632-2932 Yvonne Gibson v.
Sean Mayo Bryan A. Levitt
[no telephone number listed in the Brief] Civil Rights / Police Misconduct
[no judge listed in the Brief] Circuit Court for Baltimore City
The issue in this case is whether the plaintiff’s claim is forever barred as a result of an alleged failure to substantially comply with the pre-suit notice provisions of the Local Government Tort Claims Act. The plaintiff reported the incident to the internal affairs division within days and she was interviewed by IAD officers. IAD officers also contacted and spoke with the plaintiff’s attorney, who detailed her claims to the officers well within the 180-day notice period under the Act. Likewise, IAD officers requested, and were provided, medical bills related to the incident. Nevertheless, the case was dismissed following discovery based on an alleged failure to give technical notice of a claim within 180 days of the occurrence. The question for the court is whether any lack of technical notice was made up for in this instance through actual notice which substantially (albeit arguably not strictly) complied with the statute.
633-00036 Larry Holmes v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
Jeff E. Messing, Esq. (410) 576-8338
Workers’ Compensation
The Honorable Martin P. Welch, Sr. Circuit Court for Baltimore City
634-00293 Charles Mentzer v. Wittstadt & Wittstadt, P.A.
Erin Murphy Ehman, Esq. (410) 472-2989
Attorney-Client Privilege
The Honorable Lawrence Daniels Circuit Court for Baltimore County
Workers’ Compensation benefits were denied to a surviving spouse of the claimant under the theory that the claimant had no “legal obligation” to support him as required by Section 9-632 of the Labor and Employment Article despite the fact that the parties were married, living together, pooling their income and paying bills jointly as of the date of the claimant’s death. The question is whether the surviving spouse is entitled to assert a claim for the disputed benefits.
The Appellants in this case are attorneys retained by a bookkeeper being sued for alleged fraud by a former employer. The employer alleged that the bookkeeper had absconded with funds and used the money, in part, to pay counsel. The employer served the Appellants with discovery seeking to explore the financial relationship, dates of hire, dates of payment and other matters between lawyer and client. The issue for the court is whether the trial court properly ordered that such information be divulged despite the attorney-client privilege.
Trial Reporter / Winter 2010 59
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