Inside District Court


and unsure. Make certain your client knows what questions to expect from you and what answers you expect in response, consistent always with the obligation to present the truth. Te prepared witness is a more comfortable and more focused witness and, as a consequence, a much more effective witness.


Cts. & Jud. Pro., § 10-104 Considerations If you are unfamiliar with MD. Code Ann., Cts. & Jud.


Pro. Art., §§ 10-104, et seq., you have never tried a motor tort case in District Court. Tis provision, enacted in 1996, allows medical records and the expert opinions they contain to come into evidence so long as the proponent puts them in proper form and complies with some basic notice requirements. Te judge can then give these records/opinions any weight deemed appropriate.


Te niceties of 10-104 practice are beyond the scope of


this article, but the statute’s use is now so central to District Court personal injury cases that certain trial techniques facilitated by the law bear discussion. For instance, a plaintiff ’s attorney who moves the 10- 104 statement into evidence at the beginning of the case has established a “license to lead.” Workers’ Compensation practitioners know this tactic well. Te course of treatment is already in evidence through the medical reports. All that’s left to do is guide the witness from provider to provider, asking for symptoms at key points to establish pain and suffering and illustrate the progress of the plaintiff ’s recovery, or lack thereof. You may meet with an objection by proceeding in this


manner. If you counter that you are only leading on matters already in evidence through 10-104 for the purpose of saving the court time, I doubt very much any objection would be sustained.


On the defense side, the plaintiff ’s 10-104 statement may


offer a veritable gold mine of impeachment opportunities. Statements the plaintiff makes to providers at the hospital, at the first visit to any new doctor, during physical therapy sessions, all may offer fruit for effective cross examination, either because they contradict testimony about the accident or the injuries. Of course, it is also the defense option to offer medical records of its own through 10-104.


Tese are usually


reports prepared specifically for litigation in the nature of medical examinations or record reviews (also called “peer reviews”), which are conducted by a doctor chosen by the defense.


Although such reports are invariably attacked as


result-oriented, they can be useful in cases where plaintiff over-treatment is an issue, because they offer judges medical evidence to support denying compensation for treatment beyond a certain point. Without them, all medical evidence


Pushkin & Pushkin, Inc. Actuaries & Consultants since 1979


• Pension Divorce Valuations •


401(k) Marital Tracings


• Wrongful Death & Personal Injury Analyses • Actuarial Valuations • Expert Testimony • Loss of Earnings Studies


www.pushkinandpushkin.com Member of the National Association of Forensic Economics


Pushkin & Pushkin, Inc. 30 E Padonia Rd, Ste 406 •Timonium, MD 21093


Baltimore: 410.561.1945 • Washington: 301.951.9430


in the case comes from the plaintiff ’s providers and tends to validate even the most far-reaching claims.


Cross Examining The Plaintiff Entire books have been written about cross examination,


and I don’t presume to be an expert on the subject. I will caution defense counsel, however, against being so eager to damage the Plaintiff on cross that your finer points are lost in a blaze of bombast and bellicosity. As far as cross goes, a surgical strike can be just as effective as a nuclear blast, and much more professional. Let’s say the Plaintiff has just testified on direct that he


was doing the speed limit when the accident happened, but he gave a history on his first doctor’s visit which the doctor recorded as: “Patient doesn’t know how fast he was going at the time of impact.” Obviously, this presents an opportunity, but your


questioning shouldn’t start with: “DIDN’T YOU TELL YOUR DOCTOR YOU DON’T REALLY KNOW HOW FAST YOU WERE GOING BEFORE THE CRASH?” Tis is because the answer you’ll probably get is a denial. And then you’ll go back and forth establishing that the Plaintiff hasn’t read his medical records and doesn’t know


Trial Reporter / Summer 2012 13


ECONOMIC VALUATIONS


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