Friday, September 7, 2012

MARYLAND MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, PART 1: A Primer by Charles Jerome Ware

The national law firm of Charles Jerome Ware is a premier Maryland medical malpractice firm, which is: "Still working. Still committed. Still here to make a difference."

[see, Chapter Two, "Medical Malpractice", Legal Consumer Tips and Secrets, by Charles Jerome Ware, iUniverse (2011); "The Four Elements of Medical Malpractice", Yale University Medical Center: Issues in Risk Management, info.med.yale.edu (1997); "Changing the Malpractice System", by Clive E. Reinhardt, The New York Times, October 1, 2010; "The Facts About Medical Malpractice in Maryland", Public Citizen Congress Watch, Rev. January 2004; "Notes from the Chair of the Board", newsletter of the Medical Mutual Liability Insurance Society of Maryland, October 2002; "28% Rise Sought to Insure Doctors", Greg Garland, Baltimore Sun, June 28, 2003; "Medical Reform Locked in Fight", Stephanie Desmon, Baltimore Sun, March 17, 2003]

STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS
Generally, in Maryland any medical malpractice action must be filed either within five (5) years from the date when the injury was committed or three (3) years from the date when the injury was first discovered, whichever is earlier [Md. Code Ann., Cts. & Jud. Proc. § 5-109 (1995)]. Against a minor, the statute does not begin to run until a claimant has reached the age of eleven, and if the action involves a foreign object or injury to the reproductive system, the statute does not begin to run until the claimant is sixteen. Id. Maryland’s highest court has held that the five-year part of the statute is not measured from the date treatment ends and does not violate the state constitution [Hill v. Fitzgerald, 304 Md. 689, 501 A.2d 27 (1985)].
A wrongful death action brought by the decedent’s dependents must be filed within three years after death [Md. Code Ann., Cts. & Jud. Proc. § 3-904 (1995)]. This statute applies to a wrongful death action brought on a medical malpractice theory, while § 5-109 applies to a survival action brought by the decedent’s estate [Geisz v. Greater Baltimore Medical Center, 313 Md. 301, 545 A.2d 658 (1988)].

CONTRIBUTORY OR COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE
Maryland is one of the few remaining states that recognizes the traditional common law doctrine of contributory negligence. [Harrison v. Montgomery County Bd. of Ed., 295 Md. 442, 456 A.2d 894 (1983)]. Thus, any negligence by a claimant may bar his recovery completely.
PART 2 of this blog will be forthcoming.

PSYCHIATRY MALPRACTICE VERDICTS, SETTLEMENTS AND RECOVERIES: An Update by Attorney Charles Jerome Ware

From the national law firm of Charles Jerome Ware, P.A., Attorneys and Counsellors; a premier medical malpractice law firm headquartered in Columbia, Howard County, Maryland: "Still working. Still committed. Still here to make a difference."

This multi-state survey of psychiatry malpractice verdicts, settlements and recoveries is a cursory summary of only a few cases:

BACKGROUND
Psychiatric malpractice lawsuits are a variation of medical malpractice that involves psychiatrists instead of physicians. Even though psychiatrists are trained medical doctors, they also have training in psychotherapy techniques and psychopharmacological drugs.
Psychiatrists also differ from other psychotherapists, who may have either a PhD or PsyD from an accredited university and are licensed by the state or are licensed clinical social workers (LCSWs) [www.person-injuryinfo.net/psychiatric-malpractice].
RECOVERIES
(1) Reduced Observation of Psychiatric Patient Blamed For His Suicide By Hanging. Verdict to family of $71,989.00 returned, apportioning 65% fault to the hospital and 35% to the psychiatrist.
A 45-year-old police lieutenant who suffered from alcohol abuse and depression was admitted to a psychiatric care family. He was classified "Q15", a category assigned to patients who must be visually inspected every 15 minutes, cannot have access to sharp objets or any other material or object they can use to inflict bodily harm, and must request permission to use restrooms. The next day the psychiatrist examined the patient and moved him to a "Q30" status, which halved the frequency of visual inspections, gave the patient unrestricted access to restrooms, and allowed him to have a bathrobe with a belt.
The patient committed suicide by hanging himself with the bathrobe belt the very next day, using the restroom door to support a noose he made with the belt (Honolulu, Hawaii Circuit Court).
(2) $3,000,000 Confidential Recovery: MEDICAL MALPRACTICE – PSYCHIATRY – OUTPATIENT BEHAVIORAL SERVICE PROVIDER AND SOCIAL WORKER NEGLIGENCE – FAILURE TO DIAGNOSE AND REPORT ABUSE AND NEGLECT RESULTING IN TRAUMATIC BRAIN INJURY TO ADOPTED CHILD.

In this malpractice matter, the plaintiff conservator for the child alleged that the various health care provider defendants were negligent in observing, but failing to report injuries observed to be consistent with an abusive relationship. The child sustained a traumatic brain injury as a result of the unreported instances of abuse. The defendants denied the allegations and disputed liability (Massachusetts).
(3) $1,000,000 Recovery: Medical Malpractice - Psychiatry - negligent prescription of Zyprexa to plaintiff results in Tardive Dyskinesia.
In this action for medical malpractice, the plaintiff alleged that the defendant’s negligent prescription of the anti- psychotic medication, Zyprexa, caused her to suffer uncontrollable involuntary movement of the tongue. The defendant generally denied liability (San Bernardino County, California).
(4) Over $1,000,000 Confidential Recovery: MEDICAL MALPRACTICE – PSYCHIATRY – OUTPATIENT BEHAVIORAL SERVICE PROVIDER AND SOCIAL WORKER NEGLIGENCE – FAILURE TO DIAGNOSE AND REPORT ABUSE AND NEGLECT RESULTING IN TRAUMATIC BRAIN INJURY TO ADOPTED CHILD.
In this malpractice matter, the plaintiff conservator for the child alleged that the various health care provider defendants were negligent in observing, but failing to report injuries observed to be consistent with an abusive relationship. The child sustained a traumatic brain injury as a result of the unreported instances of abuse. The defendants denied the allegations and disputed liability (Massachusetts).
(5) $500,000 Recovery: Medical Malpractice – Psychiatry – Failure to admit and treat a suicidal patient – Wrongful Death of 55-year-old male.
The estate of the male decedent alleged that the defendants failed to admit the decedent to a psychiatric unit and negligently discharged the decedent to his home when he was severely depressed and suicidal. As a result, the decedent took his own life a few days after being treated by the defendants. The defendants all denied any negligence (Bucks County, Pennsylvania).


(6) Over $1,000,000 Verdict: Medical Malpractice - Psychiatry - Former model sues therapist for manipulation and sexual voyeurism - Abuse of doctor-patient privileges.

In this case a former jeans model sued her psychiatrist after he crossed the line in treatment, setting her up with fellow patients and interrogating her about sexual details of her encounters with the men. The plaintiff successfully recovered her treatment fees, as well as $1,000,000 for pain and suffering in the Supreme Court of New York County (New York County, New York).
[www.power2u.org/NationalEmpowermentCenter/ Patricia E. Deegan, PhD; medicalmalpracticerelief.com/medical-malpractice-verdicts; www.jfponline.com/ The Journal of Family Practice/Vol. 6, No. 6/June 2007; www.jvra.com/ Jury Verdict Review & Analysis]




Thursday, September 6, 2012

DIVORCES DIRTY WORLDWIDE: Australia, Serbia and Cambodia

From the national general law practice of Charles Jerome Ware, P.A., Attorneys and Counsellors: "Still working. Still committed. Still here to make a difference."

James Jager is a legal assistant with this law firm. Mr. Jager is also a Shakespearean actor and teacher of acting and drama.

- "Man forced to dig up graves in Australian divorce":

An Australian man is getting a dirtier divorce than he expected.

The Sydney Morning Herald reported Tuesday, August 4th, 2012, that the man, known only by his pseudonym, Mr. Moss, is being forced to dig up his parents' ashes after his ex-wife was awarded their family farm in the divorce settlement.

Mr. Moss created a memorial garden on the property after his father died in 2002. When his mother died six years later, her urn was buried there as well. According to the newspaper, Mr. Moss was given 14 days to remove the headstones and urns from the property.

The judge reportedly granted the property to Mr. Moss' ex-wife because she was unemployed and unable to purchase a similar property within their community, unlike Mr. Moss, whose annual salary is $160,000.

- "Serbian Farmer cuts equipment and tools in half":

A disgruntled Serbian farmer cut all of his farm equipment and tools in half to settle his marital property division obligations pursuant to a court order. He kept half and delivered the other half to his ex-wife in 2008.

- "Cambodian man gives new meaning to half-ownership of house":

In a down-and-dirty 2008 divorce in Cambodia an unhappy husband angrily sawed his house in half to allegedly satisfy a court-ordered distribution of half of the marital home to his ex-wife.

[http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/04/dirty-divorce; and see, Understanding the Law: A Primer, by Attorney Charles Jerome Ware, iUniverse (2008)]

"LINSANITY", RG3, "UNBELIEVABLY UNBELIEVABLE": Trademark Updates from Attorney Charles Jerome Ware

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

Alan J. Kennedy, Esquire heads the firm's Intellectual Property Law department in Columbia, Howard County, Maryland. Attorney Kennedy is formerly trademark counsel for NASA (the National Aeronautics and Space Administration) in Washington D.C. He is an engineering graduate of Purdue University as well as a University of Maryland School of Law graduate.

[www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-05-29/sony-apple-linsanity-rgIII-wwe-intellectual-property; www.businessweek.com/2012/02/17/kodak-Linsanity-pirate-bay-mattel-intellectualproperty; www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/17/jeremy-lin-linsanity-trademark; www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/linsanity-the-trademark/2012-02-16]

- "LINSANITY", the Trademark, now belongs to Jeremy Lin

It's official. The U.S Patent and Trademark Office has ruled that the word "Linsanity" belongs to former New York Knicks point guard Jeremy Lin. Lin was among several individuals who filed for trademark rights earlier this year (2012). The athlete now controls "all Lin-related trademarks" according to his intellectual property law attorney.

- Robert Griffin III, NFL Quarterback, Seeks Trademark for Phrase "Unbelievably Unbelievable", Among Others

Robert Griffin II, new rookie quarterback for the NFL's Washington Redskins' football team, has applied to register the following names and phrases as trademarks: "Unbelievably Unbelievable", "Dream Big, Live Bigger", "Robert Griffin III", "RG3", and "RGill".

According to the ESPN website, Griffin is the first NFL player to be permitted to use a Roman numeral on the back of his football jersey. Above his number his name will be listed as "Griffin III."

Keep the conversation going.

Wednesday, September 5, 2012

"Deadbeat" Parents: A Report by Shavina Mukesh, Esquire

Shavina Mukesh is a family law attorney associated with the national law firm of Charles Jerome Ware, P.A., Attorneys & Counsellors.

Deadbeat Parents is a term referring to parents of either gender refusing or unwilling to pay court/agency ordered child support. The equivalent of deadbeat parents in legal terms is parents who are "not in compliance" or parents who are "criminally not in compliance."

Deadbeat parents are becoming a growing problem in the United States. According to the United States Census Bureau, "47.3% of custodial mothers received all the child support they were owed and 77.5% received some". Additionally, "46.2% of custodial fathers received all the child support that they were owed and 74.5% received some".

One of the main reasons single mothers go on welfare is that fathers have failed to meet their responsibility towards their children.

Congress found that dads are more likely to be delinquent on their child support obligations when they crossed state lines. In 1998, President Bill Clinton signed a new law that will make it a federal crime to cross state lines in order to avoid child support payments. The Deadbeat Parents Punishment Act entails felony punishment for a parent who moves to another state, or country, with the intention of evading child support payments if the debt has remained unpaid for over a year or is great than $5,000.00.

According to the Deadbeat Parents Punishment Act, a deadbeat parent is somebody who:

1. Is ordered to pay child support by the courts;
2. Is aware of the child support obligation;
3. Has willfully chosen not to pay child support for twelve months or is at least $5,000 in arrerage towards their child support payments.

There are also many other sanctions that can be applied to a parent who is "not in compliance" or "criminally not in compliance". Some of these are:
  • Suspend driver's license/professional license
  • Deny passport
  • Garnish paycheck
  • Intercept federal/state income tax refund
[see: www.census.gov/prod/2007pubs/p60-234.pdf; The Deadbeat Parents Punishment Act 1998; dhr.maryland.gov/manuals/tca/1004/pdf]

TRADE SECRETS, TRADEMARKS: INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW UPDATES

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

- "Disney, DC Comics, Sanrio Sue Party Animals, LLC for Trademark and Copyright Infringement":

The Walt Disney Co. sued a Southern California provider of birthday-party entertainment for trademark and copyright infringement.

Co-plaintiffs with Disney are Tokyo’s Sanrio Co. (8136), which is famous for its Hello Kitty character, and Time Warner Inc.’s DC Comics unit. The suit, filed Aug. 27 in federal court in Los Angeles, claims Party Animals LLC of Marina Del Rey, California, infringes intellectual property associated with licensed characters belonging to the three companies.

Party Animals is accused of infringing by its distribution, sale or rental of character costumers and related merchandise. Among the characters claimed to be infringed are Mickey and Minnie Mouse, Batman, Superman, Wonder Woman, Pluto, Goofy, Hello Kitty and Dear Daniel.

The Party Animals website lists “look alike characters”that include a “Green Guy,” “Princess Aurora,” “Superheroes,” and a “Brown Dog.” According to a statement on the company’s website, “Look-a-like characters are not officially licensed. We do not use or have copyrighted or licensed material, costumes or names.”

The owners of the licensed characters say they are harmed by the actions of the party company, and asked for court orders barring further infringement. Additionally they asked that the company be required to surrender for destruction all offending products and promotional material, and requested that they be transferred the party company’s Internet domain name.

The damages they seek are $200,000 for each infringed trademark, and, if the court determines that infringement is deliberate, for the damages to be increased to $2 million per mark. They also asked that awards of damages and of profits derived from the alleged infringement be tripled to punish the defendants for their actions.

The case is Disney Enterprises v. Jason Lancaster, 2:12-cv-07347-DDP-JC, U.S. District Court, Central District of California (Los Angeles).

- "DuPont Wins Court Order Barring Kolon From Selling Body-Armor Fiber":

DuPont Co. (DD), the inventor of Kevlar, the body-armor, has won a ruling barring Kolon Industries Inc.’s sales of a competing version of the product used in protective clothing for police and the military for the next 20 years.

U.S. District Judge Robert Payne in Richmond, Virginia, in an Aug. 20, 2012 order barred Kolon from selling products in the U.S. made with its para-aramid fiber after a jury found last year that the South Korean manufacturer stole trade secrets relating to the Kevlar fiber and should pay more than $919 million in damages.

DuPont, based in Wilmington, Delaware, is expanding Kevlar production to meet rising demand for armor and lightweight materials that reduce energy use. The company opened a $500 million plant in South Carolina last year to boost output of the material for use in products such as tires, auto parts and fiber-optic cables.

Jurors in federal court in Richmond found in September 2011 that Gyeonggi-based Kolon and its U.S. unit wrongfully obtained proprietary information about Kevlar by hiring some former DuPont engineers and marketers.

DuPont sued Kolon in February 2009 alleging it stole confidential Kevlar data. DuPont began selling the bullet-resistant fiber in 1965 and it’s used in body armor, military helmets, ropes, cables and tires. Kolon began making its own version of the para-aramid fiber in 2005.

Jurors found Kolon got access to Kevlar secrets by hiring Michael Mitcher, a former DuPont engineer who also had served as a Kevlar marketing executive.

In his order, Payne note that jurors concluded Kolon executives “willfully and maliciously misappropriated” Kevlar secrets and the company engaged in “unlawful conduct.”

As a result, Kolon is barred for a period of 20 years from“manufacturing, using, marketing, promoting, selling, distributing, offering for sale or soliciting customers for any para-aramid product,” the judge said.

The case is E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. v. Kolon Industries Inc. (120110), 09-cv-00058, U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Virginia (Richmond).

- "University of Pennsylvania Settles Trade Secrets Lawsuit With Sloan-Kettering President Craig Thompson":

Trade secrets litigation involving the president of New York’s Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, Dr. Craig Thompson, the University of Pennsylvania, and two biotech companies has settled, according to an Aug. 31 joint statement.

The lawsuits were related to research conducted by Dr. Craig Thompson, the president of Sloan-Kettering, that was funded by a $100 million donation from the Leonard and Madlyn Abramson Family Cancer Research Institute at the University of Pennsylvania. The university and the foundation accused Thompson of allegedly breaching an agreement with the foundation by failing to disclose his discoveries to the institute, instead providing the information to a company he founded and publishing it in an international journal.

Terms of the settlement weren’t disclosed. The parties said in a statement that Thompson’s company, Agios Pharmaceuticals Inc., has entered into a collaboration agreement with the University of Pennsylvania covering the development of diagnostic products to detect the metabolism of come cancers.

The two cases are Trustees of the University of Pennsylvania v. Thompson, 12-cv-1330, U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York (Manhattan), and Leonard and Madlyn Abramson Family Cancer Research Institute v. Thompson, 11-09108, U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York (Manhattan).

[www.businessweek.com/news/2012-09-04/akamai-apple-disney-dupont]

Tuesday, September 4, 2012

INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY UPDATE: From Charles Jerome Ware, P.A, Attorneys and Counsellors

The national general law firm of Charles Jerome Ware, P.A., Attorneys and Counsellors, is headquartered in Columbia, Howard County, Maryland.

Alan J. Kennedy, Esquire, is an experienced, high-level intellectually property attorney whose prior professional patents and copyrights background includes NASA (the National Aeronautics and Space Administration), the United States Patents and Copyrights Office, as well as the Xerox Corporation General Counsel's Office, among other experiences.

Mr. Kennedy is credited for being one of the top intellectual property attorneys in the United States, and he heads the firm's Intellectual Property law specialty department.

In law, especially in common law jurisdictions, "intellectual property" is frequently referred to as "intellectual rights", which includes so-called moral rights and other personal protections that cannot be bought or sold. Intellectual property rights are enforceable either for an indefinite period of time --- in the case of trademarks and trade secrets, or they may last for a term of years after which the rights typically expire and become part of the "public domain" (essentially, absence of legal protection).

The most common forms of intellectual property include patents, copyrights, trademarks and trade secrets.

Today's Intellectual Property Law News:

"Akamai Technologies Inc.'s (AKAM's) patent claims over online content delivery networks against LImelight Networks, Inc. (LLNW) were revived by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Washington, D.C."

The Federal Circuit appeals court ordered a lower court (U.S. District Court) to reconsider whether Limelight Networks, Inc. (LLNW) infringed upon the Akamai patent.

In a related decision issued Aug. 31, the court reinstated claims McKesson Corp. (MCK) made against closely held Epic Systems Corp. on a patent for a method of communication between doctors and their patients.

The issue in both cases was whether a company can be liable for infringing patents when various parties carry out parts of an innovation. The ruling will affect disputes over software, financial systems and medical diagnostic testing.

The Federal Circuit, sitting with all active judges, heard the Akamai and McKesson cases on the same day.

"Apple Sued by Alcatel-Lucent Trust Over Video-Compression Patent"

Apple Inc. (AAPL) was sued by a trust associated with France’s Alcatel-Lucent SA (ALU) over accusations it infringed a patent for video-compression technology.

“Apple’s products, including but not limited to the iPhone 4S, iPad 2 and the ‘new iPad’ by virtue of the manner in which they encode video, infringe one or more claims” of the patent, Multimedia Patent Trust said in a complaint filed Aug. 29 in federal court in San Diego.

The trust seeks unspecified damages and a court order stopping the alleged infringement.

Alcatel-Lucent, based in Paris, set up the patent trust on Nov. 28, 2006, two days before Alcatel’s purchase of Lucent Technologies Inc. The trust previously sued Walt Disney Co. (DIS) and DirecTV (DTV), among other companies, over video-compression patents. Apple is also a defendant in a separate infringement case brought in 2010 by Multimedia Patent Trust in San Diego.

[www.businessweek.com/news/2012-09-04/ "Akamai, Apple, Disney, DuPont: Intellectual Property"; www.wipo.int/enforcement/ "Internet Sources for Intellectual Property Case Law"]