Winter 2000 Legislative Report by Bruce M. Plaxen


Bruce M. Plaxen serves as Vice President of MTLA and is the Chair of the Legislative Committee. He is also a member of the advisory committee to the MTLA-PAC. His practice concentrates in personal injury, workers’ compensation, premises and products liability, medical malpractice and automobile negligence. He is a partner in the firm Plaxen & Adler in Columbia and may be reached at 410- 730-7737 or by email at: bplaxen@hotmail.com.


10-104 Revisited


Several months ago, as I waited to liti- gate a case in the District Court of Prince George’s County, an attorney recognized me and introduced me to her client as the Legislative Chair of the Maryland Trial Lawyers Association. She told her client that MTLA was partially responsible for making it possible for her to get a fair and inexpensive trial. The attorney explained that MTLA’s lobbying efforts helped make it possible to litigate her case without the expense of live testimony and that MTLA’s support of the recent Constitu- tional Amendment made it possible to claim damages of $10,000.00 without the expense or delay of a jury trial. Last week, I found myself in the same


courtroom with a case I filed in District Court in 1998 for $20,000.00. Allstate requested a jury trial in 1998 and we were transferred to Circuit Court. My case had medical specials of $1550.00, wage losses of $1270.00 and unpaid personal prop- erty loss of $520.00. After the Constitutional Amendment went into effect, I amended the ad damnum clause to $10,000.00 and had the case trans- ferred back to the District Court. My case was a red light case in which liability was vigorously disputed. I had my client, his wife, three independent eyewit- nesses, the police officer and a traffic engineer as witnesses. The Defendant had himself and three independent eyewit- nesses. Had this case remained in the Circuit Court, the cost of depositions may have outweighed the verdict. Instead, what most likely would have been a 2-day trial, was concluded in just under 2 hours, with a favorable verdict of $10,000.00 for the Plaintiff at minimal cost.


While waiting in the halls of Upper


Marlboro, I had the opportunity to say my own well-deserved “thank you.” Co- incidentally, Joe Vallario was also in Upper Marlboro that day; he is the Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee and the


Winter 2000


original sponsor of the CJ 10-104 legisla- tion. I introduced Mr. Vallario to my client and expressed thanks to him and the other legislators that passed this ef- fective and fair piece of legislation. Over the past few years, the Judiciary Committee has broadened the scope of CJ 10-104 in order to effectuate their original goal, i.e. fair, quick and inexpen- sive trials for cases under $25,000.00. Early on, the insurers were requesting jury trials on any case over $5,000.00 in order to make litigation more expensive for the Plaintiff. The legislature quickly acted to make this particular District Court rule follow the case up to the Circuit Court. When the insurers continued to thwart the legislative intent by requesting juries on cases worth marginally more than $5,000.00, the Legislature again acted by passing a Constitutional Amendment rais- ing the minimum for a jury request to $10,000.00.


Last year the Judiciary Committee again tried to fix 10-104 by broadening the definition of a Health Care Provider and adopting the language found in the Health General Article which includes a wide array of health care issues. Unfortu- nately, the Health General Article definition also includes a requirement that the health care provider be licensed in Maryland. The unforeseen result is a limit of certain records which were previously admissible. It is my understanding that legislation has been drafted to correct this oversight.


Members’ Help Needed Other legislation, which we expect to support, includes a Comparative Negli- gence bill to move Maryland into the 20th century (with 46 other states) as we be- gin the 21st


same auto policy for non-relatives. If you have represented someone whose claim was barred by contributory negligence, a child seriously injured in an MVA as a result of a parent’s negligence, or a family member that was seriously injured though recovery was limited by a “Family Mem- ber Clause” please contact me as soon as possible. The legislators need to know that these are not just anecdotal tales but real people (their constituents) who are being harmed by archaic laws.


Legislation which we hope will pass include first party bad faith, punitive dam- ages against drunk drivers, a requirement that insurance carriers reveal policy lim- its pre litigation and several Workers’ Compensation initiatives as well as a change in the Statute of Limitations for minors injured as the result of Medical Malpractice.


MTLA’s Legislative Subcommittees Over the past several years, our legis-


lative agenda has grown significantly and has necessitated the formation of subcom- mittees to specifically deal with Worker’s Compensation and Medical Malpractice legislation. These committees meet on a regular basis to monitor the legislation introduced, research the various topics, identify areas of the law that might need to be changed and regularly provide pan- els of speakers to testify at Committee hearings in Annapolis. I want to thank Matt Darby, Matt Paavola and Jeff Weinberg who have acted as Workers’ Compensation subcommittee Chairs and Wayne Willoughby who has chaired the Medical Malpractice subcommittee the past several years.


century. We also hope to


abrogate parent-child immunity and abol- ish the discriminatory practice of limiting family members to $20,000.00 worth of coverage despite much higher limits in the


Trial Reporter


Members Support Fundraising Drive The year 2000 is an important one for


MTLA. In the past, it had often been re- marked that our lone lobbyist was vastly


(Continued on page 6) 5


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48