Case Name/Case # Gail A. Kearney v.
Appellant C ounsel/ Area of Law
Robert S. Berger, M.D 202-463-1999 521-0053
Barry J. Nace, Esq. Medical Malpractice
Judge/ Jurisdiction
Pamela L. North Circuit Court for
Anne Arundel County Issues
In this medical-malpractice case, a claim was filed in the Health Claims Arbitrations and Dispute Resolution Office together with an expert’s certification. The case was then unilaterally transferred by the appellee to the Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County and the Complaint was filed on July 11, 2005. The Complaint included an allegation that all parties timely filed certificates of qualified experts as required by the Maryland Code. This allegation in the Com- plaint was not denied by the Defendants. Eighteen months after the filing of the Statement of Claim, the Defense filed a Motion to Dismiss alleging deficiencies with the expert certification. The Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Extension of Time to file a compliant certification. That motion was denied and the Motion to Dismiss was granted. At issue on appeal is whether the Court should have permitted an extension of time in which to modify or remand the expert certification, and whether the certification was sufficient in the first instance under the Court of Appeals decision in Walzer v. Osborne, 395 Md. 563 (2006).
Giant Food of
Maryland, LLC v. Julia M. Taylor 522-1356
Connie N. Bertram, Esq. 202-282-5000 Article 49B/
Attorney Fee Award
Cathy H. Serrette Circuit Court for Prince George’s County
An award of attorneys fees in the amount of $511,255 and costs of $33,670 was granted in connection with an Article 49B Claim. On appeal, Giant Food attacks the award on, among other grounds, the alleged lack of competent evi- dence substantiating the hourly rate claimed by Plaintiff’s Counsel. Giant takes issue in its brief with the fact that the Plaintiff’s attorneys’ rate of $350 per hour was only sup- ported by the following: (1) an affidavit in a federal case in the District of Columbia from 2004 wherein one of Giant’s counsel of record indicated her billing rate was $390.00 per hour; (2) the fact that the attorneys who claimed $350 per hour had practiced law for 18 and 12 years, respectively, and had “various victories in the areas of labor and employment law;” and (3) the retainer agreement with the client which specified an hourly rate of $350 per hour. The primary is- sue on appeal is whether these elements of evidence were sufficient to substantiate the hourly rate at issue.
Pamela Dawson v. 4040, LLC 523-01875
Allan Hilliard Legum, Esq. 410-263-3001 Property
Thomas Ross Circuit Court for Queen Anne’s County
The Plaintiff sought to quiet title, and sought ownership of a pier located in Queen Anne’s County on Shipping Creek. The primary issue raised on appeal is the argument that the trial court abused its discretion by allowing extrinsic evidence to interpret a deed which the appellant argues was not ambiguous on its face.
About the Author
Cary J. Hansel is a shareholder with Joseph, Greenwald & Laake, P.A. in Greenbelt, Maryland. He received his JD from George Washington University School of Law and his undergraduate degree from Washington and Lee University. Since being admitted to the bar in December 1999, Mr. Hansel has concentrated his practice in trial and appellate advocacy. He has argued and/or authored briefs in 10 reported cases in the Appellate Courts of Maryland, two on behalf of MTLA.
Summer 2008 Trial Reporter 69
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