of the Judiciary Committee, Del. Joseph Vallario, sponsored the bill. The Com- mittee actually voted 11-9 in favor of this bill (with 2 absent). Unfortunately, be- cause the Committee contains 22 members, 12 votes are needed to receive a favorable report. We also presented very compelling tes- timony at hearings in the Senate and House on bills to abolish the Household Family Exclusion present in every auto policy in the state. The House Commit- tee on Economic Matters established a work group to study this issue, and we have been promised that this issue will be studied over the summer. The work of the Legislative Committee


and our lobbyists does not end when the session ends. We expect to work very hard throughout the summer and fall to lay the groundwork to change the law. With the help of an extensive letter writing campaign from MTLA members, we helped change the law to allow medi- cal records from out-of-state health care providers to be introduced into evidence via Courts and Judicial Proceedings Sec 10-104. In addition, liability insurance carriers are now required to reveal the Defendant’s last known business address as well as the last known home address. Clearly, our most important legislative


victory was the passage of HB 612, which confers jurisdiction on the Workers’ Com- pensation Commission to decide issues of Temporary Total Disability while other is- sues are on appeal. This change in the law should prove to be a fair and equitable improvement for claimants. The final days of the session proved to be the most bizarre and frustrating as we witnessed the Legislature overturn sev- eral Court Of Appeals decisions. The proponents of the HMO legislation of- fered no facts or figures to support their contentions, misled the legislators and pushed through a hastily drafted overhaul of the HMO system of compensation by threatening across-the-board rate hikes.


No Pay, No Play Defeated The insurance industry often hides their


true motives in what they purport to be public policy. For years, the auto insur- ance carriers have been trying to pass a bill they call, “No Pay, No Play.” The bill would prevent an injured victim from claiming non-economic damages from the tortfeasor if the victim does not have car insurance. They claim that their goal is to make sure that all drivers are insured. The


Spring 2000


real goal is simply to avoid paying the claim so that the auto insurance carrier will be enriched with more profit. This bill was defeated again this year and will be vigorously opposed next year if it is introduced again. It was an interesting year, to say the least. I do not think I would have sur- vived the year without the support of our trio of lobbyists, Daniel Doherty, Mindy Binderman and Mike Arrington. The de- cision to increase our lobbying efforts came in the nick of time as there were several floor fights that could not have been handled by a single lobbyist. Last year, our lobbyists came on board just before the session began. Now that they are familiar with our issues and will have a full summer to plan ahead, I expect great things to happen next year.


I want to thank all the members of the


legislative committee and sub-committees as well as the sub-committee chairs Matt Darby and Wayne Willoughby. I also want to thank our Executive Director Jennifer Soldati for her support throughout the year. ATLA’s researchers and State Affairs Director, Ed Lazarus, were very helpful in assisting us with last-minute requests


and detailed research. MTLA Past President Dan Clements


is a fixture in Annapolis. Over the years, Dan has sacrificed countless hours and often put the interests of MTLA ahead of his business and his family. Dan’s com- mitment and personal generosity is unmatched, and the work he does on be- half of MTLA should not be taken for granted.


There is not enough space in this col- umn to properly thank my Vice Chair Mitch Lambros. Mitch has a unique ap- proach to the battles fought in Annapolis. He desperately wants to win each and ev- ery fight. Mitch is passionate about his beliefs, and I am pleased to be associated with him.


Often, the term “Trial Lawyer” is used


in a derogatory fashion. I am never more proud of my profession and my colleagues than when I am testifying or lobbying in Annapolis. It is clear that the arguments of the Trial Lawyers are meritorious, our goals are just and our method of persua- sion is not economically based. We defend the consumers and injured victims who otherwise would not have a voice in An- napolis.


Concurrent Jurisdiction


Circuit Court Under 10K... think about it


During the 2000 legislative session, two separate bills were introduced to abolish concurrent jurisdiction between the District and Circuit Court in cases less than $10,000.00. When I reported that MTLA worked to defeat both mea- sures and MTLA fought to maintain concurrent jurisdiction between $2500.00 and $10,000.00, I wondered how many members realized the advantages of Circuit Court Jurisdiction for smaller cases. There are certain cases that do not merit an investment of time or expense to justify a jury trial and would not benefit from a jury being the trier of fact. However, sometimes District Court just might not be the place you ought to be. In cases less than $10,000.00 but greater than $2500.00, you may need Circuit Court Discovery to prove your case or obtain necessary documents or admissions that make trying the case a little easier. You may also benefit from a settlement conference or other rules of procedure only found in the Circuit Court. Also, depending on the jurisdiction, you may prefer to have your case decided by a Circuit Court Judge instead of a District Court Judge. Depending on your case, it might be a welcome change for the Circuit Court Jurist since they do not often get to be the trier of fact instead of just the courtroom referee. Concurrent jurisdiction actually covers all cases between $2500.00 and $25,000.00. I use $10,000.00 as the high because in any case filed over $10,000.00, the Plaintiff loses his/her choice of jurisdiction because of the Defendant’s right to elect a trial by jury.


Bruce M. Plaxen MTLA Legislative Chairman


Trial Reporter 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