Nursing Home Litigation TM RINGLER ASSOCIATES
STRUCTURED S The Only Broker
Lou Omansky, J.D., CSSC
LOmansky@ringlerassociates.com
ETTLEMENTS You Need
TM
Richard Ryan, CSSC
RRyan@ringlerassociates.com
Designing and implementing structured settlements for injured parties since 1975
Our focus is on achieving the best possible results for all parties in settlement negotiations using tax–free settlement annuities.
Offering the most competitive annuity prices from all of the leading life insurance companies
We are one of the few companies that truly enjoys the trust of all parties involved in the settlement process.
410-602-1042 ● 410-602-1101 Fax 4 Reservoir Circle ● Suite 101 ● Baltimore, Maryland ● 21208
Te plaintiff’s age discrimination case was dismissed for failure to give notice under the Maryland Tort Claims Act. On appeal, the plaintiff argues that the notice was not required due to the total absence of prejudice. Further, the plaintiff takes the alternative position that his filing with the Maryland Commission on Human Relations either actually or substantially complied with the notice requirement.
761-2833 Jamal Logan v. LSP Marketing Corporation
Leah K. Brown (410) 547-0202 Civil Procedure
Te Honorable Kaye A. Allison Circuit Court for Baltimore City
Tis case involves the Court’s striking of plaintiff ’s experts, without a hearing, as a result of alleged failures to comply with discovery. Although conceding that not all discovery motions require a hearing, the plaintiff argues that a hearing was required here because the ruling was, in effect, dispositive of the case since expert testimony was required to properly proceed. Te issue is whether a party is entitled to a hearing prior to the granting of discovery sanctions which would effectively dispose of the case.
762-2765 Alex Myers v. Baltimore County Department of Social Services
Daniel L. Hatcher (410) 837-5706 Civil Procedure
Te Honorable Mickey J. Norman Circuit Court for Baltimore County
Te plaintiff sued the Department of Social Services to recover his Social Security benefits which were improperly claimed by the Department as “reimbursement” for the cost of his foster care as a minor. Te case was dismissed based on an alleged failure to comply with the Maryland Tort Claims Act. First, the plaintiff notes that the tort is continuing and ongoing such that current notice ought to encompass the entire period or misconduct. Second, the plaintiff alleges that DSS operated as a fiduciary during the period of time it violated his rights and that the notice period out to be tolled during this period.
TM
Trial Reporter / Fall 2011 53
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