Appellate Watch (Continued from page 44) Case # 427-00817 Case Name
Counsel for Appellant/ Area of Law
(410) 392-5815
Personal Injury/ Motor Vehicle Accident
428-2733 Borisenko v. Super Value, Inc.
Samuel Sperling, Esq. Lynne K. Stewart (410) 653-0141
Baltimore City
Christopher R. Dunn, Esq. (301) 306-4300 Personal Injury
Judge/ Jurisdiction
Brown v. Apkafson, Michael D. Smigiel, Sr., Esq. O. Robert Lidums/ et al.
Cecil County Issues
Whether medical records were properly admit- ted without a notice pursuant to Section 10-104 of the Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article under the theory that such records are admis- sible as an exception to Maryland Rule 5-803 because they are trustworthy on their face.
In a slip and fall case resulting from a supermar- ket spill, was summary judgment properly granted to the defense where the slip and fall took place in a common walk way of the super- market between the cash registers and the door, given that a daily sweep log showed that the entire store was swept in a period of only 10 to 15 minutes, including numerous hours of food and vegetables area, cashiers area across the walk- way where the occurrence happened? Under these circumstances, was the sweep a reasonable investigation on the part of the store owners sufficient to preclude liability?
429-01343
Burden v. Charlestown Henry Burden, Pro Se Dextor M. Ethics Commission (410) 287-8624 Election Law
(410) 347.7979
Thompson, Jr. Cecil County
430-1304 McCrae, et al. v. Donald R. Huskey, Esq. Joseph H. H. Kaplan/ Union Memorial Hospital, et al.
Baltimore City
David E. Ralph, Esq. (410) 433-5900 Medical Malpractice
Whether or not the town Commissioners of Charlestown, Maryland had the authority to extend the deadline for commission candidates to file their certificates of candidacy and finan- cial disclosures.
Where a medical procedure rendered a woman incapable of bearing children, should her in- formed consent claim have been dismissed on the grounds that she failed to prove that absent the procedure, she had a better than 50% chance of bearing children in the future? The plaintiff argues that in addition to the ability to bear chil- dren, there were other damages alleged to have proximately resulted from the procedure and that in any event, had informed consent been given, the procedure would not have been au- thorized by the patient and, therefore, the chances of bearing a child are irrelevant to the informed consent claim.
431-1150
Spears v. Washington Jonathan S. Shurberg, Esq. Durke G. Thompson Suburban Sanitary Commission
(301) 585.0707
Civil Procedure/ Admissibility of Expert Opinion
Montgomery County
Did the Trial Court properly permit the testi- mony of an expert witness who was not disclosed until the morning of trial in an area in which no expert had previously been designated? Defense counsel disclosed to the judge that the expert was deliberately withheld because of the defendant’s belief that a plaintiff’s expert should not be allowed to testify, and therefore, could go un-rebutted.
(Continued on page 48) 46 Trial Reporter Spring 2006
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