This page contains a Flash digital edition of a book.
Medical Malpractice


668-984 Design Factory Tees v.


FM Construction


Darren Margolis (410) 539-5855 Civil Procedure


Te Honorable Lawrence Daniels Baltimore County Circuit Court


Te facts giving rise to this contract case are not central


to the issue. Te relevant facts are that settlement discussions were retold to a third party who recorded them (a police officer preparing a police report). Te issue on appeal is whether the police report is privileged as reflecting those settlement discussions or whether it contains admissible admissions.


669-31 Dan Austin v.


Enterprise Associates


Joseph J. D’Erasmo (301) 762-8865 Civil Procedure


Te Honorable Michele D. Hotten Prince George’s County Circuit Court


Te primary question on appeal is whether a hearing


must be held prior to the issuance of a sanctions order precluding one party from offering any evidence at trial.


670-00641 Keith L. Lee v. Frank J. Goettner Construction


Ryan P. Richie (301) 952-1311 Negligence


Te Honorable Toni E. Clark Prince George’s County Circuit Court


Trial Reporter / Summer 2010 61


671-2628 Tiffany Chabot v. Pamela A. Wright


Catherine D. Bertram (202) 463-3030 Medical Negligence


Te Honorable Mary Beth McCormick Montgomery County Circuit Court


hernia repair.


Tis medical negligence case involves an attempted One issue at trial is whether a patch was


required or optional. Both parties discussed a learned treatise on this point. Te treatise was silent as to whether a patch was optional in the type of surgery received by the plaintiff, but clearly stated it was optional for another procedure. Te plaintiff wished to rebut testimony by defense experts that the patch was optional here by referring to the discussion of a different type of surgery. In other words, if the manual states that the patch is optional in certain circumstances, then this implies that it is not optional in other circumstances in which the manual is silent on the point. Te court precluded the testimony as irrelevant because it involved another procedure. Te primary issue on appeal is whether said testimony ought to have been permitted.


A backhoe operator struck and damaged an iron pipe


with the “bucket” of the backhoe. Te operator admitted that he could see the pipe, that he was not supposed to break it or hit it, and that he had a duty to avoid hitting it. At the close of evidence, the plaintiff moved for judgment on the issue of liability and the Circuit Court denied the motion. Te jury ruled in favor of the defense. Te issue on appeal is whether the evidence summarized above is sufficient to require the trial judge to grant the motion for judgment.


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