This page contains a Flash digital edition of a book.
Cost Effective Presentation of the Auto Tort Case in Maryland by Mark A. Schofield and Justin Katz


Large law firms spare no expense when


it comes to representing their clients. While this may make good sense in the context of larger medical-malpractice claims, catastrophic-injury cases, or mass-tort litigation, the same strategies do not apply in handling smaller auto- tort cases. There is no sense in investing large sums of money into the presenta- tion of a smaller auto-tort case when the ultimate recovery anticipated does not justify doing so. This article will provide young attorneys and solo practitioners with several strategies to present an auto-tort case in a cost-effective manner, ultimately resulting in a greater benefit to their clients.


Cost Effective Approach to Venue Considerations — District Court or Circuit Court?


While venue selection may be an


obvious consideration to more experi- enced attorneys, new attorneys should recognize that a proper determination of whether to file suit in District Court or Circuit Court, is essential to cost- effective litigation. On Oct. 1, 2007, the Maryland legislature increased the jurisdictional limit in District Court from $25,000 to $30,000.1


For many


auto-tort cases, not involving complex injury or liability issues, District Court will be the most appropriate venue. The jurisdictional limits of the District Court will often provide adequate compensa- tion for your client, and you will not


1


The Maryland Legislature amended Maryland Courts and Judicial Proceedings Section 4-401 to state that the District Courts enjoy original jurisdiction when the amount in controversy does not exceed $30,000.


Summer 2008


need to take depositions or utilize expert witnesses in order to prove your case. Ac- cordingly, discuss these considerations with your client to determine if the suit can be filed in District Court. If the $30,000 jurisdictional limit will


not provide adequate compensation for your client, or if you have need for more elaborate discovery, you will need to file your case in Circuit Court or Federal Court. Discuss with your client the ad- ditional costs likely to be incurred if the matter cannot be resolved in District Court.


ceeding solely with a properly submitted 10-104 Statement may make the most economic sense for maximizing your client’s recovery. Under Section § 10-104 of the Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article of the Maryland Code, medical records and bills are admissible as long as they have been provided to opposing counsel 60 days prior to trial. This proce- dure is available to practitioners in cases only where the ad damnum is $30,000 or less. In larger cases, the § 10-104 sub- mission in lieu of live-expert testimony is not an option.


In deciding whether to retain an expert, you should initially consider if without an expert you can meet your burden of proof and get your client’s case to the jury/factfinder on liability and damages.


Cost Effective Approach to Experts


In deciding whether to retain an expert,


you should initially consider if without an expert you can meet your burden of proof and get your client’s case to the jury/factfinder on liability and damages. In a typical automobile-negligence case, the determination of whether to use an expert typically revolves around: (i) can you establish liability without an expert? (ii) Can you prove that your client’s inju- ries were caused by the accident without an expert? and (iii) Can you admit your medical bills into evidence without an expert?2


Courts & Judicial Proceedings Section 10-104


In certain cases, there may not be a need for a medical-expert witness. Pro-


Trial Reporter If you proceed with a § 10-104 state-


ment only, you will want to know these four cases, and have copies of them with you at trial to provide to the Court, if necessary. First, two Maryland cases examine the use of a § 10-104 statement in Circuit Court: Singleton v. Travers, 144 Md. App. 696, 800 A.2d 23 (2002), and James v. Butler, 378 Md. 683, 838 A.2d 1180 (2003). These two opinions are helpful on the issue of causation,


2


Practitioners should be familiar with Maryland Rule 5-702 (Testimony By Experts), the case law governing the ad- missibility of medical-expert testimony in Maryland and the general standards applicable to the admissibility of expert testimony in Maryland. See e.g. Reed v. State, 283 Md. 375, 391 A.2d 364 (Md. 1978); Mont. Mut. Ins. Co. v. Chesson, 399 Md. 314, 923 A.2d 939 (Md. 2007); MD-ENC Evidence § 193 Testimony of Experts-Medical Experts.


31


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  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64  |  Page 65  |  Page 66  |  Page 67  |  Page 68  |  Page 69  |  Page 70  |  Page 71  |  Page 72  |  Page 73  |  Page 74  |  Page 75  |  Page 76