Brian Bank, the 27-year old former high school football star who served five years in the California prison system for a rape he did not commit, has signed an NFL contact to play for the Atlanta Falcons professional football franchise team.
Ten months after a California judge tossed out his conviction, the 27-year-old former high school football standout signed a deal Wednesday to play for the NFL team.
"Aside from getting my life back and my freedom back, this is the biggest accomplishment of my life," he told reporters during a conference call.
As he signed the contract, he wore a sweatshirt that showed a California license plate that said "XONR8."
Banks, who is 6-foot-2 and 250 pounds, is a linebacker.
A year ago, he was out of prison on parole, wearing an ankle monitor as a registered sex offender. The contrast with this week's events is "surreal," Banks said.
While serving time in prison, Banks said he was forced to abandon his hopes of playing in the NFL someday.
"I had to watch my class go on and receive scholarships and play collegiate football on a high level," he said. "For me I had to let those dreams go for me to focus on what was ahead of me, and that was five years in prison. That was a completely different life of violence and being away from your family. ... Football was the last thing on my mind, and it wasn't until a few months before I was actually being released from prison that I thought about possibly trying to play football again."
At age 17, fearing a potentially long sentence, the college football prospect followed the advice of his attorney and pleaded no contest to assaulting a Long Beach, California, high school classmate in 2002.
"Banks was faced with an impossible decision at the time -- either fight the charges and risk spending 41 years to life in prison, or take a plea deal and spend a little over five years of actual prison confinement," the California Innocence Project says on its website. "Although it would mean destroying his chance to go to college and play football, a lengthy probationary period, and a lifetime of registration as a sex offender, Banks chose the lesser of two evils when he pleaded no contest to the charges."
Such situations are not uncommon, the group's director, Justin Brooks, told CNN last year.
"Plea bargains have become the 95% solution," he said.
Banks maintained his innocence throughout his imprisonment, subsequent probation and registration as a sex offender.
His fortunes began to change in 2011, when the woman who once accused him of rape sent him a Facebook friend request.
According to the California Innocence Project, the woman later admitted that Banks had not kidnapped or raped her during a consensual encounter at Long Beach Polytechnic High School, where Banks was a middle linebacker with a scholarship offer from the University of Southern California.
"We do not believe Mr. Banks did the crime he pled guilty to," Deputy District Attorney Brentford Ferreira said. "Justice has been served."
Since his exoneration, Banks has spent months in intensive training, attending San Francisco 49ers and Seattle Seahawks minicamps last year.
"It's been a long road. It's been a lot of hard work. It is 10 years missing in my football career," he said, "but there has been a lot of work put in to making up for it."
After signing his contract with the Falcons on Wednesday, Banks thanked the team's players and personnel from his Twitter account, @BrianBanksFREE.
Our congratulations and best wishes to Brian Banks!
[www.cnn.com/04-03-2013/US/ "Exonerated Brian Banks Signs With Atlanta Falcons"]
Thursday, April 4, 2013
LEAD PAINT DEFENSE NATIONAL SEMINAR: FEATURING BALTIMORE ATTORNEY EXPERT CHARLES JEROME WARE, www.CharlesJeromeWare.com
Topic of Seminar: "Lead Paint Defense 101".
Date of Seminar: Friday, April 12th, 2013.
Location of Seminar:Boca Raton
Boca Raton , Florida 33432
Baltimore , Maryland
The national law firm of Charles Jerome Ware, P.A., Attorneys and Counsellors, is one of Maryland's premier lead paint defense firms.
Along with its expertise in lead paint defense work, the firm is very highly regarded in the areas of criminal defense and civil litigation, medical malpractice and wrongful death, personal injury and transactional legal matters.
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.]
The national law firm of Charles Jerome Ware, P.A., Attorneys and Counsellors is: "Still working. Still committed. Still here to make a difference."
Lead paint lawsuits by tenants against landlords have increased during the past few years as the public has become more aware of the dangers created by lead paint.
Lawyers who represent injured children or residential landlords should investigate the facts to determine the identity of potentially liable defendants, the cause or causes of the injury, the potential defenses to the claim, which experts to utilize, and the different types of damages available in the case.
How Much in Damages Can Be Expected?
Damages recoverable in lead paint suits are similar to those recoverable in other types of personal injury litigations: loss of earning capacity, medical expenses, and pain and suffering. Parents may have a claim for loss of consortium in some jurisdictions. Also, some jurisdictions allow for the recovery of punitive damages if the facts of the case establish the elements for the award.
The largest dollar claim for damages generally falls under the category of vocational limitations.
In most cases, plaintiffs allege that the exposed child will be restricted in vocational options as an adult due to irreversible injuries caused by the exposure to lead that permanently disable the affected child. As a result, the child's earning capacity as an adult will be diminished.
In an attempt to mitigate loss of earning capacity damages, defendants may present evidence that the parents possess modest or below-average intelligence, together with expert testimony that children usually exhibit a level of intelligence that mirrors their parents.
The assessment by the defendant on vocational damages may focus on the child's home environment and the parents' child-rearing practices. These factors may strongly affect a child's cognitive behavior and development.
Defense counsel may argue that it is better to assess a child's future earning capacity on familial elements rather than on lead exposure.
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.
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:
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.
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; www.americanbar.org/newsletter (Spring 1997)]
Date of Seminar: Friday, April 12th, 2013.
Location of Seminar:
501 East Camino Real
Attorney and Author
The national law firm of Charles Jerome Ware, P.A., Attorneys and Counsellors, is one of Maryland's premier lead paint defense firms.
Along with its expertise in lead paint defense work, the firm is very highly regarded in the areas of criminal defense and civil litigation, medical malpractice and wrongful death, personal injury and transactional legal matters.
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.]
The national law firm of Charles Jerome Ware, P.A., Attorneys and Counsellors is: "Still working. Still committed. Still here to make a difference."
Lead paint lawsuits by tenants against landlords have increased during the past few years as the public has become more aware of the dangers created by lead paint.
Lawyers who represent injured children or residential landlords should investigate the facts to determine the identity of potentially liable defendants, the cause or causes of the injury, the potential defenses to the claim, which experts to utilize, and the different types of damages available in the case.
How Much in Damages Can Be Expected?
Damages recoverable in lead paint suits are similar to those recoverable in other types of personal injury litigations: loss of earning capacity, medical expenses, and pain and suffering. Parents may have a claim for loss of consortium in some jurisdictions. Also, some jurisdictions allow for the recovery of punitive damages if the facts of the case establish the elements for the award.
The largest dollar claim for damages generally falls under the category of vocational limitations.
In most cases, plaintiffs allege that the exposed child will be restricted in vocational options as an adult due to irreversible injuries caused by the exposure to lead that permanently disable the affected child. As a result, the child's earning capacity as an adult will be diminished.
In an attempt to mitigate loss of earning capacity damages, defendants may present evidence that the parents possess modest or below-average intelligence, together with expert testimony that children usually exhibit a level of intelligence that mirrors their parents.
The assessment by the defendant on vocational damages may focus on the child's home environment and the parents' child-rearing practices. These factors may strongly affect a child's cognitive behavior and development.
Defense counsel may argue that it is better to assess a child's future earning capacity on familial elements rather than on lead exposure.
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)
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. § 8-208.2Following 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; www.americanbar.org/newsletter (Spring 1997)]
Tuesday, April 2, 2013
LEAD Paint Defense Attorneys in Baltimore: Charles Jerome Ware, P.A.
The national law firm of Charles Jerome Ware, P.A., Attorneys and Counsellors, is one of Maryland's premier lead paint defense firms.
Along with its expertise in lead paint defense work, the firm is very highly regarded in the areas of criminal defense and civil litigation, medical malpractice and wrongful death, personal injury and transactional legal matters.
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.]
The national law firm of Charles Jerome Ware, P.A., Attorneys and Counsellors is: "Still working. Still committed. Still here to make a difference."
Lead paint lawsuits by tenants against landlords have increased during the past few years as the public has become more aware of the dangers created by lead paint.
Lawyers who represent injured children or residential landlords should investigate the facts to determine the identity of potentially liable defendants, the cause or causes of the injury, the potential defenses to the claim, which experts to utilize, and the different types of damages available in the case.
How Much in Damages Can Be Expected?
Damages recoverable in lead paint suits are similar to those recoverable in other types of personal injury litigations: loss of earning capacity, medical expenses, and pain and suffering. Parents may have a claim for loss of consortium in some jurisdictions. Also, some jurisdictions allow for the recovery of punitive damages if the facts of the case establish the elements for the award.
The largest dollar claim for damages generally falls under the category of vocational limitations.
In most cases, plaintiffs allege that the exposed child will be restricted in vocational options as an adult due to irreversible injuries caused by the exposure to lead that permanently disable the affected child. As a result, the child's earning capacity as an adult will be diminished.
In an attempt to mitigate loss of earning capacity damages, defendants may present evidence that the parents possess modest or below-average intelligence, together with expert testimony that children usually exhibit a level of intelligence that mirrors their parents.
The assessment by the defendant on vocational damages may focus on the child's home environment and the parents' child-rearing practices. These factors may strongly affect a child's cognitive behavior and development.
Defense counsel may argue that it is better to assess a child's future earning capacity on familial elements rather than on lead exposure.
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.
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:
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.
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; www.americanbar.org/newsletter (Spring 1997)]
Along with its expertise in lead paint defense work, the firm is very highly regarded in the areas of criminal defense and civil litigation, medical malpractice and wrongful death, personal injury and transactional legal matters.
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.]
The national law firm of Charles Jerome Ware, P.A., Attorneys and Counsellors is: "Still working. Still committed. Still here to make a difference."
Lead paint lawsuits by tenants against landlords have increased during the past few years as the public has become more aware of the dangers created by lead paint.
Lawyers who represent injured children or residential landlords should investigate the facts to determine the identity of potentially liable defendants, the cause or causes of the injury, the potential defenses to the claim, which experts to utilize, and the different types of damages available in the case.
How Much in Damages Can Be Expected?
Damages recoverable in lead paint suits are similar to those recoverable in other types of personal injury litigations: loss of earning capacity, medical expenses, and pain and suffering. Parents may have a claim for loss of consortium in some jurisdictions. Also, some jurisdictions allow for the recovery of punitive damages if the facts of the case establish the elements for the award.
The largest dollar claim for damages generally falls under the category of vocational limitations.
In most cases, plaintiffs allege that the exposed child will be restricted in vocational options as an adult due to irreversible injuries caused by the exposure to lead that permanently disable the affected child. As a result, the child's earning capacity as an adult will be diminished.
In an attempt to mitigate loss of earning capacity damages, defendants may present evidence that the parents possess modest or below-average intelligence, together with expert testimony that children usually exhibit a level of intelligence that mirrors their parents.
The assessment by the defendant on vocational damages may focus on the child's home environment and the parents' child-rearing practices. These factors may strongly affect a child's cognitive behavior and development.
Defense counsel may argue that it is better to assess a child's future earning capacity on familial elements rather than on lead exposure.
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)
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. § 8-208.2Following 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; www.americanbar.org/newsletter (Spring 1997)]
Monday, April 1, 2013
TUCSON 2013 BOOK FESTIVAL: Charles Jerome Ware, Author and Attorney
www.CharlesJeromeWare.com
University of Arizona, Gallagher Theatre
March 9th, 2013
C-SPAN 2, BOOKTV, booktv.org
Among attorney and author Charles Jerome Ware's best-selling books are:
(1) The Secret Science of Winning Lotteries, Sweepstakes and Contests;
http://amzn.com/1432793888
(2) Understanding the Law: A Primer;
http://amzn.com/1440111456
(3) The Immigration Paradox: 15 Tips for Winning Immigration Cases;
http://amzn.com/1440171920
(4) Legal Consumer Tips and Secrets: Avoiding Debtors' Prison in the United States; and
http://amzn.com/1462051847
(5) Quince (15) Consejos Para Ganar Casos Del Inmigracion.
http://amzn.com/1462068952
Ware's blogs and twitter include, inter alia:
University of Arizona, Gallagher Theatre
March 9th, 2013
C-SPAN 2, BOOKTV, booktv.org
Among attorney and author Charles Jerome Ware's best-selling books are:
(1) The Secret Science of Winning Lotteries, Sweepstakes and Contests;
http://amzn.com/1432793888
(2) Understanding the Law: A Primer;
http://amzn.com/1440111456
(3) The Immigration Paradox: 15 Tips for Winning Immigration Cases;
http://amzn.com/1440171920
(4) Legal Consumer Tips and Secrets: Avoiding Debtors' Prison in the United States; and
http://amzn.com/1462051847
(5) Quince (15) Consejos Para Ganar Casos Del Inmigracion.
http://amzn.com/1462068952
Ware's blogs and twitter include, inter alia:
http://open.salon.com/blog/charlesjware
www.CharlesJeromeWare.com
[See, Amazon.com, iUniverse.com, Outskirts Press, BooksAMillion.com, Barnesandnoble.com, www.Kobobooks.com, bookstore.iuniverse.com, books.google.com, www.buscalibre.com, www.diesel-ebooks.com, www.allbookstores.com, www.ebookmail.com, www.ebay.com, www.scribd.com, www.deepdiscount.com, www.betterworldbooks.com, www.landmarkonthenet.com, www.shopping.com, www.lawbooks-online.com, newmexicoveterinaryboard.us, www.booktopia.com.au, The Immigration Paradox-NY-Times.com, the Immigration Paradox: 15 Tips for Winning Immigration Cases, www.2shared.com, www.textbooksrus.com, www.valorebooks.com, www.waterstones.com, www.getcited.org, www.fishpond.co.nz, www.bookfinder4u.com, ebookstore.sony.com, www.bookdepository.co.uk, www.nytimes.com/2009/03/15, C-SPAN2/Book TV, BookTV.org, Miami Book Fair, International Summit on Books, American Library Association (ALA) Book Fair, National Book Festival, Baltimore Book Festival, inter al]
www.CharlesJeromeWare.com
[See, Amazon.com, iUniverse.com, Outskirts Press, BooksAMillion.com, Barnesandnoble.com, www.Kobobooks.com, bookstore.iuniverse.com, books.google.com, www.buscalibre.com, www.diesel-ebooks.com, www.allbookstores.com, www.ebookmail.com, www.ebay.com, www.scribd.com, www.deepdiscount.com, www.betterworldbooks.com, www.landmarkonthenet.com, www.shopping.com, www.lawbooks-online.com, newmexicoveterinaryboard.us, www.booktopia.com.au, The Immigration Paradox-NY-Times.com, the Immigration Paradox: 15 Tips for Winning Immigration Cases, www.2shared.com, www.textbooksrus.com, www.valorebooks.com, www.waterstones.com, www.getcited.org, www.fishpond.co.nz, www.bookfinder4u.com, ebookstore.sony.com, www.bookdepository.co.uk, www.nytimes.com/2009/03/15, C-SPAN2/Book TV, BookTV.org, Miami Book Fair, International Summit on Books, American Library Association (ALA) Book Fair, National Book Festival, Baltimore Book Festival, inter al]
$1 BILLION VERDICT REVERSED: EXXON MOBIL v. FORD (Md. Ct. of Appeals, 02/26/13), www.CharlesJeromeWare.com
www.CharlesJeromeWare.com
On February 26, 2013, the Maryland Court of Appeals reversed a $1 billion jury verdict in punitive damages awarded in Baltimore County on behalf of several Jacksonville, Maryland residents and businesses [see, Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Ford, No. 16, Court of Appeals of Maryland, February 26 2013].
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
The damages struck down by Maryland's highest court were in connection with one of the largest gas leaks in Maryland state history: a 26,000-gallon leak at an Exxon Mobil-owned gas station in Baltimore County in 2006.
The Court also slashed a large number of the compensatory damages awarded by the jury, which originally came to about $500 million.
Now, seven years after the 2006 verdict, the site of the Exxon station in Jacksonville, Baltimore County, Maryland remains fenced in. Closed for "environmental remediation".
The defendant in the class-action case, Exxon Mobil, has a "deadline" of June 2014 to complete treatment of the area's groundwater. In the meantime, residents in the community are buying their own drinking water --- and will probably be doing so for years to come.
As typical, there were multiple cases combined in this enormous class-action:
On February 26, 2013, the Maryland Court of Appeals reversed a $1 billion jury verdict in punitive damages awarded in Baltimore County on behalf of several Jacksonville, Maryland residents and businesses [see, Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Ford, No. 16, Court of Appeals of Maryland, February 26 2013].
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
The damages struck down by Maryland's highest court were in connection with one of the largest gas leaks in Maryland state history: a 26,000-gallon leak at an Exxon Mobil-owned gas station in Baltimore County in 2006.
The Court also slashed a large number of the compensatory damages awarded by the jury, which originally came to about $500 million.
Now, seven years after the 2006 verdict, the site of the Exxon station in Jacksonville, Baltimore County, Maryland remains fenced in. Closed for "environmental remediation".
The defendant in the class-action case, Exxon Mobil, has a "deadline" of June 2014 to complete treatment of the area's groundwater. In the meantime, residents in the community are buying their own drinking water --- and will probably be doing so for years to come.
As typical, there were multiple cases combined in this enormous class-action:
In Albright, the Court of Appeals reversed the fraud verdict. Plaintiffs’ fraud theory was based on allegedly fraudulent statements that Exxon made to government officials. Plaintiffs contended that the public officials relied on Exxon’s false statements to the detriment of them—i.e., the public. The Court held that Maryland does not allow a third party to recover damages for fraud purely on the basis of a fraudulent statement made to the government.
Overall, the Court held that none of the Plaintiffs were able to prove any of their fraud theories by clear and convincing evidence. Because the fraud verdicts were reversed, all the punitive damages stemming therefrom were reversed as well. In addition, because of the absence of fraud, there was no permissible recovery for emotional distress attendant to property damage. The Court therefore reversed jury awards on that basis as well.
In both Albright and Ford, the Court also considered whether emotional distress damages could be awarded due to the Plaintiffs’ fear of contracting cancer arising from the leak. The Court held that a Plaintiff can recover emotional distress damages for fear of contracting a latent disease if Plaintiff demonstrates: 1) he was actually exposed to a toxic substance due to the defendant’s tortious conduct; 2) which lead him to, objectively and reasonably, fear that he would contract a disease; and 3) as a result of the objective and reasonable fear, he manifested a physical injury capable of objective determination.
The Court reversed jury awards to many of the Plaintiffs due to their failure to prove the elements of this cause of action.
The Plaintiffs were also awarded damages for medical monitoring in connection with the gas leak, although Maryland courts have never explicitly recognized a cause of action for medical monitoring.
The Court held that in Maryland, a Plaintiff may recover damages for medical monitoring costs, usually through the administration of an equitable fund, upon a showing that: 1) the plaintiff was significantly exposed to a proven hazardous substance through the defendant’s tortious conduct; 2) that as a proximate result of the significant exposure, the plaintiff suffers a significantly increased risk of contracting a latent disease; 3) that the increased risk makes periodic diagnostic medical examinations reasonably necessary; and 4) that the monitoring and testing procedures exist which make early detection and treatment of the disease possible and beneficial. Again, the Court reversed jury awards to many of the Plaintiffs in the case for their failure to prove the elements of this cause of action.
The Court also held that the Plaintiffs should not have been allowed to recover damages for both diminution in property value AND past loss of use and enjoyment of real property as the recoveries were duplicative. The Court held that Plaintiffs could only recover damages for diminution in property value and reversed the verdicts for past loss of use and enjoyment.
Overall, many of the damages awarded to the Plaintiffs in these cases ended up being overturned.
[This document is intended for informational purposes only and is not legal advice or a substitute for consultation with a licensed legal professional in a particular case or circumstance]
AMERICA'S WORST BANK? --- According to MONEY.MSN.COM and the CFPB
www.CharlesJeromeWare.com
According to money.msn.com (03-29-2013, article by Aimee Pichi), and based largely upon its predominant share of consumer complaints filed with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), America's worst bank is Bank of America (BAC-0.41%).
This distinction coincides with bank of America's consistent image as one of the "most disliked companies in America".
But the newly released database of complaints from the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is giving some numbers and perspective to just exactly how much people revile Bank of America.
The bottom line? The hate is fairly staggering.
The biggest share of complaints consumers lodged during the past 16 months were targeted toward B of A, according to an analysis of the data from The Wall Street Journal.
Nearly 23% of the 90,000 complaints were tied to B of A, while Wells Fargo (WFC -0.32%) came in second place with 14% of total complaints, and JPMorgan Chase (JPM +0.60%) placed third, with 11%, The Journal found.
Many complaints leveled at Bank of America are tied to mortgages, with about one-third of overall mortgage gripes linked to the bank. It's the legacy of the bank's purchase of mortgage lender Countrywide Financial, called "the deal from hell" by the Boston Business Journal.
The bank has booked more than $40 billion in expenses tied to the Countrywide purchase since 2010.
[www.CharlesJeromeWare.com; money.msn.com/now/post/aspx/ "Hate Bank of America? Join the Crowd"/3-29-2013; online.wsj.com/article/3-29-2013/ "BofA Tops Financial-Complaint List"; www.masslive.com/business-news/01-14-2013/"Editorial: Bank of America's acquisition of Countrywide Financial the worst deal ever"]
According to money.msn.com (03-29-2013, article by Aimee Pichi), and based largely upon its predominant share of consumer complaints filed with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), America's worst bank is Bank of America (BAC-0.41%).
This distinction coincides with bank of America's consistent image as one of the "most disliked companies in America".
But the newly released database of complaints from the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is giving some numbers and perspective to just exactly how much people revile Bank of America.
The bottom line? The hate is fairly staggering.
The biggest share of complaints consumers lodged during the past 16 months were targeted toward B of A, according to an analysis of the data from The Wall Street Journal.
Nearly 23% of the 90,000 complaints were tied to B of A, while Wells Fargo (WFC -0.32%) came in second place with 14% of total complaints, and JPMorgan Chase (JPM +0.60%) placed third, with 11%, The Journal found.
Many complaints leveled at Bank of America are tied to mortgages, with about one-third of overall mortgage gripes linked to the bank. It's the legacy of the bank's purchase of mortgage lender Countrywide Financial, called "the deal from hell" by the Boston Business Journal.
The bank has booked more than $40 billion in expenses tied to the Countrywide purchase since 2010.
[www.CharlesJeromeWare.com; money.msn.com/now/post/aspx/ "Hate Bank of America? Join the Crowd"/3-29-2013; online.wsj.com/article/3-29-2013/ "BofA Tops Financial-Complaint List"; www.masslive.com/business-news/01-14-2013/"Editorial: Bank of America's acquisition of Countrywide Financial the worst deal ever"]
MICHAEL JACKSON DEATH UPDATE: From The Wrongful Death Warehouse (www.CharlesJeromeWare.com)
KATHERINE JACKSON, ET AL. v. AEG LIVE LLC, ET AL., Civil Case No. BC445597 (Wrongful Death Case), Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles, Central District (Case filed September 15, 2010).
Deceased superstar entertainer Michael Jackson's mother, Katherine Jackson, individually as well as in her legal capacity of guardian ad litem her son's three children --- Michael Joseph Jackson, Jr., Paris-Michael Katherine Jackson, and Prince Michael Jackson II --- is suing giant entertainment company AEG LIVE LLC and others.
The lawsuit alleges, among other things, that the company and its agents breached its contract with Michael Jackson to provide proper physical care and treatment, as well as safety, for him ("MJ") [Complaint, paras. 3, 4, 5].
The lawsuit claims that AEG was negligent in their hiring of Dr. Conrad Murray as "MJ's" personal physician [Complaint, paras. 7, 26, 27, 28, et al.].
In the suit, Katherine claims AEG's contract with Michael "created a legal duty for AEG to act reasonably toward the physical well-being of Michael Jackson."
In the document, Katherine also blames AEG for hiring Dr. Murray without a proper background check -- claiming, "AEG did not provide a doctor who was truly looking out for Jackson's well-being and did not provide equipment." [Complaint, paras. 84, et al.].
The suit also alleges AEG caused emotional distress to Michael's son Prince because he witnessed Michael suffering and dying, and "he was put in a position as bystander to these tragic events." [Complaint, paras. 91, 92, 93].
Kenny Ortega, who produced the planned London concerts for Michael, is also named as a defendant [Complaint, para. 14].
www.CharlesJeromeWare.com ("We fight. You win.")
The national criminal defense, wrongful death and serious injury law firm of Charles Jerome Ware P.A., Attorneys and Counsellors, is regarded as a leader in the areas of criminal defense, automobile death, personal injury, survivorship, and wrongful death actions in the mid-Atlantic region --- including Maryland, Washington, D.C., Pennsylvania, Delaware, New Jersey and Virginia.
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.]
The national law firm of Charles Jerome Ware, P.A., Attorneys and Counsellors, is a premier Civil litigation and Criminal Defense firm headquartered in Maryland and Washington, D.C. We are: "Still working. Still committed. Still here to make a difference."
Deceased superstar entertainer Michael Jackson's mother, Katherine Jackson, individually as well as in her legal capacity of guardian ad litem her son's three children --- Michael Joseph Jackson, Jr., Paris-Michael Katherine Jackson, and Prince Michael Jackson II --- is suing giant entertainment company AEG LIVE LLC and others.
The lawsuit alleges, among other things, that the company and its agents breached its contract with Michael Jackson to provide proper physical care and treatment, as well as safety, for him ("MJ") [Complaint, paras. 3, 4, 5].
The lawsuit claims that AEG was negligent in their hiring of Dr. Conrad Murray as "MJ's" personal physician [Complaint, paras. 7, 26, 27, 28, et al.].
In the suit, Katherine claims AEG's contract with Michael "created a legal duty for AEG to act reasonably toward the physical well-being of Michael Jackson."
In the document, Katherine also blames AEG for hiring Dr. Murray without a proper background check -- claiming, "AEG did not provide a doctor who was truly looking out for Jackson's well-being and did not provide equipment." [Complaint, paras. 84, et al.].
The suit also alleges AEG caused emotional distress to Michael's son Prince because he witnessed Michael suffering and dying, and "he was put in a position as bystander to these tragic events." [Complaint, paras. 91, 92, 93].
Kenny Ortega, who produced the planned London concerts for Michael, is also named as a defendant [Complaint, para. 14].
www.CharlesJeromeWare.com ("We fight. You win.")
The national criminal defense, wrongful death and serious injury law firm of Charles Jerome Ware P.A., Attorneys and Counsellors, is regarded as a leader in the areas of criminal defense, automobile death, personal injury, survivorship, and wrongful death actions in the mid-Atlantic region --- including Maryland, Washington, D.C., Pennsylvania, Delaware, New Jersey and Virginia.
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.]
The national law firm of Charles Jerome Ware, P.A., Attorneys and Counsellors, is a premier Civil litigation and Criminal Defense firm headquartered in Maryland and Washington, D.C. We are: "Still working. Still committed. Still here to make a difference."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)