from an insurance company, the right to set aside a release signed within 30 after an accident. Also worthy of mention is the pas-
sage of 9 positive changes to Maryland’s Workers’ Compensation statute. Not only was the MTLA legislative
team instrumental in the passage of legislation it initiated, it also worked with other consumer-friendly forces to secure the passage of laws consistent with our organization’s goals. Among the laws ultimately adopted were: 1) HB 271 – provides workers’ compensa- tion coverage for a student of a private non-collegiate institution working in an unpaid work-based learning experience; 2) HB 783 – provides enhanced benefits for certain permanent partial disabilities for Montgomery County Correctional Officers; 3) HB 1006 – provides for a cost-of-living adjustment of workers’ compensation benefits, under certain circumstances, for an employee injured on or before January 1, 1988; 4) HB 1109 - increases the jurisdictional amount in controversy of the district court to $30,000; 5) HB 117 and SB 752 – clarify that dependents of specified police and fire personnel are entitled to receive the same benefits as the individual received at the time of death; and 6) SB 600 – es- tablishes a medical authorization to be included on the workers’ compensation claim form for the release of medical records that are relevant to the member of the body that was injured and to how the accidental personal injury occurred as indicated on the claim form. A special thanks goes to Ken Berman for all his hard work in negotiating SB 600. This is not to suggest that the tort
reformers— whose idea of consumer protection is protecting corporate America from consumer claims—sur- rendered. Armies of insurance and pro-business lobbyists worked behind the scenes to thwart the rights of the injured. Nevertheless, with MTLA opposition,
the legislature rejected seven bills aimed at insulating health care providers from claims by the patients injured by their malpractice, seventeen efforts to im- munize a host of tortfeasors from the consequences of their misconduct, four
Summer 2007
bills detrimental to injured workers seeking compensation, a big-tobacco initiative to limit the amount of a su- percedeas bond, and an effort to allow a full waiver of PIP coverage. MTLA’s efforts in Annapolis were not
all successful. Several major bills sup- ported by MTLA died in committee. Hopefully, an educational process was begun, which will lead to passage of each bill during the remaining three years
by listening to the unrelenting anti-law- yer/anti-legal system propaganda fed to them over the years by the Chamber of Commerce, medical societies, hospital associations and “the man behind the curtain” – the insurance industry. More than once, when told the “rest of the story,” a member said, “I never knew that.” So too, fighting the good fight, our
legislative team made friends, educated legislators and gathered information
The passage of this provision, as one long time staff mem- ber of the General Assembly noted, may be the biggest consumer enactment in 50 years.
of the current legislative term. 1) HB 398 - proposed to increase the required auto minimum insurance coverage amounts to $30,000/$60,000; 2) HB 592 – in an effort to override the Court of Appeals holding in Mundey vs. Erie Insurance Group the defined “insured” under the uninsured motorist coverage of an insurance policy as a person who is domiciled in the named insured’s household, even though he or she may not reside there; and 3) HB 1261 which would have increased the first tier per- manent partial disability weekly benefit under the workers compensation statute to 1/5 of the average weekly wage. What to make of the legislative ses-
sion? Some might quip, in retrospect, that our agenda was too aggressive from the standpoint of the numbers of proposals we initiated. That having been said, our efforts were rewarded with the passage of three significant changes to Maryland
law.The fact that we were un- able to win all our battles does not mean our efforts were wasted. In hearings and at private meetings with lawmakers, we began the educational process–counter- ing the tort reform misinformation our opponents have worked fervently to spread. Bear in mind that most delegates and senators are not lawyers and lack any legal training. In many instances, their concepts of justice and notions about how the legal system works were formed
Trial Reporter
that will be helpful when we try again next year. The following is a recap of the legislation introduced at MTLA’s request, a brief summary of each bill, and what action was taken.
Tort Liability – Comparative Negligence
HB 110 and SB 267 – Maryland Com- parative Negligence Act The sponsors, victims and MTLA
members offered powerful, compel- ling testimony about the injustice of contributory negligence’s all or noth- ing proposition. A special thanks goes to Wayne Willoughby who updated MTLA’s comparative negligence packet. Opposing comparative negligence, in the words of Delegate Luiz Simmons, the “usual suspects,” a predictable parade of insurance, business, and local gov- ernment interests, plus Peter Angelos. Although the basis of opposition was different for Mr. Angelos versus the rest of the cast of opponents, the focus of each opposition was joint and several liability. The opponents argued that pas- sage of a comparative negligence act necessitates revising joint and several liability into a system that apportions liability among the joint tortfeasors. MTLA and Peter Angelos agreed in our opposition to any change to Maryland’s joint and several liability system. We dis-
63
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