Wednesday, July 23, 2014
Attorney Charles Ware's Blog: BALTIMORE LANDLORD STRATEGIES FOR FIGHTING LEAD PA...
Attorney Charles Ware's Blog: BALTIMORE LANDLORD STRATEGIES FOR FIGHTING LEAD PA...: www.charlesjeromeware.com " Here to make a difference." Charles Jerome Ware, Attorneys & Counselors, LLC, is a premie...
BALTIMORE LANDLORD STRATEGIES FOR FIGHTING LEAD PAINT CASES: Defense Lawyer's Update
www.charlesjeromeware.com " Here to make a difference."
Charles Jerome Ware, Attorneys & Counselors, LLC, is a premier Maryland-based national landlord lead paint poisoning defense law firm. For an initial courtesy consultation, contact us at charlesjeromeware@msn.com, (410) 730-5016 or (410) 720-6129. We can help you when you are sued for lead paint poisoning.
Baltimore landlords should be aware of the following, inter alia :
1. Any Baltimore residential unit that was built prior to 1978 should be treated by landlords as though it does in fact contain lead-based paint, unless a lead paint-certified risk professional has issued a written report indicating that the entire property has been properly tested and in fact does not contain lead-based paint.
2. The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has reported that "undisturbed" lead paint (i.e., in good condition, etc.) is usually not harmful. It is when the lead paint is "disturbed" that lead poisoning problems can develop. Disturbed lead point normally includes lead dust, and lead-based paint that is chipped, peeling, cracked, or otherwise deteriorated. These issues must be addressed immediately by the landlord or landowner.
3. Paint on and in residential units should be regularly checked -- and written observations made, dated and signed by the qualified person making the observations, and areas of the home where painted surfaces rub together, such as windows, should be regularly checked. Whenever feasible, get the tenant to sign-off on these inspections.
4. Pursuant to the Residential Lead-Based Paint Hazard Reduction Act, also known as Title X, landowners and landlords must inform the residents (tenants) or applicants to purchase (buyers)
that the possibility of lead paint exists (if true). In sum, disclosure of known information on lead-based paint and lead-based paint hazards must be made before the sale or lease of most residential units.
Charles Jerome Ware, Attorneys & Counselors, LLC, is a premier Maryland-based national landlord lead paint poisoning defense law firm. For an initial courtesy consultation, contact us at charlesjeromeware@msn.com, (410) 730-5016 or (410) 720-6129. We can help you when you are sued for lead paint poisoning.
Baltimore landlords should be aware of the following, inter alia :
1. Any Baltimore residential unit that was built prior to 1978 should be treated by landlords as though it does in fact contain lead-based paint, unless a lead paint-certified risk professional has issued a written report indicating that the entire property has been properly tested and in fact does not contain lead-based paint.
2. The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has reported that "undisturbed" lead paint (i.e., in good condition, etc.) is usually not harmful. It is when the lead paint is "disturbed" that lead poisoning problems can develop. Disturbed lead point normally includes lead dust, and lead-based paint that is chipped, peeling, cracked, or otherwise deteriorated. These issues must be addressed immediately by the landlord or landowner.
3. Paint on and in residential units should be regularly checked -- and written observations made, dated and signed by the qualified person making the observations, and areas of the home where painted surfaces rub together, such as windows, should be regularly checked. Whenever feasible, get the tenant to sign-off on these inspections.
4. Pursuant to the Residential Lead-Based Paint Hazard Reduction Act, also known as Title X, landowners and landlords must inform the residents (tenants) or applicants to purchase (buyers)
that the possibility of lead paint exists (if true). In sum, disclosure of known information on lead-based paint and lead-based paint hazards must be made before the sale or lease of most residential units.
Friday, July 18, 2014
HOWARD COUNTY, MD DUI/DWI BASICS
www.CharlesJeromeWare.com. "Here to make a difference."
Charles Jerome Ware, Attorneys & Counselors, LLC, is a premier Maryland-based national DUI and DWI drunk-driving defense law firm. Attorney Charles Ware himself is ranked "one of the BEST 10 DUI/DWI Defense Attorneys in the State of Maryland" by the American Institute for DUI/DWI Attorneys [AIDUIA]. For an initial courtesy consultation, contact the firm at charlesjeromeware@msn.com, (410) 730-5016 or (410) 720-6129.
Drunk-driving laws in Maryland are relatively complex. Therefore, a competent drunk-driving defense attorney is important to have on your team in this state.
Maryland Drunk Driving Laws: DUI Versus DWI:
Under Maryland drunk driving laws, a distinction is made between being over the legal blood-alcohol limit and driving while impaired by alcohol.
Driving while impaired is considered a lesser offense than driving under the influence, and thus the penalties for DWI are less severe than those for DUI.
You may be arrested and charged with a DUI in Maryland if, via chemical testing, a police officer determines that your blood-alcohol content is .08 percent or higher. This is the legal limit in Maryland.
To receive the lesser charge of a DWI in Maryland, your blood-alcohol content must fall between .07 and .08 percent. Once again, this will be determined through chemical testing.
Charles Jerome Ware, Attorneys & Counselors, LLC, is a premier Maryland-based national DUI and DWI drunk-driving defense law firm. Attorney Charles Ware himself is ranked "one of the BEST 10 DUI/DWI Defense Attorneys in the State of Maryland" by the American Institute for DUI/DWI Attorneys [AIDUIA]. For an initial courtesy consultation, contact the firm at charlesjeromeware@msn.com, (410) 730-5016 or (410) 720-6129.
Drunk-driving laws in Maryland are relatively complex. Therefore, a competent drunk-driving defense attorney is important to have on your team in this state.
Maryland Drunk Driving Laws: DUI Versus DWI:
Under Maryland drunk driving laws, a distinction is made between being over the legal blood-alcohol limit and driving while impaired by alcohol.
Driving while impaired is considered a lesser offense than driving under the influence, and thus the penalties for DWI are less severe than those for DUI.
You may be arrested and charged with a DUI in Maryland if, via chemical testing, a police officer determines that your blood-alcohol content is .08 percent or higher. This is the legal limit in Maryland.
To receive the lesser charge of a DWI in Maryland, your blood-alcohol content must fall between .07 and .08 percent. Once again, this will be determined through chemical testing.
Tuesday, July 15, 2014
Attorney Charles Ware's Blog: BALTIMORE LEAD PAINT POISONING : DEFENSE COUNSEL U...
Attorney Charles Ware's Blog: BALTIMORE LEAD PAINT POISONING : DEFENSE COUNSEL U...: www.charlesjeromeware.com . "Here to make a difference." Charles Jerome Ware, Attorneys & Counselors, LLC, is a premier M...
BALTIMORE LEAD PAINT POISONING : DEFENSE COUNSEL UPDATE
www.charlesjeromeware.com. "Here to make a difference."
Charles Jerome Ware, Attorneys & Counselors, LLC, is a premier Maryland-based national landlord lead-paint poisoning defense law firm. For an initial courtesy consultation, contact us at charlesjeromeware@msn.com, (410) 730-5016 or (410) 720-6129.
BALTIMORE LEAD PAINT POISONING CASES CONTINUE TO DECLINE.
According to recent reports by Maryland's Department of the Environment, the number of lead paint poisoning cases in Baltimore are continuing to decline, despite the fact that state and federal officials
have lowered the threshold lead levels in the blood reflecting the need for lead poisoning concern.
State and local officials credit much of the decline in lead poisoning cases to Maryland's 20-year old law requiring landlords of homes built before 1950, when lead-based paint was widely used, to reduce risks that young tenants could be exposed to peeling or flaking paint [ " Lead poisoning cases continue to decline"; The Baltimore Sun; 09/24/2013; by Timothy B. Wheeler].
According to state officials, most of the more seriously lead-poisoned children lived in residential units (homes) that are not now regulated by the state: either owner-occupied or rental housing built between 1950 and 1978. However, state regulators are now expanding their focus to newer rental homes and are authorized to increase scrutiny on renovation practices that might generate lead-paint dust in owner-occupied homes as well.
2015 Developments
Regulators at the Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE) plan to begin regulating newer rental homes in 2015, as state law requires; particularly in regards to renovations.
Charles Jerome Ware, Attorneys & Counselors, LLC, is a premier Maryland-based national landlord lead-paint poisoning defense law firm. For an initial courtesy consultation, contact us at charlesjeromeware@msn.com, (410) 730-5016 or (410) 720-6129.
BALTIMORE LEAD PAINT POISONING CASES CONTINUE TO DECLINE.
According to recent reports by Maryland's Department of the Environment, the number of lead paint poisoning cases in Baltimore are continuing to decline, despite the fact that state and federal officials
have lowered the threshold lead levels in the blood reflecting the need for lead poisoning concern.
State and local officials credit much of the decline in lead poisoning cases to Maryland's 20-year old law requiring landlords of homes built before 1950, when lead-based paint was widely used, to reduce risks that young tenants could be exposed to peeling or flaking paint [ " Lead poisoning cases continue to decline"; The Baltimore Sun; 09/24/2013; by Timothy B. Wheeler].
According to state officials, most of the more seriously lead-poisoned children lived in residential units (homes) that are not now regulated by the state: either owner-occupied or rental housing built between 1950 and 1978. However, state regulators are now expanding their focus to newer rental homes and are authorized to increase scrutiny on renovation practices that might generate lead-paint dust in owner-occupied homes as well.
2015 Developments
Regulators at the Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE) plan to begin regulating newer rental homes in 2015, as state law requires; particularly in regards to renovations.
Friday, July 11, 2014
BALT. LANDLORD DEFENSE LEAD-PAINT CASE RISK ASSESSMENT
www.CharlesJeromeWare.com. "Here to make a difference."
Charles Jerome Ware, Attorneys & Counselors, LLC, is the premier Maryland-based national lead-paint poisoning defense law firm. If you are being sued in a lead-paint poisoning case, contact us at charlesjeromeware@msn.com, (410) 730-5016 or (410) 720-6129.
There are numerous risk factors that landlords in Baltimore, Maryland should be aware of in assessing whether they could be sued for lead-paint poisoning. Just a few are as follows:
[http://www2.epa.gov/lead/evaluating-and-eliminating-lead-basedpainthazards; http://www2.epa.gov/lead/protect-your-family]
Charles Jerome Ware, Attorneys & Counselors, LLC, is the premier Maryland-based national lead-paint poisoning defense law firm. If you are being sued in a lead-paint poisoning case, contact us at charlesjeromeware@msn.com, (410) 730-5016 or (410) 720-6129.
There are numerous risk factors that landlords in Baltimore, Maryland should be aware of in assessing whether they could be sued for lead-paint poisoning. Just a few are as follows:
- If your residential rental unit was built before 1978 you are at risk of a lead poisoning law suit.
- Assuming 1, supra, if an infant or child (5 years old or less) either lived or visited the residential unit during your ownership term, you are at risk of a lead poisoning lawsuit.
- If your unit was not "lead certified" during your ownership period, you are at risk of a lead poisoning lawsuit.
- If other residential units on your block or in your vicinity have experienced lead-paint poisoning lawsuits, you too are at risk of being sued.
- If your residential unit was not/is not well-maintained, you are at risk of a lead poisoning lawsuit.
[http://www2.epa.gov/lead/evaluating-and-eliminating-lead-basedpainthazards; http://www2.epa.gov/lead/protect-your-family]
Attorney Charles Ware's Blog: MOLAR EXTRACTION DENTAL NEGLIGENCE ? : Maryland Me...
Attorney Charles Ware's Blog: MOLAR EXTRACTION DENTAL NEGLIGENCE ? : Maryland Me...: www.charlesjeromeware.com . "Here to make a difference." Charles Jerome Ware, Attorneys & Counselors, LLC, is a premier ...
MOLAR EXTRACTION DENTAL NEGLIGENCE ? : Maryland Med. Mal. Lawyer Update
www.charlesjeromeware.com. "Here to make a difference."
Charles Jerome Ware, Attorneys & Counselors, LLC, is a premier Maryland-based national dental, medical, and hospital negligence law firm. For an initial courtesy consultation, contact us at charlesjeromeware@msn.com, (410) 730-5016 or (410) 720-6129.
{ The information provided herein is not intended to be legal, nor dental, nor medical advice]
ALVEOLAR NERVE INJURED DURING MOLAR EXTRACTION
[reference: MedQuest, info@medquestltd.com/07-10-14]
A dental surgery patient underwent a wisdom tooth extraction and suffered injury to the right Inferior Alveolar Nerve, which eventually resulted in a right Sagittal Split Osteotomy of the mandible. The patient's injury is permanent.
Dental Expert Discussion: This type of injury is a known risk of this molar extraction procedure that should be disclosed to the patient by the dentist prior to the surgery ( pursuant to the informed consent process). despite the best surgical care this injury can occur. Also, the injury could be caused
by a deviation from the standard of care (poor or negligent care).
The protocol for managing nerve injuries is immediate referral to a nerve specialist if known nerve transection has occurred, or close observation for spontaneous return of sensation with referral at 2-3 months if no improvement. The nerve injury itself, alone, is not necessarily indicative of a deviation from the standard of care. The timing of referral for micro-neurosurgical evaluation is based upon multiple factors, including specifics/findings of the surgical procedure, early post-extraction presentation, early/ongoing sensory status/recovery, etc.
Charles Jerome Ware, Attorneys & Counselors, LLC, is a premier Maryland-based national dental, medical, and hospital negligence law firm. For an initial courtesy consultation, contact us at charlesjeromeware@msn.com, (410) 730-5016 or (410) 720-6129.
{ The information provided herein is not intended to be legal, nor dental, nor medical advice]
ALVEOLAR NERVE INJURED DURING MOLAR EXTRACTION
[reference: MedQuest, info@medquestltd.com/07-10-14]
A dental surgery patient underwent a wisdom tooth extraction and suffered injury to the right Inferior Alveolar Nerve, which eventually resulted in a right Sagittal Split Osteotomy of the mandible. The patient's injury is permanent.
Dental Expert Discussion: This type of injury is a known risk of this molar extraction procedure that should be disclosed to the patient by the dentist prior to the surgery ( pursuant to the informed consent process). despite the best surgical care this injury can occur. Also, the injury could be caused
by a deviation from the standard of care (poor or negligent care).
The protocol for managing nerve injuries is immediate referral to a nerve specialist if known nerve transection has occurred, or close observation for spontaneous return of sensation with referral at 2-3 months if no improvement. The nerve injury itself, alone, is not necessarily indicative of a deviation from the standard of care. The timing of referral for micro-neurosurgical evaluation is based upon multiple factors, including specifics/findings of the surgical procedure, early post-extraction presentation, early/ongoing sensory status/recovery, etc.
Thursday, July 10, 2014
AIA PATENT "VALIDITY REVIEWS" INCREASE: MD. INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY UPDATE
www.CharlesJeromeWare.com. "Here to make a difference."
Charles Jerome Ware, Attorneys & Counselors, LLC, is a Maryland-based boutique national law firm with highly-regarded and well-respected representation experience for its clients in several areas of law, including patent litigation. The firm has provided successful representation of its clients since 1988. For an initial courtesy consultation, contact us at charlesjeromeware@msn.com, (410) 730-5016 or (410) 720-6129. [The information provided herein is not intended to be legal advice and it does not create an attorney-client relationship].
With an increase in patent reviews (aka, "validity reviews") being received by the U.S. Patent and Trade Office (USPTO) under post-grant procedures established under the 2011 and 2012 versions of the America Invents Act (AIA), both sides in patent litigation cases may be helped --- but in particular defendants in patent infringement matters.
Typically relying on expert witness declarations in actions with the USPTO's Patent Review Board (PRB), the significant increase in these patent "validity reviews" could be caused by a desire on the part of the courts to help "level the playing field" between patent owners and challengers, and reduce the incidence of frivolous lawsuits.
The perception by many that these "validity reviews" help level the litigation playing field for parties named in infringement cases is that these reviews weaken the ability of plaintiffs to merely rely on the high costs associated with patent litigation to leverage large settlements from accused infringers early on in cases [reference: Greg Leighton, Esq., Neal Gerber & Eisenberg].
In sum, it appears that this new trend of increased AIA "validity reviews" affords litigating parties the potential for avoiding the time-consuming and typically costly litigation associated with traditional cases alleging infringement [reference, Stephen Gray, technology expert witness].
[http://trexpertwitness.com/litigation-news/america-invents-act]
Charles Jerome Ware, Attorneys & Counselors, LLC, is a Maryland-based boutique national law firm with highly-regarded and well-respected representation experience for its clients in several areas of law, including patent litigation. The firm has provided successful representation of its clients since 1988. For an initial courtesy consultation, contact us at charlesjeromeware@msn.com, (410) 730-5016 or (410) 720-6129. [The information provided herein is not intended to be legal advice and it does not create an attorney-client relationship].
With an increase in patent reviews (aka, "validity reviews") being received by the U.S. Patent and Trade Office (USPTO) under post-grant procedures established under the 2011 and 2012 versions of the America Invents Act (AIA), both sides in patent litigation cases may be helped --- but in particular defendants in patent infringement matters.
Typically relying on expert witness declarations in actions with the USPTO's Patent Review Board (PRB), the significant increase in these patent "validity reviews" could be caused by a desire on the part of the courts to help "level the playing field" between patent owners and challengers, and reduce the incidence of frivolous lawsuits.
The perception by many that these "validity reviews" help level the litigation playing field for parties named in infringement cases is that these reviews weaken the ability of plaintiffs to merely rely on the high costs associated with patent litigation to leverage large settlements from accused infringers early on in cases [reference: Greg Leighton, Esq., Neal Gerber & Eisenberg].
In sum, it appears that this new trend of increased AIA "validity reviews" affords litigating parties the potential for avoiding the time-consuming and typically costly litigation associated with traditional cases alleging infringement [reference, Stephen Gray, technology expert witness].
[http://trexpertwitness.com/litigation-news/america-invents-act]
Wednesday, July 9, 2014
$10 MILLION HOSPITAL E.R. NEGLIGENCE: MARYLAND MED. MAL. LAWYER UPDATE
www.CharlesJeromeWare.com. "Here to make a difference."
Charles Jerome Ware, Attorneys and Counselors, LLC, is a premier Maryland-based national medical malpractice law firm with a proven record of successful representation of victims in hospital negligence cases. For an initial courtesy consultation, contact us at charlesjeromeware@msn.com, (410) 730-5016 or (410) 720-6129.
Larin's Jury Verdict & Analysis (JVRA.com) is reporting a hospital negligence verdict of $9,279,885.00 involving an emergency room. In this Fairfield, Connecticut medical malpractice matter, the 72 year-old female patient brought a civil suit against the hospital alleging it was negligent in administering an overdose of Levenex anticoagulant medication that caused her a massive retroperitoneal hemorrhage and respiratory arrest. This came after the patient was presented to the defendant hospital's emergency room with complaints of a urinary tract infection. The patient developed a deep vein thrombosis at the site due to a PICC line required to treat the urosepsis.
The defendant hospital admitted liability, but disputed causation and damages; alleging that the plaintiff's failure to take care of herself which the hospital maintained was the underlying cause of the plaintiff's current disability, and not the medication overdose.
The case went to trial; the jury deliberated for 1 and 1/2 hours and returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff for $9,279,885.00.
[http://www.jvra.com/verdict_trak/article/191453]
Charles Jerome Ware, Attorneys and Counselors, LLC, is a premier Maryland-based national medical malpractice law firm with a proven record of successful representation of victims in hospital negligence cases. For an initial courtesy consultation, contact us at charlesjeromeware@msn.com, (410) 730-5016 or (410) 720-6129.
Larin's Jury Verdict & Analysis (JVRA.com) is reporting a hospital negligence verdict of $9,279,885.00 involving an emergency room. In this Fairfield, Connecticut medical malpractice matter, the 72 year-old female patient brought a civil suit against the hospital alleging it was negligent in administering an overdose of Levenex anticoagulant medication that caused her a massive retroperitoneal hemorrhage and respiratory arrest. This came after the patient was presented to the defendant hospital's emergency room with complaints of a urinary tract infection. The patient developed a deep vein thrombosis at the site due to a PICC line required to treat the urosepsis.
The defendant hospital admitted liability, but disputed causation and damages; alleging that the plaintiff's failure to take care of herself which the hospital maintained was the underlying cause of the plaintiff's current disability, and not the medication overdose.
The case went to trial; the jury deliberated for 1 and 1/2 hours and returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff for $9,279,885.00.
[http://www.jvra.com/verdict_trak/article/191453]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)