(1) The Secret Science of Winning Lotteries, Sweepstakes and Contests;
http://amzn.com/1432793888
(2) Understanding the Law: A Primer;
http://amzn.com/1440111456
(3) The Immigration Paradox: 15 Tips for Winning Imigration Cases;
http://amzn.com/1440171920
(4) Legal Consumer Tips and Secrets: Avoiding Debtors' Prison in the United States; and
http://amzn.com/1462051847
(5) Quince (15) Consejos Para Ganar Casos Del Inmigracion.
http://amzn.com/1462068952
[www.CharlesJeromeWare.com; facebook.com/BaltimoreBookFestival; Baltimore Office of Promotion & The Arts]
Among many other interesting events such as exhibitors, panel discussions, cooking demos, walking tours, live music, workshops, etc., the festival will feature over 200 celebrity and local authors.
Recent books by Attorney and Author Charles Jerome Ware include best-sellers:
(1) The Secret Science of Winning Lotteries, Sweepstakes and Contests;
http://amzn.com/1432793888
(2) Understanding the Law: A Primer;
http://amzn.com/1440111456
(3) The Immigration Paradox: 15 Tips for Winning Imigration Cases;
http://amzn.com/1440171920
(4) Legal Consumer Tips and Secrets: Avoiding Debtors' Prison in the United States; and
http://amzn.com/1462051847
(5) Quince (15) Consejos Para Ganar Casos Del Inmigracion.
http://amzn.com/1462068952
[www.CharlesJeromeWare.com; facebook.com/BaltimoreBookFestival; Baltimore Office of Promotion & The Arts]
MONEY-LAUNDERING: JP MORGAN CHASE, BANK OF AMERICA, OTHERS UNDER INVESTIGATION
The national general law practice law firm of Charles Jerome Ware, P.A., Attorneys and Counsellors, is: "Still working. Still committed. Still here to make a difference".
Wall Street giants JP Morgan Chase & Company, Bank of America, and other major banks in the U.S. are under investigation by Federal and state regulators, including the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, for alleged failure to comply with U.S. anti-money laundering laws.
Cease and desist orders will probably be issued against several banks soon for their alleged insufficient safeguards to prevent money-laundering, thus enabling drug dealers and terrorists to launder tainted money.
[The New York Times, Business Day, p. B1, Saturday, 9/15/2012; www.reuters.com/article/2012/09/15/JP Morgan Faces Money Laundering Probe; www.huffingtonpost.com/9/17/2012, Money Laundering Prove, JP Morgan Chase, Bank of America: Report]
Wall Street giants JP Morgan Chase & Company, Bank of America, and other major banks in the U.S. are under investigation by Federal and state regulators, including the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, for alleged failure to comply with U.S. anti-money laundering laws.
Cease and desist orders will probably be issued against several banks soon for their alleged insufficient safeguards to prevent money-laundering, thus enabling drug dealers and terrorists to launder tainted money.
[The New York Times, Business Day, p. B1, Saturday, 9/15/2012; www.reuters.com/article/2012/09/15/JP Morgan Faces Money Laundering Probe; www.huffingtonpost.com/9/17/2012, Money Laundering Prove, JP Morgan Chase, Bank of America: Report]
Friday, September 14, 2012
WASHINGTON MEDICAL MALPRACTICE: Fundamentals of DC Medical Negligence: PART 2
This is Part 2 of this blog on Washington, D.C. medical malpractice (medical negligence) fundamentals. Part 1 was published on Thursday, September 13th, 2012 on "Attorney Charles Ware's Blog", http://charlesware.blogspot.com/2012/08/washington-medical-malpractice.
The national law firm of Charles Jerome Ware, P.A., Attorneys and Counsellors, contains a premier medical malpractice (medical negligence) practice that is truly: "Still working. Still committed. Still here to make a difference." The firm and its affiliates have a successful track record of high recoveries in medical negligence and wrongful death cases.
As always, the reader of our blogs, and our web-postings, and our website is advised, counselled and urged to contact a knowledgeable attorney about his or her possible claim since, among other things, D.C. and state laws are constantly subject to change in this important area of medical negligence. Contact us for a free initial consultation.
There are some general tort principles concerning medical malpractice/medical negligence in Washington, D.C.:
(1) "Contributory Negligence" is a common-law defense in Washington, D.C. This defense ordinarily establishes a complete bar to recovery.
However, defenses of "contributory negligence" and "assumption of the risk" are not available against employees in actions based an employer's breach of the statutory duty to provide reasonably safe working conditions for employees. An exception exists where the employee's actions are with willful, wanton, or reckless disregard for his own safety.
The national law firm of Charles Jerome Ware, P.A., Attorneys and Counsellors, contains a premier medical malpractice (medical negligence) practice that is truly: "Still working. Still committed. Still here to make a difference." The firm and its affiliates have a successful track record of high recoveries in medical negligence and wrongful death cases.
As always, the reader of our blogs, and our web-postings, and our website is advised, counselled and urged to contact a knowledgeable attorney about his or her possible claim since, among other things, D.C. and state laws are constantly subject to change in this important area of medical negligence. Contact us for a free initial consultation.
There are some general tort principles concerning medical malpractice/medical negligence in Washington, D.C.:
(1) "Contributory Negligence" is a common-law defense in Washington, D.C. This defense ordinarily establishes a complete bar to recovery.
However, defenses of "contributory negligence" and "assumption of the risk" are not available against employees in actions based an employer's breach of the statutory duty to provide reasonably safe working conditions for employees. An exception exists where the employee's actions are with willful, wanton, or reckless disregard for his own safety.
[See generally, Felton v. Wagner, 518 A.2d 291 (D.C. 1986); Elam v. Ethical Prescription Pharmacy, Inc., 422 A.2d 1288 (D.C. 1980); Martin v. George Hyman Construction Co., 395 A.2d 63 (D.C. 1978)].
(2) The "Assumption of Risk" defense is applicable when a plaintiff gets into an adverse situation voluntarily, and with full knowledge of the risk, and with full appreciation of the dangers.
However, the reader should note the exception under "contributory negligence" and the general rule that the "assumption of the risk" defense does not apply to employees in the course of their employment.
[See generally, Kanelos v. Kettler, 132 U.S. App. D.C. 133, 406 F.2d 951 (1968); Scoggins v. Jude, 419 A.2d 999 (D.C. 1980)].
(3) The defendant is liable (at fault) under the "Doctrine of Last Clear Chance" if:
- the plaintiff was put in a position of danger which was caused by the negligence of both the defendant and the plaintiff;
- the plaintiff was unaware of the danger or unable to extricate herself from the position of danger;
- the defendant knew or should have known of the plaintiff's danger and inability to aid him/herself;
- the defendant failed to exercise reasonable care to avoid injuring the plaintiff; and
- there is evidence that the defendant had a reasonable opportunity to avoid the dangerous situation.
[See generally, Robinson v. District of Columbia, 644 A.2d 1084 (D.C. 1994); Felton v. Wagner, 512 A.2d 291 (D.C. 1986); District of Columbia v. Huysman, 650 A.2d 1323 (D.C. 1994).]
(4) Washington, D.C. recognizes and accepts the "Doctrine of Respondent Superior": i.e., the employer/master may be liable for employee/servant's torts committed while acting within scope of employment. When the doctrine applies, the employer/master/principal is strictly liable for the damages caused by the employee/servant/agent's negligence, regardless of whether the employer is at fault.
The employee does not lose liability he otherwise had because of respondeat superior; and in the District, the employer has a right of indemnity against wrongdoing employee for the losses sustained and paid by master/employer under respondeat superior. The doctrine applies only to servant/agents, not to independent contractors, over whose physical acts the employer has no control.
(5) The "Doctrine of Res Ipsa Loquistur" may apply where the cause of the accident is known, it is in the defendant's control, and it was unlikely to do harm unless the person in control was negligent.
Remember: consult an attorney. And, keep the conversation going. J
BALTIMORE BOOK FESTIVAL (BBF): Author and Attorney Charles Jerome Ware
In celebration of The Baltimore Sun newspaper's 175th Anniversary, the annual Baltimore Book Festival (BBF) will be held at Mount Vernon Place, September 28-30, 2012. Admission is free.
Among many other interesting events such as exhibitors, panel discussions, cooking demos, walking tours, live music, workshops, etc., the festival will feature over 200 celebrity and local authors.
Recent books by Attorney and Author Charles Jerome Ware include best-sellers:
(1) The Secret Science of Winning Lotteries, Sweepstakes and Contests;
http://amzn.com/1432793888
(2) Understanding the Law: A Primer;
http://amzn.com/1440111456
(3) The Immigration Paradox: 15 Tips for Winning Imigration Cases;
http://amzn.com/1440171920
(4) Legal Consumer Tips and Secrets: Avoiding Debtors' Prison in the United States; and
http://amzn.com/1462051847
(5) Quince (15) Consejos Para Ganar Casos Del Inmigracion.
http://amzn.com/1462068952
[www.CharlesJeromeWare.com; facebook.com/BaltimoreBookFestival; Baltimore Office of Promotion & The Arts]
Among many other interesting events such as exhibitors, panel discussions, cooking demos, walking tours, live music, workshops, etc., the festival will feature over 200 celebrity and local authors.
Recent books by Attorney and Author Charles Jerome Ware include best-sellers:
(1) The Secret Science of Winning Lotteries, Sweepstakes and Contests;
http://amzn.com/1432793888
(2) Understanding the Law: A Primer;
http://amzn.com/1440111456
(3) The Immigration Paradox: 15 Tips for Winning Imigration Cases;
http://amzn.com/1440171920
(4) Legal Consumer Tips and Secrets: Avoiding Debtors' Prison in the United States; and
http://amzn.com/1462051847
(5) Quince (15) Consejos Para Ganar Casos Del Inmigracion.
http://amzn.com/1462068952
[www.CharlesJeromeWare.com; facebook.com/BaltimoreBookFestival; Baltimore Office of Promotion & The Arts]
Thursday, September 13, 2012
WASHINGTON MEDICAL MALPRACTICE: Fundamentals of DC Medical Negligence: PART 1
The national law firm of Charles Jerome Ware, P.A., Attorneys and Counsellors contains a premier medical malpractice (medical negligence) practice that is truly "here to make a difference". The firm and its affiliates have a successful track record of high recoveries in medical negligence and wrongful death cases.
The reader is advised, counselled and urged to contact a knowledgeable attorney about his or her possible claim since, among other things, D.C. and state laws are constantly subject to change in this important area of medical negligence. Contact us for a free initial consultation.
A. The Washington, D.C. Standard for Medical Negligence (Professional Negligence):
The D.C. standard of care for all actions in negligence is "reasonable care under the circumstances".
The D.C. standard of care for professionals, however, is "the degree of care reasonably expected of other professionals with similar skills acting under the same or similar circumstances".
[The District has adopted a national standard for physicians, not a local standard. See generally O'Neil v. Bergan, 452 A.2d 337 (D.C. 1982) (attorneys); Morrison v. MacNamara, 407 A.2d. 555 (D.C. 1979). Punitive Damages; counsel.cua.edu/DCLAW/Pres.Inj./General;]
B. Statute of Limitations:
The statute of limitations for medical negligence claims in Washington, D.C. is three (3) years
[D.C. Code Annotated, §12-301 (2008)].
As with most states, the 3-year statute of limitations begins when the medical malpractice (medical negligence) claimant (1) actually knows of the injury, (2) the cause of the injury, and (3) has evidence of a medical mistake.
The medical negligence claimant's knowledge includes not only "actual notice" but also "inquiry notice," which is defined as "investigating matters affecting one's affairs such that an investigation would have led to the uncovering of these three factors."
[D.C. Code, § 12-301 (2008)].
Minors, mentally incompetent, or imprisoned medical malpractice victims may bring their action within three years following the removal of their disability [D.C. Code Ann. §12-302 (2008)]. A wrongful death action must be brought within one year of the date of death [D.C. Code Ann. § 16-2702 (2008)].
C. Contributory or Comparative Negligence:
Washington, D.C. is one of the five (5) current jurisdictions in the United States that follows and abides by the doctrine of "contributory negligence" in medical negligence cases [Stager v. Schneider, 494 A. 2d 1307 (D.C., 1985)]. This means that even if a medical negligence claimant is only one percent (1%) at fault for his or her injury, their claim is barred.
Part 2 of this blog on the fundamentals of D.C. Medical Negligence will be forthcoming.
The reader is advised, counselled and urged to contact a knowledgeable attorney about his or her possible claim since, among other things, D.C. and state laws are constantly subject to change in this important area of medical negligence. Contact us for a free initial consultation.
A. The Washington, D.C. Standard for Medical Negligence (Professional Negligence):
The D.C. standard of care for all actions in negligence is "reasonable care under the circumstances".
The D.C. standard of care for professionals, however, is "the degree of care reasonably expected of other professionals with similar skills acting under the same or similar circumstances".
[The District has adopted a national standard for physicians, not a local standard. See generally O'Neil v. Bergan, 452 A.2d 337 (D.C. 1982) (attorneys); Morrison v. MacNamara, 407 A.2d. 555 (D.C. 1979). Punitive Damages; counsel.cua.edu/DCLAW/Pres.Inj./General;]
B. Statute of Limitations:
The statute of limitations for medical negligence claims in Washington, D.C. is three (3) years
[D.C. Code Annotated, §12-301 (2008)].
As with most states, the 3-year statute of limitations begins when the medical malpractice (medical negligence) claimant (1) actually knows of the injury, (2) the cause of the injury, and (3) has evidence of a medical mistake.
The medical negligence claimant's knowledge includes not only "actual notice" but also "inquiry notice," which is defined as "investigating matters affecting one's affairs such that an investigation would have led to the uncovering of these three factors."
[D.C. Code, § 12-301 (2008)].
Minors, mentally incompetent, or imprisoned medical malpractice victims may bring their action within three years following the removal of their disability [D.C. Code Ann. §12-302 (2008)]. A wrongful death action must be brought within one year of the date of death [D.C. Code Ann. § 16-2702 (2008)].
C. Contributory or Comparative Negligence:
Washington, D.C. is one of the five (5) current jurisdictions in the United States that follows and abides by the doctrine of "contributory negligence" in medical negligence cases [Stager v. Schneider, 494 A. 2d 1307 (D.C., 1985)]. This means that even if a medical negligence claimant is only one percent (1%) at fault for his or her injury, their claim is barred.
Part 2 of this blog on the fundamentals of D.C. Medical Negligence will be forthcoming.
JAMES JAGER, Actor: "The Shakespeare Whisperer"
From the national general practice law firm of Charles Jerome Ware, P.A., Attorneys and Counsellors: "Still working. Still committed. Still here to make a difference".
James Jager, a legal assistant in this law firm, is frequently referred to as "The Shakespeare Whisperer" because of his commitment and his interest in the works of the great playwright, his uncanny ability to translate Shakespeare into forms for public understanding and appreciation, and his gift of teaching about this complex and sophisticated dramatist.
Mr. Jager will be appearing (acting) in Shakespeare's "Richard III", probably Shakespeare's greatest villain, from October 5th to the 28th, 2012, at the Patapsco Female Institute Historic Park, 3691 Sarah's Lane, Ellicott City, Maryland 21043, for the Chesapeake Shakespeare Company's "Movable Shakespeare" production.
Keep the conversation going.
James Jager, a legal assistant in this law firm, is frequently referred to as "The Shakespeare Whisperer" because of his commitment and his interest in the works of the great playwright, his uncanny ability to translate Shakespeare into forms for public understanding and appreciation, and his gift of teaching about this complex and sophisticated dramatist.
Mr. Jager will be appearing (acting) in Shakespeare's "Richard III", probably Shakespeare's greatest villain, from October 5th to the 28th, 2012, at the Patapsco Female Institute Historic Park, 3691 Sarah's Lane, Ellicott City, Maryland 21043, for the Chesapeake Shakespeare Company's "Movable Shakespeare" production.
Keep the conversation going.
Wednesday, September 12, 2012
CONNECTICUT MEDICAL MALPRACTICE: Physician/Therapist Patient Abuse
The national law firm of Charles Jerome Ware, P.A., Attorneys and Counsellors, is a premier medical malpractice law firm which is: "Still working. Still committed. Still here to make a difference".
The reader is advised, counselled and urged to consult with a medical malpractice attorney with related legal questions about a possible claim.
A brief survey of Connecticut/therapist patient sexual abuse cases:
(1) $2,750,000 Verdict Against Research Physician Hospital:
MEDICAL MALPRACTICE – HOSPITAL NEGLIGENCE – NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION – FAILURE TO DETECT RESEARCH PHYSICIAN MOLESTED CHILDREN DURING RESEARCH PROJECT – PSYCHOLOGICAL INJURIES AND DAMAGES.
(3) $100,000 Verdict Against Psychiatrist:
MEDICAL MALPRACTICE - PSYCHIATRY - ALLEGED SEXUAL ABUSE OF MINOR PLAINTIFF PATIENT - DEFENDANT DENIES ALL ALLEGATIONS.
The reader is advised, counselled and urged to consult with a medical malpractice attorney with related legal questions about a possible claim.
A brief survey of Connecticut/therapist patient sexual abuse cases:
(1) $2,750,000 Verdict Against Research Physician Hospital:
MEDICAL MALPRACTICE – HOSPITAL NEGLIGENCE – NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION – FAILURE TO DETECT RESEARCH PHYSICIAN MOLESTED CHILDREN DURING RESEARCH PROJECT – PSYCHOLOGICAL INJURIES AND DAMAGES.
In this matter, the plaintiff alleged that the defendant hospital was negligent in failing to monitor and oversee the work of a researcher at the hospital who was performing a growth study on children. The plaintiff alleged that as a child in the study he was molested and otherwise inappropriately treated by the research physician and the defendant failed to realize the true nature of the molester (Connecticut).
(2) $100,000 Verdict Against Therapist and Health Service:
This was an action brought by the male plaintiff against the defendant health service alleging negligence on the part of the defendant’s female employee therapist in allegedly seducing the plaintiff, causing ineffective treatment and relapse into alcoholism.
(3) $100,000 Verdict Against Psychiatrist:
MEDICAL MALPRACTICE - PSYCHIATRY - ALLEGED SEXUAL ABUSE OF MINOR PLAINTIFF PATIENT - DEFENDANT DENIES ALL ALLEGATIONS.
This was a malpractice action brought by the female plaintiff, age ten when she commenced treating with the defendant psychiatrist for symptoms of obsessive-compulsive disorder. The plaintiff, who was age 20, by the time of trial, contended that during the course of her treatment with the defendant psychiatrist, she was sexually molested by the defendant physician (Connecticut).
Tuesday, September 11, 2012
MARYLAND MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, PART 3: A PRIMER by Attorney Charles Jerome Ware
[This is Part 3 of this blog whose previous postings were on Friday, September 7th, 2012 (Part 1) and on Monday, September 10th, 2012 (Part 2). When confronted with any legal problem, including medical malpractice, the reader is specifically advised, counselled, and urged to seek competent and professional legal advice]
The national law firm of Charles Jerome Ware, P.A., Attorneys and Counsellors, is a premier Maryland medical malpractice firm which is: "Still working. Still committed. Still here to make a difference."
The liability of any local government in Maryland is capped at $200,000 per claim and $500,000 per occurrence. Md. Code Ann., Cts. & Jud. Proc. § 5-303 (Supp. 1997). Local governments are immune from liability for punitive damages. Id. The purchase of liability insurance does not waive the entity’s immunity [See Quecedo v. Montgomery County, 264 Md. 590, 287 A.2d 257 (1972) (holding that in the absence of statute to the contrary, a county that maintains liability insurance does not waive its immunity)].
Charitable hospitals carrying liability insurance in an amount not less than $100,000 are not liable for damages in excess of the limits of coverage. Md. Code Ann., Cts. & Jud. Proc. § 5-632 (Supp. 1997). However, that immunity does not extend to the employees of charitable hospitals [Wood v. Abell, 268 Md. 214, 300 A.2d 665 (1973)].
The national law firm of Charles Jerome Ware, P.A., Attorneys and Counsellors, is a premier Maryland medical malpractice firm which is: "Still working. Still committed. Still here to make a difference."
Periodic Payments of Damages
Maryland courts and arbitration panels are afforded the power to order that future damages be paid in the form of periodic payments, subject to adequate security [Md. Code Ann., Cts. & Jud. Proc. § 11-109 (1995)]. Upon the death of a claimant receiving periodic payments, the unpaid balance for future medical expenses reverts to the defendant. Id.Collateral Source Rule
In Maryland, evidence of the claimant’s receipt of payments from collateral sources may not be admitted to reduce his damages [Schreiber v. Cherry Hill Construction Co., 105 Md. App. 462, 660 A.2d 970 (Ct. Spec. App.), cert. denied, 340 Md. 500, 667 A.2d 341 (1995)].Pre-Judgment Interest on Tort Claims
Maryland law does not recognize pre-judgment interest on tort claims for personal injury [Lawhorne v. Employers Ins. Co. of Wausau, 343 Md. 111, 680 A.2d 518 (1996)].Patient Compensation Funds and Physician Insurance
Maryland does not have a patient compensation fund or a program of state-sponsored liability insurance for physicians.Immunities
Under Md. Code Ann., State Gov’t § 12-104 (Supp. 1997), the state has waived its sovereign immunity to the extent of $100,000 per claim. However, such immunity still applies with respect to punitive damages and pre-judgment interest [Md. Code Ann., Cts. & Jud. Proc. § 5-522(a) (Supp. 1997)]. A claimant must provide written notice of his claim within one year of the injury. If the claim is denied, a lawsuit must be filed within three years after the cause of action arises or the claim is barred [Md. Code Ann., State Gov’t § 12-106 (Supp. 1997)].The liability of any local government in Maryland is capped at $200,000 per claim and $500,000 per occurrence. Md. Code Ann., Cts. & Jud. Proc. § 5-303 (Supp. 1997). Local governments are immune from liability for punitive damages. Id. The purchase of liability insurance does not waive the entity’s immunity [See Quecedo v. Montgomery County, 264 Md. 590, 287 A.2d 257 (1972) (holding that in the absence of statute to the contrary, a county that maintains liability insurance does not waive its immunity)].
Charitable hospitals carrying liability insurance in an amount not less than $100,000 are not liable for damages in excess of the limits of coverage. Md. Code Ann., Cts. & Jud. Proc. § 5-632 (Supp. 1997). However, that immunity does not extend to the employees of charitable hospitals [Wood v. Abell, 268 Md. 214, 300 A.2d 665 (1973)].
Monday, September 10, 2012
MEDIA BIAS?: BABY BLACK BOY DISAPPEARS "Despite Pleas, Missing South Carolina Boy Falls By Wayside"
From the national law firm of Charles Jerome Ware, P.A., Attorneys and Counsellors: "Still working. Still committed. Still here to make a difference."
Is the media biased against missing children who are non-white and male? That is just one of the issues being raised in a South Carolina missing child case where the victim (the child) is an 18-month-old black boy.
This wonderful baby boy is every bit as cute as Jon Benet Ramsey or Caylee Anthony, or any other precious missing child but, despite pleas for national attention from the media, attention to this tragic case has not been forthcoming from the media.
Could this lack of attention to 18-month-old baby Amir Jennings be caused by his race, black, and/or his gender, male?
Check on this. You be the judge. Keep the conversation going.
[see, "Despite pleas, missing South Carolina boy falls by wayside," Meg Kinnard, Columbia, South Carolina, cpf.cleanprint.net, Associated Press (AP), 09/09/2012, Newsday, www.newsday.com; www.msnbc.msn.com; NBCNews.com; news.yahoo.com; www.miamiherald.com]
Is the media biased against missing children who are non-white and male? That is just one of the issues being raised in a South Carolina missing child case where the victim (the child) is an 18-month-old black boy.
This wonderful baby boy is every bit as cute as Jon Benet Ramsey or Caylee Anthony, or any other precious missing child but, despite pleas for national attention from the media, attention to this tragic case has not been forthcoming from the media.
Could this lack of attention to 18-month-old baby Amir Jennings be caused by his race, black, and/or his gender, male?
Check on this. You be the judge. Keep the conversation going.
[see, "Despite pleas, missing South Carolina boy falls by wayside," Meg Kinnard, Columbia, South Carolina, cpf.cleanprint.net, Associated Press (AP), 09/09/2012, Newsday, www.newsday.com; www.msnbc.msn.com; NBCNews.com; news.yahoo.com; www.miamiherald.com]
MARYLAND MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, PART 2: A PRIMER by Attorney Charles Jerome Ware
(This is Part 2 of this blog which was posted on Friday, September 7, 2012)
The national law firm of Charles Jerome Ware, P.A., Attorneys and Counsellors, is a premier Maryland medical malpractice firm which is :"Still working. Still committed. Still here to make a difference."
Maryland imposes a limit on recoverable non-economic damages for any personal injury cause of action for medical malpractice accruing after July 1, 1986. Md. Code Ann., Cts. & Jud. Proc. § 11-108 (Supp. 1997). The limit was originally $350,000, but for causes of actions arising on or after October 1, 1994, the limit has been increased to $500,000. Id. Beginning October 1, 1995, and every October 1 thereafter, the limit on non-economic damages is increased by $15,000. Id. Non-economic damages include pain and suffering, inconvenience, physical impairment, disfigurement, loss of consortium, and other non-pecuniary damages, but not punitive damages. Id. The damage cap applies to each “direct victim” of the tort and all those claiming injury by or through him [Id.; Oaks v. Connors, 339 Md. 24, 660 A.2d 423 (1995) (a single cap applies to the injured person’s claim and the spouse’s consortium claim). This statute does not violate Maryland’s constitution. Murphy v. Edmonds, 325 Md. 342, 601 A.2d 102 (1992)].
Prior to the 1994 amendment, the statute had been held not to apply to wrongful death cases [United States v. Streidel, 329 Md. 533, 620 A.2d 905 (1993). However, the statute now provides that the cap applies to wrongful death, and that the total recovery of all beneficiaries in a wrongful death case cannot exceed 150 percent of the cap. Md. Code Ann., Cts. & Jud. Proc. § 11-108 (Supp. 1997)].
Medical Malpractice Cap
____________________________________________________
[see, www.millerandzois.com/maryland-medical-malpractice-cap]
[No attorney-client relationship is established with anyone merely through this abovereferenced blog and/or information. Always seek personal professional advice and consultation].
The national law firm of Charles Jerome Ware, P.A., Attorneys and Counsellors, is a premier Maryland medical malpractice firm which is :"Still working. Still committed. Still here to make a difference."
EXPERT TESTIMONY
Expert testimony is required in all successful Maryland medical malpractice cases. Maryland Code, § 3-2A-04 of the Courts & Judicial Proceedings Article (CJP), requires a person who wishes to pursue a claim against a health care provider for damages due to medical injury to file the claim with the Director of the Health Claims Arbitration Office.
JOINT AND SEVERAL LIABILITY
In Maryland, joint tortfeasors are jointly and severally liable; each must assume and bear the responsibility for the misconduct of all [Carroll v. Kerrigen, 173 Md. 627, 197 A. 127 (1938); Cooper v. Bikle, 334 Md. 608, 640 A.2d 1120 (1994)].
CONTRIBUTION
In Maryland a joint tortfeasor who pays more than his pro rata share has a right of contribution against other joint tortfeasors whose liability was extinguished by the judgment or settlement and who have not paid their pro rata share. Md. Code Ann., Cts. & Jud. Proc. § 3-1402 (Supp. 1997). The tortfeasors’ pro rata shares are determined by dividing the judgment equally among the tortfeasors [Lahocki v. Contee Sand & Travel Co., 41 Md. App. 579, 398 A.2d 490 (Ct. Spec. App. 1979), rev’d on other grounds sub nom. General Motors Corp. v. Lahocki, 286 Md. 714, 410 A.2d 1039 (1980)].
VICARIOUS LIABILITY
In Maryland, a hospital may, under appropriate circumstances, be held responsible for the negligent acts of its independently- contracted physicians, based on principles of apparent agency [Mehlman v. Powell, 281 Md. 269, 378 A.2d 1121 (1977) (holding that an apparent agency relationship existed because the hospital did nothing to indicate an emergency physician’s true status as an independent contractor)].
DAMAGES
As in most other states, the issue of damages continues to be a major issue in Maryland.
Prior to the 1994 amendment, the statute had been held not to apply to wrongful death cases [United States v. Streidel, 329 Md. 533, 620 A.2d 905 (1993). However, the statute now provides that the cap applies to wrongful death, and that the total recovery of all beneficiaries in a wrongful death case cannot exceed 150 percent of the cap. Md. Code Ann., Cts. & Jud. Proc. § 11-108 (Supp. 1997)].
Medical Malpractice Cap
on Damages in Maryland
| Medical Malpractice (MD CODE, CTS. & JUD. PROC. §3-2A-09) | |||
| Cause of action arises on or after | Limit on all claims from same medical injury (except wrongful death) | Limit on all claims if wrongful death cases is filed with two or more beneficiaries | Total limit |
| 10/1/1996 | $530,000.00 | $795,000.00 | $1,325,000.00 |
| 10/1/1997 | $545,000.00 | $817,500.00 | $1,362,500.00 |
| 10/1/1998 | $560,000.00 | $840,000.00 | $1,400,000.00 |
| 10/1/1999 | $575,000.00 | $862,500.00 | $1,437,500.00 |
| 10/1/2000 | $590,000.00 | $885,000.00 | $1,475,000.00 |
| 10/1/2001 | $605,000.00 | $907,500.00 | $1,512,500.00 |
| 10/1/2002 | $620,000.00 | $930,000.00 | $1,550,000.00 |
| 10/1/2003 | $635,000.00 | $952,500.00 | $1,587,500.00 |
| 10/1/2004 | $650,000.00 | $975,000.00 | $1,625,000.00 |
| New Malpractice Cap | | ||
| 1/1/2005 | $650,000.00 | $812,500.00 | $812,500.00 |
| 1/1/2006 | $650,000.00 | $812,500.00 | $812,500.00 |
| 1/1/2007 | $650,000.00 | $812,500.00 | $812,500.00 |
| 1/1/2008 | $650,000.00 | $812,500.00 | $812,500.00 |
| 1/1/2009 | $665,000.00 | $831,250.00 | $831,250.00 |
| 1/1/2010 | $680,000.00 | $850,000.00 | $850,000.00 |
| 1/1/2011 | $695,000.00 | $868,750.00 | $868,750.00 |
| 1/1/2012 | $710,000.00 | $887,500.00 | $887,500.00 |
| 1/1/2013 | $725,000.00 | $906,250.00 | $906,250.00 |
| 1/1/2014 | $740,000.00 | $925,000.00 | $925,000.00 |
| 1/1/2015 | $755,000.00 | $943,750.00 | $943,750.00 |
[see, www.millerandzois.com/maryland-medical-malpractice-cap]
[No attorney-client relationship is established with anyone merely through this abovereferenced blog and/or information. Always seek personal professional advice and consultation].
Friday, September 7, 2012
MARYLAND MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, PART 1: A Primer by Charles Jerome Ware
The national law firm of Charles Jerome Ware is a premier Maryland medical malpractice firm, which is: "Still working. Still committed. Still here to make a difference."
[see, Chapter Two, "Medical Malpractice", Legal Consumer Tips and Secrets, by Charles Jerome Ware, iUniverse (2011); "The Four Elements of Medical Malpractice", Yale University Medical Center: Issues in Risk Management, info.med.yale.edu (1997); "Changing the Malpractice System", by Clive E. Reinhardt, The New York Times, October 1, 2010; "The Facts About Medical Malpractice in Maryland", Public Citizen Congress Watch, Rev. January 2004; "Notes from the Chair of the Board", newsletter of the Medical Mutual Liability Insurance Society of Maryland, October 2002; "28% Rise Sought to Insure Doctors", Greg Garland, Baltimore Sun, June 28, 2003; "Medical Reform Locked in Fight", Stephanie Desmon, Baltimore Sun, March 17, 2003]
A wrongful death action brought by the decedent’s dependents must be filed within three years after death [Md. Code Ann., Cts. & Jud. Proc. § 3-904 (1995)]. This statute applies to a wrongful death action brought on a medical malpractice theory, while § 5-109 applies to a survival action brought by the decedent’s estate [Geisz v. Greater Baltimore Medical Center, 313 Md. 301, 545 A.2d 658 (1988)].
[see, Chapter Two, "Medical Malpractice", Legal Consumer Tips and Secrets, by Charles Jerome Ware, iUniverse (2011); "The Four Elements of Medical Malpractice", Yale University Medical Center: Issues in Risk Management, info.med.yale.edu (1997); "Changing the Malpractice System", by Clive E. Reinhardt, The New York Times, October 1, 2010; "The Facts About Medical Malpractice in Maryland", Public Citizen Congress Watch, Rev. January 2004; "Notes from the Chair of the Board", newsletter of the Medical Mutual Liability Insurance Society of Maryland, October 2002; "28% Rise Sought to Insure Doctors", Greg Garland, Baltimore Sun, June 28, 2003; "Medical Reform Locked in Fight", Stephanie Desmon, Baltimore Sun, March 17, 2003]
STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS
Generally, in Maryland any medical malpractice action must be filed either within five (5) years from the date when the injury was committed or three (3) years from the date when the injury was first discovered, whichever is earlier [Md. Code Ann., Cts. & Jud. Proc. § 5-109 (1995)]. Against a minor, the statute does not begin to run until a claimant has reached the age of eleven, and if the action involves a foreign object or injury to the reproductive system, the statute does not begin to run until the claimant is sixteen. Id. Maryland’s highest court has held that the five-year part of the statute is not measured from the date treatment ends and does not violate the state constitution [Hill v. Fitzgerald, 304 Md. 689, 501 A.2d 27 (1985)].
CONTRIBUTORY OR COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE
Maryland is one of the few remaining states that recognizes the traditional common law doctrine of contributory negligence. [Harrison v. Montgomery County Bd. of Ed., 295 Md. 442, 456 A.2d 894 (1983)]. Thus, any negligence by a claimant may bar his recovery completely.
PART 2 of this blog will be forthcoming.
PSYCHIATRY MALPRACTICE VERDICTS, SETTLEMENTS AND RECOVERIES: An Update by Attorney Charles Jerome Ware
From the national law firm of Charles Jerome Ware, P.A., Attorneys and Counsellors; a premier medical malpractice law firm headquartered in Columbia, Howard County, Maryland: "Still working. Still committed. Still here to make a difference."
This multi-state survey of psychiatry malpractice verdicts, settlements and recoveries is a cursory summary of only a few cases:
(6) Over $1,000,000 Verdict: Medical Malpractice - Psychiatry - Former model sues therapist for manipulation and sexual voyeurism - Abuse of doctor-patient privileges.
This multi-state survey of psychiatry malpractice verdicts, settlements and recoveries is a cursory summary of only a few cases:
BACKGROUND
Psychiatric malpractice lawsuits are a variation of medical malpractice that involves psychiatrists instead of physicians. Even though psychiatrists are trained medical doctors, they also have training in psychotherapy techniques and psychopharmacological drugs.
Psychiatrists also differ from other psychotherapists, who may have either a PhD or PsyD from an accredited university and are licensed by the state or are licensed clinical social workers (LCSWs) [www.person-injuryinfo.net/psychiatric-malpractice].
RECOVERIES
(1) Reduced Observation of Psychiatric Patient Blamed For His Suicide By Hanging. Verdict to family of $71,989.00 returned, apportioning 65% fault to the hospital and 35% to the psychiatrist.
A 45-year-old police lieutenant who suffered from alcohol abuse and depression was admitted to a psychiatric care family. He was classified "Q15", a category assigned to patients who must be visually inspected every 15 minutes, cannot have access to sharp objets or any other material or object they can use to inflict bodily harm, and must request permission to use restrooms. The next day the psychiatrist examined the patient and moved him to a "Q30" status, which halved the frequency of visual inspections, gave the patient unrestricted access to restrooms, and allowed him to have a bathrobe with a belt.
The patient committed suicide by hanging himself with the bathrobe belt the very next day, using the restroom door to support a noose he made with the belt (Honolulu, Hawaii Circuit Court).
(2) $3,000,000 Confidential Recovery: MEDICAL MALPRACTICE – PSYCHIATRY – OUTPATIENT BEHAVIORAL SERVICE PROVIDER AND SOCIAL WORKER NEGLIGENCE – FAILURE TO DIAGNOSE AND REPORT ABUSE AND NEGLECT RESULTING IN TRAUMATIC BRAIN INJURY TO ADOPTED CHILD.
In this malpractice matter, the plaintiff conservator for the child alleged that the various health care provider defendants were negligent in observing, but failing to report injuries observed to be consistent with an abusive relationship. The child sustained a traumatic brain injury as a result of the unreported instances of abuse. The defendants denied the allegations and disputed liability (Massachusetts).
(3) $1,000,000 Recovery: Medical Malpractice - Psychiatry - negligent prescription of Zyprexa to plaintiff results in Tardive Dyskinesia.
In this action for medical malpractice, the plaintiff alleged that the defendant’s negligent prescription of the anti- psychotic medication, Zyprexa, caused her to suffer uncontrollable involuntary movement of the tongue. The defendant generally denied liability (San Bernardino County, California).
(4) Over $1,000,000 Confidential Recovery: MEDICAL MALPRACTICE – PSYCHIATRY – OUTPATIENT BEHAVIORAL SERVICE PROVIDER AND SOCIAL WORKER NEGLIGENCE – FAILURE TO DIAGNOSE AND REPORT ABUSE AND NEGLECT RESULTING IN TRAUMATIC BRAIN INJURY TO ADOPTED CHILD.
In this malpractice matter, the plaintiff conservator for the child alleged that the various health care provider defendants were negligent in observing, but failing to report injuries observed to be consistent with an abusive relationship. The child sustained a traumatic brain injury as a result of the unreported instances of abuse. The defendants denied the allegations and disputed liability (Massachusetts).
(5) $500,000 Recovery: Medical Malpractice – Psychiatry – Failure to admit and treat a suicidal patient – Wrongful Death of 55-year-old male.
The estate of the male decedent alleged that the defendants failed to admit the decedent to a psychiatric unit and negligently discharged the decedent to his home when he was severely depressed and suicidal. As a result, the decedent took his own life a few days after being treated by the defendants. The defendants all denied any negligence (Bucks County, Pennsylvania).
(6) Over $1,000,000 Verdict: Medical Malpractice - Psychiatry - Former model sues therapist for manipulation and sexual voyeurism - Abuse of doctor-patient privileges.
In this case a former jeans model sued her psychiatrist after he crossed the line in treatment, setting her up with fellow patients and interrogating her about sexual details of her encounters with the men. The plaintiff successfully recovered her treatment fees, as well as $1,000,000 for pain and suffering in the Supreme Court of New York County (New York County, New York).
[www.power2u.org/NationalEmpowermentCenter/ Patricia E. Deegan, PhD; medicalmalpracticerelief.com/medical-malpractice-verdicts; www.jfponline.com/ The Journal of Family Practice/Vol. 6, No. 6/June 2007; www.jvra.com/ Jury Verdict Review & Analysis]
Thursday, September 6, 2012
DIVORCES DIRTY WORLDWIDE: Australia, Serbia and Cambodia
From the national general law practice of Charles Jerome Ware, P.A., Attorneys and Counsellors: "Still working. Still committed. Still here to make a difference."
James Jager is a legal assistant with this law firm. Mr. Jager is also a Shakespearean actor and teacher of acting and drama.
- "Man forced to dig up graves in Australian divorce":
An Australian man is getting a dirtier divorce than he expected.
The Sydney Morning Herald reported Tuesday, August 4th, 2012, that the man, known only by his pseudonym, Mr. Moss, is being forced to dig up his parents' ashes after his ex-wife was awarded their family farm in the divorce settlement.
Mr. Moss created a memorial garden on the property after his father died in 2002. When his mother died six years later, her urn was buried there as well. According to the newspaper, Mr. Moss was given 14 days to remove the headstones and urns from the property.
The judge reportedly granted the property to Mr. Moss' ex-wife because she was unemployed and unable to purchase a similar property within their community, unlike Mr. Moss, whose annual salary is $160,000.
- "Serbian Farmer cuts equipment and tools in half":
A disgruntled Serbian farmer cut all of his farm equipment and tools in half to settle his marital property division obligations pursuant to a court order. He kept half and delivered the other half to his ex-wife in 2008.
- "Cambodian man gives new meaning to half-ownership of house":
In a down-and-dirty 2008 divorce in Cambodia an unhappy husband angrily sawed his house in half to allegedly satisfy a court-ordered distribution of half of the marital home to his ex-wife.
[http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/04/dirty-divorce; and see, Understanding the Law: A Primer, by Attorney Charles Jerome Ware, iUniverse (2008)]
James Jager is a legal assistant with this law firm. Mr. Jager is also a Shakespearean actor and teacher of acting and drama.
- "Man forced to dig up graves in Australian divorce":
An Australian man is getting a dirtier divorce than he expected.
The Sydney Morning Herald reported Tuesday, August 4th, 2012, that the man, known only by his pseudonym, Mr. Moss, is being forced to dig up his parents' ashes after his ex-wife was awarded their family farm in the divorce settlement.
Mr. Moss created a memorial garden on the property after his father died in 2002. When his mother died six years later, her urn was buried there as well. According to the newspaper, Mr. Moss was given 14 days to remove the headstones and urns from the property.
The judge reportedly granted the property to Mr. Moss' ex-wife because she was unemployed and unable to purchase a similar property within their community, unlike Mr. Moss, whose annual salary is $160,000.
- "Serbian Farmer cuts equipment and tools in half":
A disgruntled Serbian farmer cut all of his farm equipment and tools in half to settle his marital property division obligations pursuant to a court order. He kept half and delivered the other half to his ex-wife in 2008.
- "Cambodian man gives new meaning to half-ownership of house":
In a down-and-dirty 2008 divorce in Cambodia an unhappy husband angrily sawed his house in half to allegedly satisfy a court-ordered distribution of half of the marital home to his ex-wife.
[http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/04/dirty-divorce; and see, Understanding the Law: A Primer, by Attorney Charles Jerome Ware, iUniverse (2008)]
"LINSANITY", RG3, "UNBELIEVABLY UNBELIEVABLE": Trademark Updates from Attorney Charles Jerome Ware
The national general practice law firm of Charles Jerome Ware, P.A., Attorneys and Counsellors, is: "Still working. Still committed. Still here to make a difference."
Alan J. Kennedy, Esquire heads the firm's Intellectual Property Law department in Columbia, Howard County, Maryland. Attorney Kennedy is formerly trademark counsel for NASA (the National Aeronautics and Space Administration) in Washington D.C. He is an engineering graduate of Purdue University as well as a University of Maryland School of Law graduate.
[www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-05-29/sony-apple-linsanity-rgIII-wwe-intellectual-property; www.businessweek.com/2012/02/17/kodak-Linsanity-pirate-bay-mattel-intellectualproperty; www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/17/jeremy-lin-linsanity-trademark; www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/linsanity-the-trademark/2012-02-16]
- "LINSANITY", the Trademark, now belongs to Jeremy Lin
It's official. The U.S Patent and Trademark Office has ruled that the word "Linsanity" belongs to former New York Knicks point guard Jeremy Lin. Lin was among several individuals who filed for trademark rights earlier this year (2012). The athlete now controls "all Lin-related trademarks" according to his intellectual property law attorney.
- Robert Griffin III, NFL Quarterback, Seeks Trademark for Phrase "Unbelievably Unbelievable", Among Others
Robert Griffin II, new rookie quarterback for the NFL's Washington Redskins' football team, has applied to register the following names and phrases as trademarks: "Unbelievably Unbelievable", "Dream Big, Live Bigger", "Robert Griffin III", "RG3", and "RGill".
According to the ESPN website, Griffin is the first NFL player to be permitted to use a Roman numeral on the back of his football jersey. Above his number his name will be listed as "Griffin III."
Keep the conversation going.
Alan J. Kennedy, Esquire heads the firm's Intellectual Property Law department in Columbia, Howard County, Maryland. Attorney Kennedy is formerly trademark counsel for NASA (the National Aeronautics and Space Administration) in Washington D.C. He is an engineering graduate of Purdue University as well as a University of Maryland School of Law graduate.
[www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-05-29/sony-apple-linsanity-rgIII-wwe-intellectual-property; www.businessweek.com/2012/02/17/kodak-Linsanity-pirate-bay-mattel-intellectualproperty; www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/17/jeremy-lin-linsanity-trademark; www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/linsanity-the-trademark/2012-02-16]
- "LINSANITY", the Trademark, now belongs to Jeremy Lin
It's official. The U.S Patent and Trademark Office has ruled that the word "Linsanity" belongs to former New York Knicks point guard Jeremy Lin. Lin was among several individuals who filed for trademark rights earlier this year (2012). The athlete now controls "all Lin-related trademarks" according to his intellectual property law attorney.
- Robert Griffin III, NFL Quarterback, Seeks Trademark for Phrase "Unbelievably Unbelievable", Among Others
Robert Griffin II, new rookie quarterback for the NFL's Washington Redskins' football team, has applied to register the following names and phrases as trademarks: "Unbelievably Unbelievable", "Dream Big, Live Bigger", "Robert Griffin III", "RG3", and "RGill".
According to the ESPN website, Griffin is the first NFL player to be permitted to use a Roman numeral on the back of his football jersey. Above his number his name will be listed as "Griffin III."
Keep the conversation going.
Wednesday, September 5, 2012
"Deadbeat" Parents: A Report by Shavina Mukesh, Esquire
Shavina Mukesh is a family law attorney associated with the national law firm of Charles Jerome Ware, P.A., Attorneys & Counsellors.
Deadbeat Parents is a term referring to parents of either gender refusing or unwilling to pay court/agency ordered child support. The equivalent of deadbeat parents in legal terms is parents who are "not in compliance" or parents who are "criminally not in compliance."
Deadbeat parents are becoming a growing problem in the United States. According to the United States Census Bureau, "47.3% of custodial mothers received all the child support they were owed and 77.5% received some". Additionally, "46.2% of custodial fathers received all the child support that they were owed and 74.5% received some".
One of the main reasons single mothers go on welfare is that fathers have failed to meet their responsibility towards their children.
Congress found that dads are more likely to be delinquent on their child support obligations when they crossed state lines. In 1998, President Bill Clinton signed a new law that will make it a federal crime to cross state lines in order to avoid child support payments. The Deadbeat Parents Punishment Act entails felony punishment for a parent who moves to another state, or country, with the intention of evading child support payments if the debt has remained unpaid for over a year or is great than $5,000.00.
According to the Deadbeat Parents Punishment Act, a deadbeat parent is somebody who:
1. Is ordered to pay child support by the courts;
2. Is aware of the child support obligation;
3. Has willfully chosen not to pay child support for twelve months or is at least $5,000 in arrerage towards their child support payments.
There are also many other sanctions that can be applied to a parent who is "not in compliance" or "criminally not in compliance". Some of these are:
Deadbeat Parents is a term referring to parents of either gender refusing or unwilling to pay court/agency ordered child support. The equivalent of deadbeat parents in legal terms is parents who are "not in compliance" or parents who are "criminally not in compliance."
Deadbeat parents are becoming a growing problem in the United States. According to the United States Census Bureau, "47.3% of custodial mothers received all the child support they were owed and 77.5% received some". Additionally, "46.2% of custodial fathers received all the child support that they were owed and 74.5% received some".
One of the main reasons single mothers go on welfare is that fathers have failed to meet their responsibility towards their children.
Congress found that dads are more likely to be delinquent on their child support obligations when they crossed state lines. In 1998, President Bill Clinton signed a new law that will make it a federal crime to cross state lines in order to avoid child support payments. The Deadbeat Parents Punishment Act entails felony punishment for a parent who moves to another state, or country, with the intention of evading child support payments if the debt has remained unpaid for over a year or is great than $5,000.00.
According to the Deadbeat Parents Punishment Act, a deadbeat parent is somebody who:
1. Is ordered to pay child support by the courts;
2. Is aware of the child support obligation;
3. Has willfully chosen not to pay child support for twelve months or is at least $5,000 in arrerage towards their child support payments.
There are also many other sanctions that can be applied to a parent who is "not in compliance" or "criminally not in compliance". Some of these are:
- Suspend driver's license/professional license
- Deny passport
- Garnish paycheck
- Intercept federal/state income tax refund
TRADE SECRETS, TRADEMARKS: INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW UPDATES
From the national general practice law firm of Charles Jerome Ware, P.A., Attorneys and Counsellors: "Still working. Still committed. Still here to make a difference."
- "Disney, DC Comics, Sanrio Sue Party Animals, LLC for Trademark and Copyright Infringement":
The Walt Disney Co. sued a Southern California provider of birthday-party entertainment for trademark and copyright infringement.
Co-plaintiffs with Disney are Tokyo’s Sanrio Co. (8136), which is famous for its Hello Kitty character, and Time Warner Inc.’s DC Comics unit. The suit, filed Aug. 27 in federal court in Los Angeles, claims Party Animals LLC of Marina Del Rey, California, infringes intellectual property associated with licensed characters belonging to the three companies.
Party Animals is accused of infringing by its distribution, sale or rental of character costumers and related merchandise. Among the characters claimed to be infringed are Mickey and Minnie Mouse, Batman, Superman, Wonder Woman, Pluto, Goofy, Hello Kitty and Dear Daniel.
The Party Animals website lists “look alike characters”that include a “Green Guy,” “Princess Aurora,” “Superheroes,” and a “Brown Dog.” According to a statement on the company’s website, “Look-a-like characters are not officially licensed. We do not use or have copyrighted or licensed material, costumes or names.”
The owners of the licensed characters say they are harmed by the actions of the party company, and asked for court orders barring further infringement. Additionally they asked that the company be required to surrender for destruction all offending products and promotional material, and requested that they be transferred the party company’s Internet domain name.
The damages they seek are $200,000 for each infringed trademark, and, if the court determines that infringement is deliberate, for the damages to be increased to $2 million per mark. They also asked that awards of damages and of profits derived from the alleged infringement be tripled to punish the defendants for their actions.
The case is Disney Enterprises v. Jason Lancaster, 2:12-cv-07347-DDP-JC, U.S. District Court, Central District of California (Los Angeles).
- "DuPont Wins Court Order Barring Kolon From Selling Body-Armor Fiber":
DuPont Co. (DD), the inventor of Kevlar, the body-armor, has won a ruling barring Kolon Industries Inc.’s sales of a competing version of the product used in protective clothing for police and the military for the next 20 years.
U.S. District Judge Robert Payne in Richmond, Virginia, in an Aug. 20, 2012 order barred Kolon from selling products in the U.S. made with its para-aramid fiber after a jury found last year that the South Korean manufacturer stole trade secrets relating to the Kevlar fiber and should pay more than $919 million in damages.
DuPont, based in Wilmington, Delaware, is expanding Kevlar production to meet rising demand for armor and lightweight materials that reduce energy use. The company opened a $500 million plant in South Carolina last year to boost output of the material for use in products such as tires, auto parts and fiber-optic cables.
Jurors in federal court in Richmond found in September 2011 that Gyeonggi-based Kolon and its U.S. unit wrongfully obtained proprietary information about Kevlar by hiring some former DuPont engineers and marketers.
DuPont sued Kolon in February 2009 alleging it stole confidential Kevlar data. DuPont began selling the bullet-resistant fiber in 1965 and it’s used in body armor, military helmets, ropes, cables and tires. Kolon began making its own version of the para-aramid fiber in 2005.
Jurors found Kolon got access to Kevlar secrets by hiring Michael Mitcher, a former DuPont engineer who also had served as a Kevlar marketing executive.
In his order, Payne note that jurors concluded Kolon executives “willfully and maliciously misappropriated” Kevlar secrets and the company engaged in “unlawful conduct.”
As a result, Kolon is barred for a period of 20 years from“manufacturing, using, marketing, promoting, selling, distributing, offering for sale or soliciting customers for any para-aramid product,” the judge said.
The case is E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. v. Kolon Industries Inc. (120110), 09-cv-00058, U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Virginia (Richmond).
- "University of Pennsylvania Settles Trade Secrets Lawsuit With Sloan-Kettering President Craig Thompson":
Trade secrets litigation involving the president of New York’s Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, Dr. Craig Thompson, the University of Pennsylvania, and two biotech companies has settled, according to an Aug. 31 joint statement.
The lawsuits were related to research conducted by Dr. Craig Thompson, the president of Sloan-Kettering, that was funded by a $100 million donation from the Leonard and Madlyn Abramson Family Cancer Research Institute at the University of Pennsylvania. The university and the foundation accused Thompson of allegedly breaching an agreement with the foundation by failing to disclose his discoveries to the institute, instead providing the information to a company he founded and publishing it in an international journal.
Terms of the settlement weren’t disclosed. The parties said in a statement that Thompson’s company, Agios Pharmaceuticals Inc., has entered into a collaboration agreement with the University of Pennsylvania covering the development of diagnostic products to detect the metabolism of come cancers.
The two cases are Trustees of the University of Pennsylvania v. Thompson, 12-cv-1330, U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York (Manhattan), and Leonard and Madlyn Abramson Family Cancer Research Institute v. Thompson, 11-09108, U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York (Manhattan).
[www.businessweek.com/news/2012-09-04/akamai-apple-disney-dupont]
- "Disney, DC Comics, Sanrio Sue Party Animals, LLC for Trademark and Copyright Infringement":
The Walt Disney Co. sued a Southern California provider of birthday-party entertainment for trademark and copyright infringement.
Co-plaintiffs with Disney are Tokyo’s Sanrio Co. (8136), which is famous for its Hello Kitty character, and Time Warner Inc.’s DC Comics unit. The suit, filed Aug. 27 in federal court in Los Angeles, claims Party Animals LLC of Marina Del Rey, California, infringes intellectual property associated with licensed characters belonging to the three companies.
Party Animals is accused of infringing by its distribution, sale or rental of character costumers and related merchandise. Among the characters claimed to be infringed are Mickey and Minnie Mouse, Batman, Superman, Wonder Woman, Pluto, Goofy, Hello Kitty and Dear Daniel.
The Party Animals website lists “look alike characters”that include a “Green Guy,” “Princess Aurora,” “Superheroes,” and a “Brown Dog.” According to a statement on the company’s website, “Look-a-like characters are not officially licensed. We do not use or have copyrighted or licensed material, costumes or names.”
The owners of the licensed characters say they are harmed by the actions of the party company, and asked for court orders barring further infringement. Additionally they asked that the company be required to surrender for destruction all offending products and promotional material, and requested that they be transferred the party company’s Internet domain name.
The damages they seek are $200,000 for each infringed trademark, and, if the court determines that infringement is deliberate, for the damages to be increased to $2 million per mark. They also asked that awards of damages and of profits derived from the alleged infringement be tripled to punish the defendants for their actions.
The case is Disney Enterprises v. Jason Lancaster, 2:12-cv-07347-DDP-JC, U.S. District Court, Central District of California (Los Angeles).
- "DuPont Wins Court Order Barring Kolon From Selling Body-Armor Fiber":
DuPont Co. (DD), the inventor of Kevlar, the body-armor, has won a ruling barring Kolon Industries Inc.’s sales of a competing version of the product used in protective clothing for police and the military for the next 20 years.
U.S. District Judge Robert Payne in Richmond, Virginia, in an Aug. 20, 2012 order barred Kolon from selling products in the U.S. made with its para-aramid fiber after a jury found last year that the South Korean manufacturer stole trade secrets relating to the Kevlar fiber and should pay more than $919 million in damages.
DuPont, based in Wilmington, Delaware, is expanding Kevlar production to meet rising demand for armor and lightweight materials that reduce energy use. The company opened a $500 million plant in South Carolina last year to boost output of the material for use in products such as tires, auto parts and fiber-optic cables.
Jurors in federal court in Richmond found in September 2011 that Gyeonggi-based Kolon and its U.S. unit wrongfully obtained proprietary information about Kevlar by hiring some former DuPont engineers and marketers.
DuPont sued Kolon in February 2009 alleging it stole confidential Kevlar data. DuPont began selling the bullet-resistant fiber in 1965 and it’s used in body armor, military helmets, ropes, cables and tires. Kolon began making its own version of the para-aramid fiber in 2005.
Jurors found Kolon got access to Kevlar secrets by hiring Michael Mitcher, a former DuPont engineer who also had served as a Kevlar marketing executive.
In his order, Payne note that jurors concluded Kolon executives “willfully and maliciously misappropriated” Kevlar secrets and the company engaged in “unlawful conduct.”
As a result, Kolon is barred for a period of 20 years from“manufacturing, using, marketing, promoting, selling, distributing, offering for sale or soliciting customers for any para-aramid product,” the judge said.
The case is E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. v. Kolon Industries Inc. (120110), 09-cv-00058, U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Virginia (Richmond).
- "University of Pennsylvania Settles Trade Secrets Lawsuit With Sloan-Kettering President Craig Thompson":
Trade secrets litigation involving the president of New York’s Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, Dr. Craig Thompson, the University of Pennsylvania, and two biotech companies has settled, according to an Aug. 31 joint statement.
The lawsuits were related to research conducted by Dr. Craig Thompson, the president of Sloan-Kettering, that was funded by a $100 million donation from the Leonard and Madlyn Abramson Family Cancer Research Institute at the University of Pennsylvania. The university and the foundation accused Thompson of allegedly breaching an agreement with the foundation by failing to disclose his discoveries to the institute, instead providing the information to a company he founded and publishing it in an international journal.
Terms of the settlement weren’t disclosed. The parties said in a statement that Thompson’s company, Agios Pharmaceuticals Inc., has entered into a collaboration agreement with the University of Pennsylvania covering the development of diagnostic products to detect the metabolism of come cancers.
The two cases are Trustees of the University of Pennsylvania v. Thompson, 12-cv-1330, U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York (Manhattan), and Leonard and Madlyn Abramson Family Cancer Research Institute v. Thompson, 11-09108, U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York (Manhattan).
[www.businessweek.com/news/2012-09-04/akamai-apple-disney-dupont]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)