Attorney Charles Ware's Blog: August 2014

Friday, August 29, 2014

TRIUMPH THROUGH CHALLENGE (TTC) - Women DUI DEFENDANTS IN MARYLAND: WE CAN HELP YOU!

www.charlesjeromeware.com. " Here to make a difference."

Defense attorney Charles Ware is recognized by his many clients and legal peers as "One of Maryland's 10 BEST DUI and DWI Attorneys". This recognition is supported and confirmed by the American Institute of DUI and DWI Attorneys [AIDUIA]. Attorney Ware is particularly known and respected for his numerous successful representations over the years of women charged with DUI and DWI offenses. Indeed, Mr. Ware is frequently called upon to speak before a variety of groups on the unique issues facing the rapidly increasing numbers of women charged with drunk driving offenses.

If you are a woman who has been arrested or charged for " driving under the influence" (DUI) or "driving while intoxicated " (DWI) in Howard County, Maryland or anywhere else in the State of Maryland, you need to call me, Charles Ware, at (410) 730-5016 or (410) 720-6129. The unique defenses I can raise that are applicable to women could mean the difference between a drunk driving conviction and a dismissal of the charges against you. We can help you. Guaranteed.

DUI PROBLEM SOLVER: CHARLES WARE, "MARYLAND 10 BEST" ATTORNEY

www.CharlesJeromeWare.com. "Here to make a difference." He can help you. Guaranteed.

Among his numerous awards and accomplishments, premier Maryland defense attorney Charles Jerome Ware is recognized and ranked by both his many satisfied clients and his legal peers as "One of the 10 BEST DUI and DWI ATTORNEYS in the State of Maryland." This honor is researched, surveyed and confirmed by a respected national legal organization: The American Institute for DUI and DWI Attorneys [AIDUIA].

For an initial courtesy consultation, call defense attorney Charles Ware at (410) 720-6129 or (410) 730-5016, or email him at charlesjeromeware@msn.com. He can help you. Guaranteed.

TRIUMPH THROUGH CHALLENGE -- MD. VEHICLE LAW: MARYLAND "10 BEST" ATTORNEY

www.CharlesJeromeWare.com. "Here to make a difference." We can help you.

Defense attorney Charles Ware, among other accomplishments and wards such as "U.S. Super Lawyer", inter alia, is ranked and recognized by his many satisfied clients and legal peers as "One of the 10 BEST DUI and DWI Attorneys in the State of Maryland; as researched, surveyed, and confirmed by the national trial lawyers organization The American Institute of DUI and DWI Attorneys" [AIDUIA].

MARYLAND VEHICLE LAW

This blog looks at a few key Maryland laws related to car accident claims and settlements, including time limits for filing a lawsuit, and how your claim might be affected if you’re found to be partially at fault for causing the accident. Read on for details.

I. Time Limits for Bringing a Lawsuit in Maryland:

Maryland (and every state) has enacted laws that limit the amount of time you have to file a lawsuit after the damage that prompts it. These laws are called “statutes of limitations,” and different kinds of cases have different limits. Maryland’s relevant time limits for lawsuits that might be filed after a car accident are:

three years for filing a personal injury lawsuit (Md. Courts & Jud. Proc. Code Ann. § 5-101)
three years for filing a lawsuit for property damage (i.e. damage to a vehicle) (Md. Courts & Jud. Proc. Code Ann. § 5-101).

These time limits apply only to filing a lawsuit after a car accident, not to filing an insurance claim. However, when planning your strategy for an insurance claim you should factor in the statute of limitations. If negotiations break down, you’ll want to still be able to file a personal injury lawsuit in court. A claim adjuster has little reason to negotiate with you if you have no recourse in the courts, so you should file your insurance claim as soon as possible after an accident.

You should be warned that the government has given itself certain advantages in law suits, so if your car accident involved the government in any way (a city bus rear-ended you, or the accident happened on government property, for example) you’ll be subject to a different set of rules. One of the government’s advantages is an abbreviated statute of limitations, so you have to move quickly and carefully.

II. Comparative Fault Rules in Maryland:

States have different systems for handling comparative fault -- the situation in which more than one party is at-fault for an accident. Maryland is one of the few states that still follows the fairly harsh old doctrine known, in legalese, as “contributory negligence.” Under this system, you are completely barred from recovery if you were at all at fault -- if your carelessness contributed to the accident to any degree.

This law not only binds Maryland judges and juries in a formal lawsuit (if you get to that stage of your dispute), but will also guide an insurance claim adjuster when evaluating your case. A claim adjuster’s strategy in often based on anticipating what is likely to happen in court. Remember that since there is no empirical means to allocate fault, any assignment of liability will ultimately come down to your ability to negotiate with a claim adjuster or to persuade a judge or jury.

An example will help explain how Maryland’s contributory negligence rule would be applied in real life. Let’s say that you’re in a car accident where another driver swerves into your lane and sideswipes you while you are driving a few miles over the speed limit, resulting in a collision. After a civil trial, the jury determines that the other driver is 90% at fault, while the fact that you were speeding makes you 10% liable. Under Maryland’s contributory negligence regime, you would be unable to recover at all. Change those numbers to 99% and 1%, and you are still barred from getting any compensation after the accident. Maryland’s contributory negligence rule is pretty unforgiving. It requires that the other party be 100% at fault before you can recover anything.

III. Car Insurance Rules in Maryland:

Maryland laws on car insurance may also come into play after a car accident. For everything you need to know about car insurance in Maryland -- including the minimum amounts of coverage required for registered vehicles in operation in the state.

[2010 Maryland Code, Transportation, Title 21-Vehicle Laws-Rules of the Road; www.mva.maryland.gov/about-mva/ir]

TRIUMPH THROUGH CHALLENGE: WINNING DEFENSE LEAD PAINT CASES IN BALTIMORE

www.CharlesJeromeWare.com. "Here to make a difference." We can help defendants.

Charles Jerome Ware, Attorneys & Counselors, is a premier Maryland-based nationally-respected and highly-regarded lead-based paint poisoning defense law firm. For an initial courtesy consultation, call us at (410) 730-5016 or (410) 720-6129, or email us at charlesjeromeware@msn.com. We can help you defend yourself against Baltimore lead paint poisoning cases. Guaranteed.

When it comes to lead-based paint poisoning cases in Baltimore, let us just say it is difficult being a landlord. Lead-based paint is in fact a problem in Baltimore; so much so that, indeed, numerous local judges, officials and other commentators have suggested that in certain circumstances lead poisoning cases are "indefensible." We respectfully disagree. We believe there can always be defenses.

Lead paint poisoning claims can be defended on a number of grounds including other sources of the lead besides paint as well as challenging the Center for Disease Control's (CDC'S) conclusions regarding the effect on the blood of certain blood-levels of lead.

Recommendations for Landlords

In an effort to reduce potential claims and assist in the defense of claims being pursued, it is recommended that landlords adopt the following measures:

        (1). Prior to renting the premises to anyone, require the applicant-tenant to disclose in writing the names and current ages of all persons who will reside in the premises.
        (2). Inspect the premises WITH the applicant-tenant and require them to sign an inspection sheet confirming that each room is free of peeling, flaking, or other defective paint conditions.
        (3). Conduct periodic inspections of each apartment or residence anf follow the same procedure with respect to the maintenance of inspection sheets(checklists) signed by tenants.
        (4). Treat ALL complaints of peeling or flaking paint conditions as emergencies requiring immediate attention.
        (5). Retain Maryland-licensed and insured contractors with experience in the field to perform any required lead abatement work.
        (6). Paint the premises every three years and maintain copious records of all maintenance, repair, and paint work performed within each unit.
        (7). If denied access to the premises to perform these inspections or maintenance work, document the denial within the tenant's folder immediately, and follow-up with a letter to the tenant confirming their failure to allow the landlord to gain access to the premises.

"ISI," IMMIGRANT SPOUSE ISSUES IN MARYLAND DIVORCE

www.CharlesJeromeWare.com. "Here to make a difference."

Charles Jerome Ware, Attorneys & Counselors, LLC, is a Maryland-based nationally-respected and highly-regarded boutique law firm with a highly successful record in divorce and family law issues. For an initial courtesy consultation, call us at (410) 730-5016 or (410) 720-6129, or email us at charlesjeromeware@msn.com. We can help you

Divorce can be a gut-wrenching experience. Aside from the emotional pain you are going through, you must also deal with the complexities and complications that come with the legalities of divorce. Issues such as child support, child custody, alimony, equitable distribution, and even legal fees can make a divorce more complex and painful than it needs to be. When divorcing a woman you have married from a foreign country, the complications are quite often more numerous; the lucky thing for you is that the complications most often fall in the lap of the immigrant. On top of the issues mentioned above, divorce with an immigrant will often involve in-depth immigration and financial issues as well. Many of the specifics will depend on your own unique situation.

While the divorce process will be conducted according to the laws of the state in which you apply for the divorce, the actual immigration process will be handled by the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services Office. When dealing with this situation, you should consult both a divorce attorney and an immigration attorney. This will give you the clearest approach to the situation, with perspectives and opinions from all sides.

Many major differences with immigrant divorce arise when the U.S. spouse has decided to sponsor the foreign spouse's immigration application. This is quite common, obviously, since the U.S. spouse wants their foreign partner to officially and legally reside with them in the United States. However, the sponsorship of their immigration application can become a complicated area during a divorce process.

International Child Custody Issues

With an international divorce, further complications arise when there are children involved. While some international marriages end with a pleasant parting of the spouses and a legitimate, fair custody situation established, many of them do not. On the contrary, these other instances can become destructive, life-changing events.

Unfortunately, international child abduction cases have become quite common. When the marriage between a U.S. citizen and an immigrant comes to an end, the divorce will be more complicated when children are added to the equation. Because many foreign spouses do not want to risk losing their child/children, they will simply flee the country. Without strict exit controls in the United States, anyone with a passport can leave the country. Therefore, it is shockingly simple for an angry spouse to abduct a child and run away.

Too often, the fleeing spouse is successful. Once hidden away in their destination country, they can acquire custody of the child/children and leave the "left-behind parent" alone and unaware of the situation. Not only does this horrible occurrence involve complex law and regulation, but the emotional pain and repercussions can be severe for both the child/children and the left-behind parent.

The children's lives will be disrupted in many ways. They will be taken quickly from their schools, their homes, and their friends. Suddenly, a parent who has been around every day to provide love and support has disappeared completely. The children may feel a sense of responsibility for what has happened to them, attempting to place blame on themselves because nothing else makes sense. The left-behind parent will feel many coinciding emotions, also feeling ripped away from someone who had been around each and every day. Maybe most importantly, both the children and the left-behind parent will feel a strong sense of abandonment and rejection that may never go away.

Preventative steps can be taken to avoid this sort of disaster. Although each U.S. state has its own laws and regulations regarding divorce, there are also nationally recognized laws about this subject that states have endorsed over time.

Similar to a run-of-the-mill domestic divorce, the custody of the children in an international divorce case will be decided once the specific situation has been analyzed. In the past, it was heavily debated whether or not relocating children would cause more harm than good. Eventually, it was concluded that each case is unique and should be analyzed accordingly to decide whether relocation would be advantageous. While this judgment process is going on, be conscious of a possible child abduction. If your children have been assigned passports, you should take cautionary action to secure their safety.

Your custody decree can be a very important part of keeping your children safe from abduction. Somewhere within the decree, be sure to include that the children need your permission, or the court's permission, to leave the country for any reason. Next, contact the Child Passport Issuance Alert Program and add your children's names to the Passport Lookout System. This way, you will be quickly notified if passports have been issued to your children. However, this does not guarantee your ability to revoke a passport that has already been issued. Your child's information will be sent to all U.S. passport agencies and also to any U.S. embassies.

"DDD," DANGEROUS DIVORCE DILEMMAS IN MARYLAND

MOTOR VEHICLE LAW: MARYLAND "10 BEST" ATTORNEY

www.CharlesJeromeWare.com. "Here to make a difference." Charles Jerome Ware is a "Maryland BEST 10 ATTORNEY."

This blog looks at a few key Maryland laws related to car accident claims and settlements, including time limits for filing a lawsuit, and how your claim might be affected if you’re found to be partially at fault for causing the accident.

I. Time Limits for Bringing a Lawsuit in Maryland:

three years for filing a personal injury lawsuit (Md. Courts & Jud. Proc. Code Ann. § 5-101)
three years for filing a lawsuit for property damage (i.e. damage to a vehicle) (Md. Courts & Jud. Proc. Code Ann. § 5-101).

II. Comparative Fault Rules in Maryland.

States have different systems for handling comparative fault -- the situation in which more than one party is at-fault for an accident. Maryland is one of the few states that still follows the fairly harsh old doctrine known, in legalese, as “contributory negligence.” Under this system, you are completely barred from recovery if you were at all at fault -- if your carelessness contributed to the accident to any degree.
This law not only binds Maryland judges and juries in a formal lawsuit (if you get to that stage of your dispute), but will also guide an insurance claim adjuster when evaluating your case. A claim adjuster’s strategy in often based on anticipating what is likely to happen in court. Remember that since there is no empirical means to allocate fault, any assignment of liability will ultimately come down to your ability to negotiate with a claim adjuster or to persuade a judge or jury.
An example will help explain how Maryland’s contributory negligence rule would be applied in real life. Let’s say that you’re in a car accident where another driver swerves into your lane and sideswipes you while you are driving a few miles over the speed limit, resulting in a collision. After a civil trial, the jury determines that the other driver is 90% at fault, while the fact that you were speeding makes you 10% liable. Under Maryland’s contributory negligence regime, you would be unable to recover at all. Change those numbers to 99% and 1%, and you are still barred from getting any compensation after the accident. Maryland’s contributory negligence rule is pretty unforgiving. It requires that the other party be 100% at fault before you can recover anything.

III. Car Insurance Rules in Maryland.

Maryland laws on car insurance may also come into play after a car accident. For everything you need to know about car insurance in Maryland -- including the minimum amounts of coverage required for registered vehicles in operation in the state

[see as reference: David Goguen/law-authors/david-goguen.html]

EQUITY FUNDING: THE CONCEPT

www.CharlesJeromeWare.com. "Here to make a difference."

Charles Jerome Ware, Attorneys & Counselors, LLC, is a premier Maryland-based boutique nationally-respected and highly-regarded law firm with a strong equity crowdfunding component. For an initial courtesy consultation, call us at (410) 730-5016 or (410) 720-6129, or email us at charlesjeromeware@msn.com.

In sum, equity crowdfunding enables individuals to invest collectively in a private business for a financial return.

There is a lot of confusion about what crowdfunding is and whether it is legal. We wanted to help by sharing some thoughts.

What is Crowdfunding?:

Crowdfunding is the pooling of money together by many individuals to support a person, cause, or business. Over the past few years, the most common kind of crowdfunding has been donation-based. On crowdfunding sites like Kickstarter, thousands of individuals provide a financial donation to projects or ideas, typically in exchange for a product or service gift from the recipient.

Equity Crowdfunding Definition:

Equity crowdfunding adopts this concept and allows individual investors seeking to invest for an eventual financial return in the business. This form of crowdfunding has received a lot of attention recently because of the JOBS Act, legislation passed by Congress and signed into law in April of 2012 but pending implementation.
Today, equity crowdfunding is possible only for accredited investors. That means all participants must meet the standards set by the US Securities and Exchange Commission (“the SEC”) to be an accredited investor – the most common way a person qualifies is by meeting income or net worth standards.
Pending the adoption of implementing Rules by the US Securities and Exchange Commission, the JOBS Act will allow non-accredited investors to invest through a new exemption to the securities regulations called “Crowdfunding.” Until that time, ‘equity crowdfunding’ for non-accredited investors is not yet permitted, and you should be very suspicious of any website or other business that says differently. All offerings should be made through Regulation D, Rule 506.

Why is Crowdfunding Exciting?:

We believe crowdfunding is a classic disruptive innovation. In the offline world, it is difficult for investors to identify and invest in private businesses. It takes time to network into a deal, and even then the investment minimums are typically very high.

MARYLAND "BEST 10" ATTORNEY: Are DUI & DWI (SOBRIETY) Checkpoints Unconstitutional?

www.CharlesJeromeWare.com. "Here to make a difference."

Premier defense attorney Charles Jerome Ware, among his numerous awards and honors, is recognized and ranked by his many satisfied clients and his legal peers as "One of the 10 BEST DUI and DWI Attorneys in the State of Maryland." This fact is researched, surveyed and confirmed by the reputable national legal organization of trial lawyers: The American Institute of DUI and DWI Attorneys [AIDUIA].

For an initial courtesy consultation, call defense attorney Charles Ware in his Maryland-based national office at (410) 720-6129 or (410) 730-5016, or email him at charlesjeromeware@msn.com. He can help you. Guaranteed.

Question: Are Maryland DUI and DWI (Sobriety) Checkpoints Unconstitutional?

Short Answer: No.

In 1990, the U.S. Supreme Court determined that, despite their “intrusion on individual liberties,” being stopped in a DUI checkpoint does not violate a person’s Fourth Amendment’s protection from unreasonable searches and seizures. Despite this ruling, drivers continue to challenge the legality of DUI checkpoints, asking one very persistent question: are DUI checkpoints unconstitutional?

MARYLAND DUI & DWI RETROGRADE EXTRAPOLATION DEFENSES: "MARYLAND BEST 10 ATTORNEY"

www.CharlesJeromeWare.com. "Here to make a difference." AIDUIA "10 BEST" ATTORNEYS.

Defense attorney Charles Ware is ranked and recognized by his many satisfied clients as well as his legal peers as "One of the 10 BEST DUI, DWI [and Public Intoxication] Attorneys in the State of Maryland." This accomplishment is confirmed and acknowledged by the national trial attorneys organization, The American Institute of DUI and DWI Attorneys [AIDUIA].

Attorney Charles Ware's Maryland-based nationally-respected and highly-regarded law firm, Charles Jerome Ware, Attorneys & Counselors, LLC, has successfully represented hundreds of satisfied clients in drunk driving and public intoxication cases since 1988. We can help you. Guaranteed.

Retrograde extrapolation. Whether in a per se or a traditional DUI case, the prosecutor will usually introduce chemical evidence of the defendant's blood-alcohol level. Of course, by itself this evidence is irrelevant: It reflects the blood-alcohol level of the defendant at the time of testing - not at the time of driving. And, of course, it is not a crime to be under the influence of alcohol in a police station or hospital.

A number of states have statutes that provide the blood-alcohol level at the time of testing is conclusively presumed to be the level at the time of driving. Such a statute was challenged in State v. Ullan (no. 5884, Olmstead County, Minnesota, District Court, Eastern Appellate Division, slip opinion filed October 21, 1983). In the trial court, the jury returned a guilty verdict to the offense of driving with an alcohol concentration greater than .10 percent. On appeal to the district court, the defendant contended that the trial court's jury instruction had created an impermissible conclusive presumption and thus constituted a denial of due process. The district court agreed with the defendant.

HOWARD COUNTY MD. "TOP 100 LAWYERS" BOOK: A PRIMER BY ONE OF AMERICA'S BEST LAWYERS

www.CharlesJeromeWare.com. "Here to make a difference."

**FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE ** RADIO-TV-NEWSPAPER-INTERVIEW MATERIALS!
EDITORS: For review copies or interview request, contact:
Promotional Services Department
Tel: 1-800-AUTHORS
Fax: 812-355-4085 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE!
Email: promotions@iuniverse.com.
(When requesting a review copy, please provide a street address.)

UNDERSTANDING THE LAW:

A PRIMER

COLUMBIA, MARYLAND - Wouldn't it be nice if everyone had a lawyer friend they could call in a pinch, someone who could answer a quick question or offer insight? That's sort of the idea behind Understanding the Law: A Primer (published by iUniverse), by Charles Jerome Ware. This legal self-help book is designed as a resource where readers can turn to better understand the ins and outs of our legal system.

As you would expect from any good lawyer, Ware makes it clear from the outset that his book is not designed to replace the advice of a lawyer. Rather, the author's goal here is to provide a way for readers to learn more about laws in our society and how they are implemented. While acknowledging that the legal system is no laughing matter, Ware points out that the topic can actually be quite humorous.

Rather than diving right in with legalese 101, Ware treats readers to a few funny examples of actual state laws. In New York, jumping off a building is an offense punishable by death. Alabama law prohibits the playing of dominoes on Sunday, and in Kansas, it's illegal to shoot rabbits from a motorboat. Throughout the book, Ware's inclusion of topics such as the most overrated crime and O.J.'s trial make this an interesting read.

Ware's Understanding the Law is a useful book that will take readers through the basics of criminal law, street law, surviving a lawsuit, and more. Written with humor and clarity, this book will educate and empower readers to better understand the laws that govern our society. When it comes to the law, Ware is MENSA-smart.

About the Author

Attorney Charles Ware is a principal in the national law firm of Charles Jerome Ware, P.A. In addition to his work as a trial lawyer, where he has served several celebrity clients and cases to his credit, Ware is a popular speaker. He has been featured on his own No. 1 legal advice radio program and numerous other radio and television programs. Ware is also the author of 52 Secrets of Cross-Examination and will draw upon his experience as a former U.S. Immigration Judge in his forthcoming book The Immigration Paradox. He lives in Columbia, Maryland, with his wife, Fran, and his daughter, Lucinda-Marie.

Understanding the Law: A Primer by Attorney Charles Jerome Ware

410-720-6129 or 410-730-5016 * WEBSITE: www.CharlesJeromeWare.com

www.amazon.com (books) * www.iuniverse.com (books)

"LLL" - LAYMEN LEARNING LAW: A PRIMER BY ONE OF AMERICA'S BEST LAWYERS

UNDERSTANDING THE LAW:

A PRIMER

About the Author

Understanding the Law: A Primer by Attorney Charles Jerome Ware

410-720-6129 or 410-730-5016 * WEBSITE: www.CharlesJeromeWare.com

www.amazon.com (books) * www.iuniverse.com (books)

"MARED" MARYLAND ALCOHOL RETROGRADE EXTRAPOLATION DEFENSES: AIDUIA "MARYLAND BEST 10 ATTORNEY"

AIDUIA "BEST 10" ATTORNEY: Are MARYLAND DUI & DWI (SOBRIETY) Checkpoints Unconstitutional

WHAT IS "EQUITY CROWDFUNDING"?

What is Crowdfunding?:

Equity Crowdfunding Definition:

Why is Crowdfunding Exciting?:

Thursday, August 28, 2014

BALTIMORE'S BEST LEAD PAINT DEFENSE LAWYERS

The national law firm of Charles Jerome Ware, P.A., Attorneys and Counsellors is: "Still working. Still committed. Still here to make a difference."

Attorney Charles Jerome Ware is renowned and consistently ranked among the best attorneys and legal counsellors in the United States. [GQ Magazine, The Washington Post, The Baltimore Sun, The Columbia Flier, USA TODAY, The Howard County Sun, The Anniston Star, The New York Times, et al.]
www.CharlesJeromeWare.com

Maryland Lead Law

Maryland Environmental Article 6-8 - "The Lead Poisoning Prevention Program" Statute

Maryland Environmental Article 6-8, also referred to as Maryland Housing Bill 760, "The Lead Poisoning Prevention Program" statute, was signed into law in May 1994 and became fully effective on February 24, 1996.

The law is intended to make all privately owned pre-1950 rental housing units safer for children, while also helping rental property owners and managers to avoid costly lead poisoning litigation by complying with specific lead hazard reduction measures or a dust testing procedure set forth in the statute. This statutory provision applies to all such housing units and, at an owner's option, to rental units built after 1949.

In essence, the law sharply limits the rights of children and their representatives to traditional tort damages for lead poisoning, provided that: (1) the property owner has satisfied certain housing unit registration requirements; and (2) the unit has either passed lead dust tests or undergone a set of "risk reduction measures" which must be verified by an independent, certified third party who performs a visual inspection When the unit meets this standard, the owner is entitled to a limited tort immunity.

However, if a child living in the unit develops an elevated blood lead level which exceeds 20 micrograms of lead per deciliter of blood, the owner has the option of making a "qualified offer" to the child and his or her legal representative.

A qualified offer is, in effect, a settlement of that child's potential lead poisoning claim and provides remedial compensation.

Under the provisions established in House Bill 760 for the qualified offer, the owner and his or her insurance company would: (1) offer to relocate the child's family to a housing unit that has been certified as "lead-safe," including payment of a rent differential if the "lead-safe" unit rents at a higher monthly rate; and (2) pay for any necessary medical treatment to mitigate the effects of lead poisoning when the treatment is not covered by a health insurance plan or public medical assistance.

Relocation expenses are payable until the poisoned child reaches age six, subject to a $9,500 cap. Out-of-pocket medical expenses are payable until the poisoned child reaches the age of 18, subject to a $7,500 cap.

Since a major reason for enacting House Bill 760 was the widespread and routine application of lead liability exclusions in general liability policies covering rental housing units, the statute adds provisions to the Maryland Insurance Code which limit the circumstances under which these exclusions would be effective. Therefore, access to insurance and limited liability are the primary incentives or benefits to owners of pre-1950 units who meet the statutory risk reduction standards. Additionally, the systematic reduction of lead-based paint hazards in these older units is meant to be the primary means for preventing lead poisoning in the state.

In summary, Maryland House Bill 760 takes on some of the most difficult public health, housing and liability issues posed by childhood lead poisoning to provide a measure of safety for children and a relief from the threat of litigation for rental property owners.

Jackson, et al. v. The Dackman Company, et al.

No. 131, September Term 2008 (Md. Oct. 24, 2011)

On October 24, 2011, the Maryland Court of Appeals in Jackson v. Dackman, struck down as invalid a statutory provision in Maryland’s Reduction of Lead Risk in Housing Act (“Act”) that provided immunity from liability to landlords if: (1) they achieved full compliance with certain requirements under the Act including registration and timely renewal of rental properties constructed prior to 1950; compliance with applicable risk reduction and response standards; and compliance with notice requirements to tenants; and (2) they had opportunity to make a qualified offer of up to $17,000 for reasonable relocation and medical expenses.

In light of the Dackman decision, landlords have found themselves facing a great deal of uncertainty and many are concerned that they may now be potentially exposed to huge liability claims, even if they previously had been fully compliant with the Act’s provisions.

Charles Jerome Ware, P.A., Attorneys and Counsellors can provide winning defense representation for:

Defense of Lead Paint Cases
Asset Protection

and can assist lead paint insurance carriers and claims representatives with:
Defense of Lead Paint Cases
Presentations on Maryland’s Evolving Lead Paint Laws

Comparing State and Federal Laws

Federal and state laws address lead poisoning issues in slightly different ways. A shared feature is that each law requires that specific information be given to current and new tenants. Both Federal and Maryland law require landlords to give to each tenant the pamphlet “Protect Your Family from Lead in Your Home”. Maryland law also requires distribution by landlords of an additional pamphlet entitled “Lead Poisoning Prevention - Notice of Tenants’ Rights”.

For detailed information about the federal law and how to obtain copies of the federally mandated pamphlet, call the National Lead Clearinghouse at 1-800-424-LEAD (5323) or the Coalition to End Childhood Lead Poisoning at 410-534-6447.

Additionally, for detailed information about the Maryland law and how to obtain copies of the state-mandated “Notice of Tenants’ Rights” call the Maryland Lead Poisoning Hotline at 1-800-776-2706, or TDD (410) 631-3009, or the Coalition to End Childhood Lead Poisoning at 800-370-LEAD.

Maryland Lead Poisoning Prevention Program

In 1994 the General Assembly established the Lead Poisoning Prevention Program for the purpose of reducing the incidence of childhood lead poisoning while maintaining the stock of affordable rental housing. This program requires owners of older residential rental properties to meet certain risk reduction standards. It also provides more affordable insurance and the protection of limited liability for owners who comply. It is administered by the Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE). For more information call the Lead Poisoning Hotline at 1-800-776-2706, or TDD (410) 631-3009. Read the Law: MD Code, Environment § 6-801- 6-852; Article 48A, Secs. 734-737; Real Prop. § 8-208.2

Following is a summary of the law:

The owners of all rental dwelling units built before 1950 must comply with this law. Owners of units built between 1950 and 1978 may choose to comply and thus benefit from limited liability.

The law exempts rental units owned or operated by federal, state, or local government or by a public, quasi-public, or municipal corporation, provided the property is subject to standards that are at least as strict as the standards established by this law.

[www.nchh.org/Policy/MarylandLeadLaw; www.pklaw.com/lead paint defense; www.peoples-law.org/Lead Paint in Maryland; articles.baltimoresun.com/2010-12-02/health/bs-md-rockind-appeal; www.mde.state.md.us/programs/ Lead Poisoning Prevention/Pages/Programs/Land Program/Lead Coordination/index.aspx]

HO. CO. MARYLAND MOTOR VEHICLE LAW: MARYLAND "BEST 10" ATTORNEY [AIDUIA]

I. Time Limits for Bringing a Lawsuit in Maryland:

three years for filing a personal injury lawsuit (Md. Courts & Jud. Proc. Code Ann. § 5-101)
three years for filing a lawsuit for property damage (i.e. damage to a vehicle) (Md. Courts & Jud. Proc. Code Ann. § 5-101).

II. Comparative Fault Rules in Maryland.

States have different systems for handling comparative fault -- the situation in which more than one party is at-fault for an accident. Maryland is one of the few states that still follows the fairly harsh old doctrine known, in legalese, as “contributory negligence.” Under this system, you are completely barred from recovery if you were at all at fault -- if your carelessness contributed to the accident to any degree.
This law not only binds Maryland judges and juries in a formal lawsuit (if you get to that stage of your dispute), but will also guide an insurance claim adjuster when evaluating your case. A claim adjuster’s strategy in often based on anticipating what is likely to happen in court. Remember that since there is no empirical means to allocate fault, any assignment of liability will ultimately come down to your ability to negotiate with a claim adjuster or to persuade a judge or jury.
An example will help explain how Maryland’s contributory negligence rule would be applied in real life. Let’s say that you’re in a car accident where another driver swerves into your lane and sideswipes you while you are driving a few miles over the speed limit, resulting in a collision. After a civil trial, the jury determines that the other driver is 90% at fault, while the fact that you were speeding makes you 10% liable. Under Maryland’s contributory negligence regime, you would be unable to recover at all. Change those numbers to 99% and 1%, and you are still barred from getting any compensation after the accident. Maryland’s contributory negligence rule is pretty unforgiving. It requires that the other party be 100% at fault before you can recover anything.

III. Car Insurance Rules in Maryland.

Maryland laws on car insurance may also come into play after a car accident. For everything you need to know about car insurance in Maryland -- including the minimum amounts of coverage required for registered vehicles in operation in the state

[see as reference: David Goguen/law-authors/david-goguen.html]

BALTIMORE DEFENSE LEAD PAINT LAWSUITS: RECENT CASELAW

Lead Based Paint Disclosure

Baltimore City County Maryland Lead Based Paint Disclosure
Congress passed the Residential Lead-Based Paint Hazard Reduction Act of 1992, also known as Title X, to protect families from exposure to lead from paint, dust, and soil. Section 1018 of this law directed HUD and EPA to require the disclosure of known information on lead-based paint and lead-based paint hazards before the sale or lease of most housing built before 1978.

1. Toliver v. Waicker, 210 Md. App. 52, 62 A.3d 200 (2013), cert. denied, 432 Md. 213, 68 A.3d 287 (2013). Decision: Management company president, in that position alone, is not liable personally as "operator" under the housing code.

2. Taylor v. Fishkind, 207 Md. App. 121, 51 A.3d 743 (2012), cert. denied, 431 Md. 221, 64 A. 3d 497 (2013). Decision :" Substantial Factor" causation expert lacks sufficient factual basis to opine within a reasonable degree of medical certainty that the residential unit was a substantial contributing source of the plaintiff's lead exposure.

3.Hamilton v. Dackman, 213 Md. App. 589, 75 A.3d 327, petition for cert. filed, Petition Docket No. 450, Sept. Term, 2013 : Decision: In order to make a prima facie case of lead paint poisoning, a plaintiff must show that the subject property was probably 9i.e., more likely than not) a source of exposure.

4. Dixon v. Ford Motor Co., 433 Md. 137, 70 A.3d 328 (2013). Decision : A Frye/Reed analysis of the admissibility of an expert's opinion based upon its general acceptance in the relevant scientific community is only necessary if that opinion involves a novel scientific method.

5. West v. Rochkind, 212 Md. App. 164, 66 A.3d 1145 (2013), cert. denied, 435 Md. 270, 77 A.3d 1086 (2013). Decision : A plaintiff may prove the presence of lead paint at a property by way of circumstantial evidence without XRF spectrometry or laboratory paint chip or dust testing.

6. Montgomery Mutual. Ins. Co. v. Chesson, 434 Md. 346, 75 A.3d 932 (2013). Decision: An expert's "novel" opinion as to causation due to toxic exposure must be generally accepted in the relevant scientific community before it can be deemed admissible.

7. City Homes, Inc. v. Hazelwood, 210 Md. App. 615, 63 A.3d 713 (2013), cert. denied, 432 Md. 468, 69 A.3d 476 (2013). Decision: Expert's lack of qualifications and his insufficient factual basis
to offer an opinion, as well as his lack of knowledge of the source of the lead ingestion, ruled out his testimony at trial.

8. Ross v. Housing Authority of Baltimore City, 430 Md. 648, 63 A.3d 1 (2013). Decision: Though the doctor was properly excluded as an "expert" at trial as to the "source" of the plaintiff's lead exposure, the exclusion of that testimony did not preclude the plaintiff from establishing the causal link by circumstantial evidence at trial.

9. Butler v. S & S Partnership, 435 Md. 635, 80 A.3d 298 (2013), Decision: A trial court may not, sua sponte, exclude an expert's opinions based on discovery violations found under Maryland Rule 2-432(b) without a party first moving for an order to compel discovery or filing a motion for discovery sanctions.

10. Hamilton v. Kirson;and Alston v. 2700 Virginia Avenue Assocs. 2014 Court of Appeals Cases.

These two cases will be argued and considered on the issue of the admissibility of expert causation testimony and the legal sufficiency of a plaintiff's use of circumstantial evidence to prove causation.

WINNING BREATHALYZER DEFENSES: MARYLAND "BEST 10" DUI AND DWI ATTORNEYS

www.CharlesJeromeWare.com. "Here to make a difference."

Premier defense attorney Charles Ware is ranked and recognized by his many satisfied clients as well as his legal peers as "One of the 10 BEST DUI and DWI Attorneys in the State of Maryland," as confirmed by the American Institute for DUI and DWI Attorneys" [AIDUIA]. For an initial courtesy consultation, call him at (410) 730-5016 or (410) 720-6129, or email defense attorney Charles Ware at charlesjeromeware@msn.com. He can help you. Guaranteed.

Breath analysis is by far the most commonly used method of testing for blood alcohol in DUI cases. While not as accurate or reliable as blood tests, it has generally been regarded as acceptably accurate for use in DUI investigations, if administered correctly. This regard is beginning to erode, however. An example of this is the comment of Dr. Michael Hiastala, Professor of Physiology, Biophysics and Medicine at the University of Washington:

Breath testing, as currently used, is a very inaccurate method for measuring BAG. Even if the breath testing instrument is working perfectly, physiological variables prevent any reasonable accuracy…. Breath testing for alcohol using a single test method should not be used for scientific, medical or legal purposes where accuracy is important. [Hlastala, Physiological Errors Associated with Alcohol Breath Testing, 9(6) The Champion 19 (1985).]

A number of scientists who have conducted studies of breath-alcohol breathalyzer accuracy and found it is inherently unreliable. Thus, for example, a recent study determined that breath readings vary at least 15 percent from actual blood alcohol levels. (Simpson, Accuracy and Precision of Breath-Alcohol Measurements for a Random Subject in the Postabsorptive State, 33(2) Clinical Chemistry 261 (1987)). Furthermore, at least 23 percent of all individuals tested will have breath results in excess of true blood-alcohol levels. The author concluded that, “[g]iven the choice, it would seem that if a conclusion is to be made about the BAC of a random subject, especially when the conclusion can have serious consequences, it would be far preferable to make it on the basis of a direct [blood] measurement….”

In another study, conducted by members of the toxicology section of the Wisconsin State Laboratory of Hygiene, only 33 percent of the breath test results correlated with corresponding blood tests. Reported in 32(4) Journal of Forensic Sciences 1235 (1987), the study involved a survey of 404 actual drunk driving cases in Wisconsin in which DUI defendants had been tested on a Breathalyzer (either the Model 900 or 900A) as well as by blood analysis. The two tests were considered to correlate when there was a difference of .01 percent or less.

One interesting aspect of the study was that in 11 of the DUI cases, the defendant was shown to be intoxicated using one of the tests but not intoxicated when using the other.

If you are arrested or charged with DUI or DWI anywhere in the State of Maryland, call defense attorney Charles Ware immediately. He can help you. Guaranteed.

THE IMMIGRANT SPOUSE DIVORCE: WINNING BASICS IN MARYLAND

www.CharlesJeromeWare.com. "Here to make a difference."

Charles Jerome Ware, Attorneys & Counselors, LLC, is a premier Maryland-based national divorce and family law firm. For an initial courtesy consultation, call us at (410) 730-5016 or (410) 720-6129, or email us at charlesjeromeware@msn.com. We can help you. Guaranteed.

Attorney Charles Ware and his staff have successfully represented hundreds of satisfied clients in a variety of domestic, divorce and family law scenarios over many years (since 1988). We are here to help you. Guaranteed.

Maryland Divorce Laws

A. Residency and Filing Requirements:

In order to file for a divorce in Maryland, residency requirements must be met for the court to accept the case. If the court discovers it does not have jurisdictional rights to hear the case it will not be accepted or it will eventually be dismissed. The requirements are as follows:

There is a 1 year requirement if the grounds for the divorce occurred outside the state of Maryland, otherwise if either spouse is a resident of the state of Maryland, he or she may file in the county in which either spouse resides. If you are filing for divorce under the grounds of insanity, the residency requirement is increased to 2 years. (Maryland Code - Family Law Chapter - Section: 7-103)

B. Grounds for Filing:

The Complaint for Divorce must declare the appropriate Maryland grounds upon which the divorce is being sought. The appropriate lawful ground will be that which the parties agree upon and can substantiate, or that which the filing spouse desires to prove to the court. The divorce grounds are as follows:

The court may decree an absolute divorce on the following grounds:

(1) adultery; (2) desertion, if: (i) the desertion has continued for 12 months without interruption before the filing of the application for divorce; (ii) the desertion is deliberate and final; and (iii) there is no reasonable expectation of reconciliation; (3) voluntary separation, if: (i) the parties voluntarily have lived separate and apart without cohabitation for 12 months without interruption before the filing of the application for divorce; and (ii) there is no reasonable expectation of reconciliation; (4) conviction of a felony or misdemeanor in any state or in any court of the United States if before the filing of the application for divorce the defendant has: (i) been sentenced to serve at least 3 years or an indeterminate sentence in a penal institution; and (ii) served 12 months of the sentence; (5) 2-year separation, when the parties have lived separate and apart without cohabitation for 2 years without interruption before the filing of the application for divorce; (6) insanity if: (i) the insane spouse has been confined in a mental institution, hospital, or other similar institution for at least 3 years before the filing of the application for divorce; (7) cruelty of treatment toward the complaining party or a minor child of the complaining party, if there is no reasonable expectation of reconciliation; or (8) excessively vicious conduct toward the complaining party or a minor child of the complaining party, if there is no reasonable expectation of reconciliation. (Maryland Code - Family Law Chapter - Section: 7-103)

C. Filing Spouse Title:

Plaintiff. The Plaintiff is the spouse who initiates the filing procedure with the family law or domestic relations court.

D. Non-Filing Spouse Title:

Defendant. The Defendant is the spouse who does not file the initial divorce papers, but rather receives them by service.

E. Court Name:

In the Circuit Court for Howard County, Maryland. This is the Maryland court where the divorce will be filed. The court will assign a case number and have jurisdictional rights to facilitate and grant the orders concerning, but not limited to: property and debt division, support, custody, and visitation. The name of the court is clearly represented at the top of all documents that are filed.

F. Primary Documents:

Complaint for Divorce and Decree of Divorce. These are the essential documents needed to start and finalize a divorce according to Maryland law. There are anywhere from ten to twenty other documents that may be required throughout the filing process. A few other documents that are typically filed during the process are: Civil - Domestic Case Information Report, Certificate of Service (for Complaint) (dom rel 58), Marital Settlement Agreement, Financial Statement (Plaintiff) (dom rel 31), Answer to Complaint (dom rel 50), and Request for Hearing (dom rel 59).

G. Court Clerk's Title:

Office of the Clerk of the County Circuit Court. The clerk or the clerk's assistants will be the people managing your paperwork with the court. The clerk's office will keep the parties and the lawyers informed throughout the process in regards to additional paperwork that is needed, further requirements, and hearing dates and times.

H. Property Distribution:

Since Maryland is an "equitable distribution" state, the marital property shall be divided in an equitable fashion. Equitable does not mean equal, but rather what is fair. The court will encourage the parties to reach a settlement on property and debt issues otherwise the court will declare the property award.

Subject to the provisions of subsection (b) of this section, after the court determines which property is marital property, and the value of the marital property, the court may transfer ownership of an interest in property described in Paragraph (2) of this Subsection, grant a monetary award, or both, as an adjustment of the equities and rights of the parties concerning marital property, whether or not alimony is awarded.

The court may transfer ownership of an interest in: (i) a pension, retirement, profit sharing, or deferred compensation plan, from one party to either or both parties; and (ii) subject to the consent of any lienholders, family use personal property, from one or both parties to either or both parties.

The court shall determine the amount and the method of payment of a monetary award, or the terms of the transfer of the interest in property after considering each of the following factors: (1) the contributions, monetary and nonmonetary, of each party to the well-being of the family; (2) the value of all property interests of each party; (3) the economic circumstances of each party at the time the award is to be made; (4) the circumstances that contributed to the estrangement of the parties; (5) the duration of the marriage; (6) the age of each party; (7) the physical and mental condition of each party; (8) how and when specific marital property or interest in property described was acquired, including the effort expended by each party in accumulating the marital property or the interest in property described in subsection (a)(2) of this section, or both; (9) the contribution by either party of property to the acquisition of real property held by the parties as tenants by the entirety; (10) any award of alimony and any award or other provision that the court has made with respect to family use personal property or the family home; and (11) any other factor that the court considers necessary or appropriate to consider in order to arrive at a fair and equitable monetary award or transfer of an interest in property or both. (Maryland Code - Family Law Chapter - Section: 8-202, 8-203, 8-205)

I. Spousal Support:

Not all cases involve support from one spouse to the other. The obligation of one spouse to support the other financially for a temporary or permanent basis is decided on a case-by-case basis as agreed to by the parties or at the court's discretion.

The court shall determine the amount of and the period for an award of alimony. The court may award alimony for a period beginning from the filing of the pleading that requests alimony. At the conclusion of the period of the award of alimony, no further alimony shall accrue. In making the determination, the court shall consider all the factors necessary for a fair and equitable award, including: (1) the ability of the party seeking alimony to be wholly or partly self-supporting; (2) the time necessary for the party seeking alimony to gain sufficient education or training to enable that party to find suitable employment; (3) the standard of living that the parties established during their marriage; (4) the duration of the marriage; (5) the contributions, monetary and nonmonetary, of each party to the well-being of the family; (6) the circumstances that contributed to the estrangement of the parties; (7) the age of each party; (8) the physical and mental condition of each party; (9) the ability of the party from whom alimony is sought to meet that party's needs while meeting the needs of the party seeking alimony; (10) any agreement between the parties; (11) the financial needs and financial resources of each party, including: (12) whether the award would cause a spouse who is a resident of a related institution as defined in 19-301 of the Health - General Article and from whom alimony is sought to become eligible for medical assistance earlier than would otherwise occur.

The court may award alimony for an indefinite period, if the court finds that: (1) due to age, illness, infirmity, or disability, the party seeking alimony cannot reasonably be expected to make substantial progress toward becoming self-supporting; or (2) even after the party seeking alimony will have made as much progress toward becoming self-supporting as can reasonably be expected, the respective standards of living of the parties will be unconscionably disparate. (Maryland Code - Family Law Chapter - Section: 11-106)

J. Restoration or Name Change:

In granting a decree of absolute divorce, the court shall change the name of a party to either the name given the party at birth or any other former name the party wishes to use if: (1) the party took a new name on marriage and no longer wishes to use it; (2) the party asks for the change of name; and (3) the purpose of the party is not illegal, fraudulent, or immoral. (Maryland Code - Family Law Chapter - Section: 7-105)

K. Child Custody:

Custody, whether joint or sole, will be awarded to either the mother or the father or both with the best interest of the children in mind. There are no specific factors stated which would be automatically considered by the court, but the typical factors are, but not limited to; age, health, parents contributing roles, child's wishes etc..

When the court grants an annulment or a limited or absolute divorce, regardless of how the family home or family use personal property is titled, owned, or leased, the court may: (i) decide that 1 of the parties shall have the sole possession and use of that property; or (ii) divide the possession and use of the property between the parties.

In awarding the possession and use of the family home and family use personal property, the court shall consider each of the following factors: 1) the best interests of any child; (2) the interest of each party in continuing: (i) to use the family use personal property or any part of it, or to occupy or use the family home or any part of it as a dwelling place; or (ii) to use the family use personal property or any part of it, or to occupy or use the family home or any part of it for the production of income; and (3) any hardship imposed on the party whose interest in the family home or family use personal property is infringed on by an order issued under 8-207 through 8-213 of this subtitle.

The court may order or decree that either or both of the parties pay all or any part of: (1) any mortgage payments or rent; (2) any indebtedness that is related to the property; (3) the cost of maintenance, insurance, assessments, and taxes; or (4) any similar expenses in connection with the property.

An order giving a party the sole possession and use of the family home under Subsection (a) of this Section does not affect the right of the other party to claim the family home as that party's principal residence for tax purposes. (Maryland Code - Family Law Chapter - Section: 5-203, 8-207, 8-208, 9-101)

L. Child Support:

Maryland child support guidelines are based on the Income Shares Model for calculating child support. The monthly support amount determined by applying the guidelines is divided proportionally according to each parent’s income. These two support amounts are then offset to establish which parent will pay the other parent for support of the child. All income is typically verified by examining past W-2's and child support worksheets are available at the courthouse.

In determining whether the application of the guidelines would be unjust or inappropriate in a particular case, the court may consider:

1. the terms of any existing separation or property settlement agreement or court order, including any provisions for payment of mortgages or marital debts, payment of college education expenses, the terms of any use and possession order or right to occupy to the family home under an agreement, any direct payments made for the benefit of the children required by agreement or order, or any other financial considerations set out in an existing separation or property settlement agreement or court order; and

2. the presence in the household of either parent of other children to whom that parent owes a duty of support and the expenses for whom that parent is directly contributing. (Maryland Code - Family Law Chapter - Section: 8-206, 12-101, 12-201, 12-202, 12-203)

BASIC BREATHALYZER PHONE APPS: DEFENSE VIEW

www.CharlesJeromeWare.com. "Here to make a difference. We can help you."

Among his numerous other accolades, accomplishments, awards and honors, defense attorney Charles Ware is recognized as "one of the 10 BEST DUI and DWI Attorneys in Maryland" by the national organization, American Institute of DUI and DWI Attorneys [AIDUIA].

For an initial courtesy consultation, contact his law firm --- Charles Jerome Ware, Attorneys & Counselors, LLC, at charlesjeromeware@msn.com, (410) 720-6129 or (410) 730-5016. We can help you.

Maryland drunk driving laws are strict and complex. It is very important that you contact us as soon as possible after you are arrested for drunk driving.

Increasingly, people are buying portable devices to determine their blood alcohol concentration (BAC) levels. Generally, these devices are small enough to fit into your pocket, and they are affordable --- costing as little as $50. They are easy to use: just plug them into your Smartphone and blow to see your BAC on the spot.

The problem with these devices is that they are not consistent with official police Breathalyzer instruments, and thus could give the user a false sense of comfort. The best advice I have is if you feel the need to use one of these BAC apps then DO NOT DRIVE!

After a DUI arrest, you have only 10 days from the date of the arrest to request a Maryland Motor Vehicle Administration (MVA) hearing with the office of administrative hearings and pay $125 to the Maryland State Treasurer. If a person is arrested for drunk driving or DUI and fails to request the hearing on time, their license will be suspended automatically.

In Maryland the blood alcohol concentration level (BAC) for a DUI (driving under the influence)arrest is .08 or higher. A blood alcohol concentration level of .07 will result in a DWI (driving while impaired) arrest.

Maryland DUI

Minimum drivers license suspension of 45 days.
Punishment of up to $1000 and 1 year in jail for a first offense DUI.
Punishment of up to $2000 and 2 year in jail for a second offense DUI.
A DUI conviction will result in 12 points on your Maryland drivers license record.

Maryland DWI

Drivers license suspension of up to 60 days.
Punishment of up to $500 and 2 months in jail for a first offense DWI.
Punishment of up to $500 and 1 year in jail for a second offense DWI.
A DWI conviction will result in 8 points on your Maryland drivers license record.

If you hold an out of state license and are arrested for DUI or DWI, you will need to schedule a Maryland MVA hearing in order to protect your driving privileges. Maryland is a member of the Interstate Driver's License Compact, which shares information about all driver's license actions with other member states. There are 45 states that belong to this compact.

NEW BALTIMORE LEAD POISONING CASE TRENDS: DEFENSE VIEW

www.CharlesJeromeWare.com. "Here to make a difference."

Charles Jerome Ware, Attorneys & Counselors, LLC, is a premier Maryland-based national landlord lead paint 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.

In 2012 , 2013 and 2014 Maryland's two highest courts --- The Maryland Court of Appeals and the Court of Special Appeals --- placed a priority on the legal review of lead-based paint poisoning cases. Ten of those cases which more directly and immediately affect litigation of Maryland's civil lead-based paint poisoning lawsuits include the following:

1. Toliver v. Waicker, 210 Md. App. 52, 62 A.3d 200 (2013), cert. denied, 432 Md. 213, 68 A.3d 287 (2013). Decision: Management company president, in that position alone, is not liable personally as "operator" under the housing code.
2. Taylor v. Fiskind, 207 Md. App. 121, 51 A.3d 743 (2012), cert. denied, 431 Md. 221, 64 A. 3d 497 (2013). Decision :" Substantial Factor" causation expert lacks sufficient factual basis to opine within a reasonable degree of medical certainty that the residential unit was a substantial contributing source of the plaintiff's lead exposure.
3.Hamilton v. Dackman, 213 Md. App. 589, 75 A.3d 327, petition for cert. filed, Petition Docket No. 450, Sept. Term, 2013 : Decision: In order to make a prima facie case of lead paint poisoning, a plaintiff must show that the subject property was probably 9i.e., more likely than not) a source of exposure.
4. Dixon v. Ford Motor Co., 433 Md. 137, 70 A.3d 328 (2013). Decision : A Frye/Reed analysis of the admissibility of an expert's opinion based upon its general acceptance in the relevant scientific community is only necessary if that opinion involves a novel scientific method.
5. West v. Rochkind, 212 Md. App. 164, 66 A.3d 1145 (2013), cert. denied, 435 Md. 270, 77 A.3d 1086 (2013). Decision : A plaintiff may prove the presence of lead paint at a property by way of circumstantial evidence without XRF spectrometry or laboratory paint chip or dust testing.
6. Montgomery Mutual. Ins. Co. v. Chesson, 434 Md. 346, 75 A.3d 932 (2013). Decision: An expert's "novel" opinion as to causation due to toxic exposure must be generally accepted in the relevant scientific community before it can be deemed admissible.
7. City Homes, Inc. v. Hazelwood, 210 Md. App. 615, 63 A.3d 713 (2013), cert. denied, 432 Md. 468, 69 A.3d 476 (2013). Decision: Expert's lack of qualifications and his insufficient factual basis
to offer an opinion, as well as his lack of knowledge of the source of the lead ingestion, ruled out his testimony at trial.
8. Ross v. Housing Authority of Baltimore City, 430 Md. 648, 63 A.3d 1 (2013). Decision: Though the doctor was properly excluded as an "expert" at trial as to the "source" of the plaintiff's lead exposure, the exclusion of that testimony did not preclude the plaintiff from establishing the causal link by circumstantial evidence at trial.
9. Butler v. S & S Partnership, 435 Md. 635, 80 A.3d 298 (2013), Decision: A trial court may not, sua sponte, exclude an expert's opinions based on discovery violations found under Maryland Rule 2-432(b) without a party first moving for an order to compel discovery or filing a motion for discovery sanctions.
10. Hamilton v. Kirson;and Alston v. 2700 Virginia Avenue Assocs. 2014 Court of Appeals Cases.

These two cases will be argued and considered on the issue of the admissibility of expert causation testimony and the legal sufficiency of a plaintiff's use of circumstantial evidence to prove causation.

OB/GYN MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ALERT!

www.CharlesJeromeWare.com. "Here to make a difference." [see, JVRA OB/GYN Medical Expert Update/August 2014/www.jvra.com/verdict_trak/article/8-27-14]

Charles Jerome Ware, Attorneys and Counselors, LLC, is a premier Maryland-based, nationally-respected and highly regarded medical malpractice law firm. For an initial courtesy consultation, call us at (410) 720-6129 or (410_ 730-5016, or email us at charlesjeromeware@msn.com.

$4,1500,000 TOTAL RECOVERY – MEDICAL MALPRACTICE – OB/GYN – MOTHER IS ALLEGEDLY TOLD SHE COULD LEAVE HOSPITAL AFTER ATTACHING TO FETAL MONITOR, AND IS CALLED BACK THREE HOURS LATER BECAUSE STRIPS SHOW DISTRESS – OB/GYN FAILS TO PERFORM C-SECTION FOR TWO HOURS – MODERATE BRAIN DAMAGE – INABILITY TO DRIVE AND WORK.

This medical malpractice action involved the birth of a mother’s third child that occurred almost 20 years before the settlement was reached and the Statute of Limitations was tolled during the minority of the child.

The plaintiff contended that the nurses at the defendant hospital negligently failed to determine the presence of fetal distress on the fetal monitor strips when the mother was first attached to the machine. The plaintiff maintained that she was told she should leave the hospital only to receive a message a few hours later that she should immediately return because of the earlier fetal monitoring strips were non-reassuring.

Notably, the care at issue occurred before the ubiquitous use of mobile phones. The mother returned around 3 hours later. The defendant ob/gyn was then called into the case. The plaintiff contended that this physician, who passed away before the suit was filed, negligently delayed performing an emergency C-section for two hours despite signs of fetal distress. The plaintiff contended that as a result of the negligence, the child suffered hypoxia, cerebral palsy and a significantly reduction in his comprehension abilities. The child can walk, carry on a conversation, but it was undisputed that he has deficits which the plaintiff maintained will prevent meaningful employment and attempts to lead a normal life.

The nurses denied that the mother was advised that she could leave the hospital shortly after 1:00 p.m. The hospital maintained that the mother removed herself from the fetal heart monitoring and essentially left the hospital against medical advice. The records did not specifically reflect that the mother left against medical advice, but did indicate that she voluntarily took herself off the monitor and left on her own accord.

The mother denied this and contended that it was clearly doubtful that a woman delivering her third child, and who went to the hospital because she believed labor might be occurring, would unilaterally leave the hospital without approval to do so from the nurses. The plaintiff would have argued that common sense and logic would support the position that an individual who had always been a compliant patient and had delivered two prior child would not leave the hospital unless she was told she could do so.

The defendant hospital also maintained that irrespective of this position, the ob/gyn did not perform a C-section for over two hours after arriving, during which period, the plaintiff maintained, the fetal monitoring strips showed continuing signs of a hostile uterine environment and fetal distress. The baby was delivered by C-section at 6:06 p.m --- five hours after she initially left the hospital. The child was born with Apgars of 0, 0, 0 and 3 and a cord pH of ________.

The plaintiff maintained that the permanent brain damage was very significant, irrespective of the fact that the plaintiff can carry on a conversation with others. The plaintiff would have argued that the jury should take into account that the plaintiff has the ability to realize the extent of his difficulties and that the fact that he is aware of the nature of his plight renders the pain, suffering and emotional suffering even greater than someone with total cognitive impairment.

The defendant hospital maintained that irrespective of the resolution of the factual dispute regarding the question of whether the mother left the hospital shortly after 1:00 p.m. against medical advice, it was clear from the evidence that after she returned around 4:00 p.m., and was attended to by the ob/gyn, and his decision not to perform the C-section for another two hours, during which period the plaintiff contended that the strips showed clear signs of fetal distress, was the proximate cause of the child’s injuries. The case settled prior to trial, with both the OB/GYN and the hospital paying the total of $4.15 million.

[http://www.jvra.com/verdict_trak/artcle/JVRA August 2014]

MARYLAND DRUNK DRIVING CHECKPOINTS: ARE THEY LEGAL? --- AIDUIA MARYLAND "BEST 10" ATTORNEY

www.charlesjeromeware.com.   " Here to make a difference. "

Defense attorney Charles Ware is recognized and ranked by his many satisfied clients and legal peers
as "One of the State of Maryland's BEST 10 DUI and DWI Attorneys", as researched, surveyed and confirmed by the American Institute of DUI and DWI Attorneys [ AIDUIA]. For an initial courtesy consultation, call defense attorney Charles Ware at (410) 720-6129 or (410) 720-6129, or email him at charlesjeromeware@msn.com. He can help you. Guaranteed.

Question:    Is it legal to avoid a DUI or DWI checkpoint in Maryland.
Answer :    Yes, unless you break some other law in doing so.
                   When it comes to the checkpoint itself in Maryland, the time and location must be announced to the community ( usually via newspaper, radio or TV). On the day of the checkpoint, signs must also be posted in order to notify drivers of the event. The checkpoint event must be conducted by uniformed police officers in police vehicles. drivers should be chosen randomly, using a predetermined non-biased method ( such as every other vehicle, for instance). In addition, police officers may not arrest a driver for turning around in order to avoid the checkpoint ( unless the act of turning around, itself, breaks some other law).

However, be aware that it depends on the driver's specific circumstances whether it is advisable for him or her to do so.

[ also see, http://www.marylandduilaws.net/marylanddwicheckpoint.html]