The Attorney's Office Tools
657-02624 Christopher M. Fry v. Fire and Police Employees Retirement System of the City of Baltimore
Michael Marshal, Esq. (410) 685-2022 Employment Law
Te Honorable Sylvester B. Cox Circuit Court for Baltimore City
A Baltimore City police officer injured his left knee while
pursuing a burglary suspect. As a result of the knee injury, the officer underwent surgery, during the course of which, he had an allergic reaction to anesthesia and was diagnosed with symptoms which left him unable to perform his duties as a police officer. Tis case involves the denial of certain benefits to the police officer under the theory that his disability did not arise out of his employment. Te administrative finding was that the disability was as a result of the reaction to anesthesia and not the knee injury which participated the need for anesthesia. Te Circuit Court affirmed those findings and the officer appealed. Te question is whether an allergic reaction suffered as a result of the necessity for treatment of an undisputed “on the job” injury is, in itself, employment related.
658-01900 Walter Carol Abott v. State of Maryland
Author M. Frank, Esq. (410) 727-2500 Criminal Law/Freedom of Speech
Te Honorable Dana M. Levitz Circuit Court for Baltimore County
Te appellant was found guilty of threatening a
government official as a result of an email he sent to Governor Martin O’Malley in response to a government website’s request for comment. Te intemperate email said, among other things, “if I get close enough to you I will wrap my hands around your throat and strangle the life from you.” Te email went on, in very colorful prose, to take issue with certain of the Governor’s policies related to undocumented aliens. Te issue on appeal is whether the court erred in granting a motion in limine to preclude any argument to the jury or any defense based on the theory that the defendant was exercising his First Amendment rights to freedom of speech and expression.
70 Trial Reporter / Spring 2010
659-116 Bonnie Booth v. Eric Keith Shepard
Benjamin Rosenberg & Christian A. Lodowski (410) 321-0423 Medical Negligence
Te Honorable Evelyn O. Cannon Circuit Court for Baltimore City
In this medical negligence case, the Plaintiff suffered
permanent disabling injuries as a result of an allegedly negligently-performed anesthesia procedure. After the jury was seated, but before opening statement,
the Court held an evidentiary hearing on certain motions in limine to prohibit the Plaintiff ’s expert witness from testifying regarding the issue of causation. Te motions in limine were granted and subsequently, a motion for judgment was granted, both prior to opening statement. Te causation issue in the case relates to the Plaintiff ’s
expert testimony that he “can’t say that, absent all of these drugs [in reference to the sedation] that she would have expressed pain.” Tis testimony was critical because the argument made was to the effect that, had the Plaintiff not been over-sedated, she could have expressed pain during a procedure and corrections could have been made during the procedure to avoid her permanent injuries. Te defense argued that the expert evidence was
incompetent because the expert testified that he “can’t say that absent the drugs, she would have expressed pain.” Te Plaintiff, however, cites later testimony in the same
portion of the deposition to the effect that “she had pain both with the drugs, and yes, I do think to a greater, to a reasonable degree of medical probability that when she was, when the nerves were touched, they were injured, that she would have expressed pain, and they would have stopped and this wouldn’t have happened.” Te issue on appeal is whether the statement “I can’t say
that, absent all of these drugs that she would have expressed pain” read together with the statement “to a reasonable degree of medical probability … she would have expressed pain,” is sufficient to meet a Plaintiff ’s burden to submit the matter to the jury.
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