630-00838 Mary Jeanette Kline v.
Edward C. Adams
Edward Andre Richitelli, Esq. (410) 398-3024 Negligence
The Honorable William O. Carr Circuit Court for Harford County
The plaintiff sued the county and others for negligent road construction resulting
in an
unusually high drop off at portions of the roadway where pedestrians where alleged to cross. In disposing of the case on summary judgment, the Circuit Court held that there was no notice to the county about the road’s condition. However, the plaintiff points out on appeal that the county did the work which created the unusual drop off. As a result, the appellant argues that the county had ample notice because it actually created the dangerous condition.
631-2870
Gloria Rice v.
University of Maryland Medical Systems
Thomas J. McNichols, Esq. (410) 342-0452
Medical Malpractice / Walzer / Statute of Limitations
The Honorable Albert J. Matricianni, Jr. Circuit Court for Baltimore City
In this case, the plaintiff lost a verdict in excess of $11 Million as a result of the trial court’s grant of a motion for new trial. After the grant of the new trial, but before the new trial date, the Court of Appeals issued its opinion in Walzer v. Ozborne, 395 Md. 563, 911 A.2d 427 (2006) (re)defining the standards for the certificate of merit which must be filed as a predicate to bringing a medical malpractice claim. The entire case was then dismissed under the new Walzer standard, despite having been filed pre-Walzer.
In response to Walzer, the Maryland General Assembly passed legislation permitting a new action to be filed with a Walzer-compliant report in cases dismissed under Walzer provided that certain conditions are met. The plaintiff met those conditions, refilling the case.
The defense moved to dismiss the case, yet again, arguing that the restorative
unconstitutionally retroactively revives a barred cause of action. Said motion was granted and the appeal followed.
On appeal, the plaintiff argues that the statute of limitations should not bee deemed to have passed under the circumstances of the case, but that it was equitably tolled given that the plaintiff diligently pursued the case at every juncture.
statute
58 Trial Reporter / Winter 2010
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