RUN AND VOTE FOR LABOR AND JUSTICE IN ALL PRIMARY ELECTIONS!
CORPORATIONS ARE WRITING YOUR HEALTH CARE LAWS!
As the Affordable Care Act goes into affect we need to look at what is happening with public justice in health care issues. I spoke of the lowering level of access to care, the lowering level of training health employees are getting, the staffing shortfalls placing stress and impossible task assignments on these health workers. Now, we have corporate universities working to patent medical research for profit and universities are of course the ones that in the past would provide the oversight to corporate R and D to see it worked in the public interest. Now, universities are the corporate R and D. With Federal agencies like the FDA and OSHA operating like the SEC in that they are now a skeleton crew that tends to do the bidding of the corporations they are supposed to monitor......NO ONE IS LOOKING OUT FOR THE PUBLIC PERIOD.....BUT ESPECIALLY IN HEALTH CARE. In Maryland, those responsible for creating the health care structures for this reform are dismantling even the state and local public health agencies that would have given oversight for the public. This at a time when they are handing all of health care over to private non-profits and national health chains all rife with patient abuse, malpractice, fraud, and lack of transparency. SOUND LIKE A GOOD REFORM FOR THE PEOPLE? OF COURSE NOT----IT IS HORRIBLE!
Below you see who is responsible state and locally for these appointments to agencies making these changes. Whether it is the state court ruling in corporation's favor over individuals or the legislators writing the law, MD is a great, big, fat corporate state and its incumbents make it that way. My district is filled with Johns Hopkins pols that make health care a profit industry at our expense. Baltimore has the worst in health fraud, health access, and lack of oversight and its pols all work to see this stays as the status quo. WE WANT THE ASSEMBLY TO WRITE A WELL-DEFINED CORPORATE FRAUD LAW!!!!!! I said to Mary Washington right after the crash. 'Oh', she said......' I don't think THEY would like that'. I said------MARY, YOU DO NOT WORK FOR HOPKINS, YOU WORK FOR THE PEOPLE WHO ELECT YOU! She ran off at just the thought!
LOOK AT PETER FROSH WHO IS RUNNING FOR STATE ATTORNEY GENERAL----APPOINTING THE JUDGES THAT ARE OVERWHELMINGLY VOTING FOR CORPORATE INTEREST!
WE CAN REVERSE ALL OF THIS CORPORATE CAPTURE IN MARYLAND IF WE SHAKE THE BUGS FROM THE RUG AND RUN AND VOTE FOR LABOR AND JUSTICE IN ALL PRIMARIES!
Below you see the Baltimore City pols that approve the governor's appointments to all kinds of government positions. Placing an energy executive on the MD Public Service Commission? Fill the MD Depart of Education with education privatizers? Appoint the heads of Depart of Health that are privatizing all public health and creating private health systems? THESE ARE THE PEOPLE. YOU CAN SEE THAT MOST OF THE POLS IN THE CHARLES VILLAGE DISTRICT OF JOHNS HOPKINS ARE THE ONES DOING ALL OF THESE NEO-LIBERAL APPOINTMENTS THAT GIVE PROFIT OVER PEOPLE! Look as well at FROSH-----looking to be State Attorney General!
This is why Maryland is so corporate and all of its laws and the higher court almost always protects profit over people! STOP ELECTING THESE NEO-LIBERALS! RUN AND VOTE FOR LABOR AND JUSTICE CANDIDATES IN ALL PRIMARIES!
Executive Nominations Committee (NOM)
Examines all nominations for appointments made by the Governor that require Senate
confirmation. The committee reports its recommendations to the Senate, which
subsequently votes to confirm or reject the nominees.
2 East, Miller Senate Building, Annapolis, MD 21401
(410-946-5200 Annapolis/Baltimore or 301-970-5200 Washington, D.C.)
Chair: Delores G. Kelley Vice Chair: James E. DeGrange, Sr. David R. Brinkley Edward J. Kasemeyer
Richard F. Colburn Allan H. Kittleman Joan Carter Conway Katherine Klausmeier George C. Edwards Nathaniel J. McFadden Jennie M. Forehand Thomas M. Middleton Brian E. Frosh Thomas V. Mike Miller, Jr. Rob Garagiola E. J. Pipkin Norman R. Stone, Jr.
Rules and Executive Nominations Committee (HRU)
Room 145, House Office Building, Annapolis, MD 21401
(410-841-3927 Annapolis/Baltimore or 301-858-3927 Washington, D.C.)
Chair: Hattie N. Harrison Vice Chair: Rudolph C. Cane Elizabeth Bobo Wade Kach
Talmadge Branch James E. Malone, Jr. Norman H. Conway Maggie McIntosh Dereck E. Davis
LeRoy E. Myers, Jr. Kathleen M. Dumais Anthony J. O’Donnell Brian J. Feldman Shane E. Pendergrass Jeannie Haddaway-Riccio James E. Proctor, Jr. Peter A. Hammen Samuel I. Rosenberg Sheila E. Hixson David D. Rudolph Carolyn J. B. Howard Nancy R. Stocksdale Adrienne A. Jones Joseph F. Vallario, Jr.
As we watch neo-liberals lowering the level and quality of care most people receive we are seeing laws that protect public justice over health malpractice being dismantled. So, health malfeasance will soar with the health reform and protections of people disappear. Neo-liberal Maryland is ground zero for this! The Maryland Assembly works hard to make sure the public does not take away an corporate profit....health care included.
Below you see the start of medical clinical trials being replaced by the 'THROW IT OUT THERE AND SO WHAT IT DOES' approach to new medical developments. So, instead of studying a new procedure with controlled and supervised clinical trials, the FDA simply approves a drug/procedure using the companies research results to justify safety concerns. This started in the Clinton Administration and is part of the COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS that says policy should not cut into corporate profits embraced by neo-liberals like Clinton and now Obama.
What this says is that because the FDA OK'ed the use of this drug in 1999, but then found in 2011----twelve years later (the normal length of a clinical trial)....that it looked to increase bladder cancer, people dying from exposure to this drug have no recourse. Mind you that the FDA is still doing this---Obama and neo-liberals have not changed the FDA's oversight and using corporate research to approve usage.
For those in Maryland it gets even worse because Maryland works hard to protect profit over people it has a law called CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE barring recovery of money in a tort lawsuit. So, the family whose loved one died from bladder cancer in Maryland taking this drug will have the corporate lawyers saying that because this man smoked ( the contributory negligence) the bladder cancer could have come from that even though ACTOS has been identified as causing this cancer. Just think how many things can be used for Contributory Negligence-----smoking, drinking, bad eating habits, air pollution.
JUST ABOUT ANYTHING.
Contributory Negligence in Maryland
December 28, 2011 By mdlawyer
Maryland is one of only four states that recognize contributory negligence in personal injury claims. Contributory negligence means that you have contributed, in some way, to your injury. If you have contributed to your personal injury you are not permitted to recover any damages for the injury. This means that if you are only one percent liable, while the other party is 99 percent responsible, you cannot recover any money for medical bills, lost wages, pain and suffering, or anything else. Most other states recognize comparative negligence, which is where the fault of both parties is looked to in order to determine what amount of damages is fair for the injured party to receive. A Maryland accident attorney can help you to determine if you will be able to recover for a personal injury.
'For now, however, any plaintiff whose own negligence contributes to his or her injury is completely barred from recovery. The Court of Appeals has spoken, and contributory negligence remains the law in Maryland'.
Below you see how Maryland is among 4 states in the country that keeps this law that makes it almost impossible to sue a business for damages. Remember, it is also the only state that opts out of Medicare requirements that keep Medicare oversight away.
WHEN IT COMES TO OVERSIGHT ----MARYLAND HAS EVERY BASE COVERED----LITERALLY!
Commentary: Contributory Negligence Remains the Law in Maryland
By James P. Steele and Andrew M. Williamson | August 6, 2013
On July 9, 2013, Maryland’s highest appellate court, the Court of Appeals, declined to abandon the longstanding common law doctrine of contributory negligence, which is a complete bar to recovery for any plaintiff whose negligence contributes to his or her injuries.
In Coleman v. Soccer Association of Columbia, a case that had been highly anticipated by Maryland’s legal community, the Court affirmed that it had the power to adopt comparative negligence as the law in Maryland but elected not to do so.
A word from our sponsor:
Allstar Financial Group writes surety and fidelity business as well as unique and specialty insurance products. Allstar operates 15 regional offices writing insurance and surety business in over 40 states. We maintain our own claims staff, legal team and audit group to assist our clients.
Click Here to Learn More.In comparative negligence jurisdictions, a plaintiff recovers only for those damages for which he or she is not responsible. The 15 page opinion was accompanied by a 51 page dissent and a 4 page concurrence.
The case arose as a result of injuries sustained by James Kyle Coleman, “an accomplished soccer player who had volunteered to assist in coaching a team of young soccer players in a program of the Soccer Association of Columbia (Association), in Howard County, Maryland.”
When evaluating the insured’s liability, insurers can continue to consider whether a plaintiff’s own negligence contributed to the alleged injuries, creating a complete bar to recovery. During a team practice, Coleman jumped up and grabbed the crossbar of a goal. The crossbar was not anchored to the ground, and Coleman fell backwards, “drawing the full weight of the crossbar onto his face.”
Coleman’s injuries included facial fractures that required three titanium plates in his face. Coleman sued the Association, which asserted contributory negligence as a defense.
At trial, the parties offered differing testimony about what, if any, duty the Association owed Coleman and whether Coleman’s injuries were caused solely by his own negligence. The Association’s evidence showed that it neither owned nor provided the goal in questions, and that the goal was not in an area that the Association controlled.
The Association also offered evidence that the goal’s condition was open and obvious and that Coleman was responsible for his own injuries. Coleman disputed this, arguing further that it is common for players to hang from crossbars, and the Association should have anticipated this and anchored it properly.
At the close of evidence, Coleman submitted a jury instruction on comparative negligence, which the judge declined to give to the jury.
The jury found that the Association’s negligence was a cause of Coleman’s injuries, but that Coleman’s own negligence also contributed to his injuries. Under Maryland’s doctrine of contributory negligence, Coleman was completely barred from recovery. The trial court denied Coleman’s motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict and entered judgment in the Association’s favor.
The Court of Appeals agreed to hear the case before it was briefed and argued at Maryland’s intermediate appellate court, the Court of Special Appeals.
Coleman’s sole issue on appeal was whether the Court of Appeals “should retain the standard of contributory negligence as the common law standard governing negligence cases,” in Maryland.
The Court of Appeals answered this question by noting that it “has the authority to change the common law rule of contributory negligence,” but it declined to abrogate this “long-established common law principle….”
Judge John C. Eldridge (Retired, Specially Assigned), who wrote the opinion, revisited the last time the issue of whether to replace contributory negligence with comparative negligence was before the Court.
In Harrison v. Montgomery County Bd. Of Educ., 295 Md. 442, 464, 456 A.2d 894 (1983), the Court ruled that contributory negligence remained the law in Maryland and that “any change in that established doctrine [was for] the Legislature.”
In Harrison, the Court reviewed the historical origins of contributory negligence, including early English cases. The Harrison Court noted that early American courts adopted contributory negligence because of concerns that high jury awards would stifle emerging industries.
Early courts also were wary of rewarding people who suffer injuries as a result of their own wrongdoing. Relying on these concepts, Maryland first adopted contributory negligence in an 1847 case, Irwin v. Sprigg, 6 Gill. 200, 205. (Maryland later modified the doctrine to note exceptions for injured persons under 5 years old and if the defendant could have exercised sufficient care to avoid the consequences of plaintiff’s carelessness.)
The Harrison court noted that in the early 20th century, Maryland’s legislature adopted comparative negligence for “certain perilous occupations,” but later repealed those provisions. In 1983, 31 of the 39 states that had adopted comparative negligence did so by statute.
While acknowledging that the trend favored adopting comparative negligence, the Harrison court noted that there are different versions and it is best to have the legislature decide which version, if any, to adopt.
The court also invoked the legal doctrine of stare decisis as weighing in favor of leaving contributory negligence as the law in Maryland absent legislative action.
Judge Eldridge noted that since Harrison, Maryland’s “General Assembly has continually considered and failed to pass bills that would abolish of modify the contributory negligence standard.”
This failure to act legislatively is “a clear indication of” and “very strong evidence that” the legislative policy in Maryland is to retain contributory negligence. Courts should not change common law contrary to Maryland’s public policy as set forth by the General Assembly.
In the concurring opinion, Judge Clayton Greene noted additional problems that would arise were the Court to throw out contributory negligence and adopt comparative negligence. How would it apply in cases of multiple tortfeasors? How would it impact the concept of joint and several liability? Would it destroy the viability of the Uniform Contribution Among Joint Tort-Feasors Act? Would it abolish the doctrines of last clear chance and assumption of the risk?
These questions, and the question of which version of comparative negligence to adopt, are best suited for the General Assembly to decide, in Judge Greene’s view.
Judge Glenn T. Harrell, Jr., in dissent, compared contributory negligence to a dinosaur that, in his view, the Court should have rendered extinct.
Judge Harrell invoked long standing criticism of the “all-or-nothing consequences” of contributory negligence. Citing many legal commentators, Judge Harrell called for a comparative negligence system that “apportions damages between a negligence plaintiff and negligent defendant according to each party’s relative degree of fault.” Ultimately, Judge Harrell would prefer adoption of pure comparative negligence.
Judge Harrell noted that even at the time Harrison was decided, the Court of Appeals recognized that jurisdictions that had transitioned from contributory negligence to comparative negligence did so with little difficulty.
Further, none of the judges on the Court of Appeals disputed that the Court had the power to make the change. Judge Harrell was unconvinced that stare decisis was sufficient reason to refrain from making the change and believed that the court need not defer to legislative inaction.
Judge Harrell wrote the dissent hoping that a future majority of the Court of Appeals would rely on it to abolish contributory negligence and adopt comparative negligence.
Coleman has implications for insurers and insureds alike. Insurers will not face the increased litigation that may have accompanied a switch to comparative negligence as Maryland sorted out implementing this new law.
When evaluating the insured’s liability, insurers can continue to consider whether a Plaintiff’s own negligence contributed to the alleged injuries, creating a complete bar to recovery. Further, the specter of a defense verdict based on the Plaintiff’s negligence can be useful to insurers during settlement negotiations.
Insureds remain able to avoid adverse liability findings for their negligence, but they also continue to risk looking like they are “blaming the victim” when they rely on contributory negligence as a defense.
It remains to be seen how, if at all, this opinion spurs any legislative action in the General Assembly to change Maryland to a comparative negligence jurisdiction.
For now, however, any plaintiff whose own negligence contributes to his or her injury is completely barred from recovery. The Court of Appeals has spoken, and contributory negligence remains the law in Maryland.
THESE ARE THE MARYLAND COURT OF APPEALS APPOINTMENTS MADE DURING O'MALLEY'S TERM AS GOVERNOR-----they all voted for corporate interests. It was Glendening's appointments that called this law a dinosaur!
- Shirley M. Watts, 6th Appellate Judicial Circuit. Appointed July 3, 2013. Sworn in July 31, 2013, to replace Robert M. Bell, who retired July 6, 2013.
- Mary Ellen Barbera, 7th Appellate Judicial Circuit. Appointed Chief Judge July 3, 2013. Sworn in July 8, 2013, to replace Robert M. Bell, who retired July 6, 2013.
- Robert N. McDonald, 2nd Appellate Judicial Circuit. Appointed Dec. 22, 2011. Sworn in Jan. 24, 2012, to replace Joseph F. Murphy, Jr., who retired Sept. 30, 2011.
- Mary Ellen Barbera, 7th Appellate Judicial Circuit. Appointed Aug. 7, 2008. Sworn in Sept. 2, 2008, to replace Irma S. Raker, who retired April 24, 2008.
- Sally D. Adkins, 1st Appellate Judicial Circuit. Appointed May 27, 2008. Sworn in June 25, 2008, to replace Dale R. Cathell, who retired July 30, 2007.
- Joseph F. Murphy, Jr., 2nd Appellate Judicial Circuit. Appointed Dec. 4, 2007. Sworn in Dec. 17, 2007,
Harrell noted that only Maryland, Virginia, Alabama, North Carolina and the District of Columbia still have the law.
Judge Glenn Harrell, writing in dissent along with recently retired Judge Robert Bell, compared the law to “a dinosaur.”
The federal Food and Drug Administration approved the drug in 1999 to treat type 2 diabetes, and it became the diabetes drug of choice in 2007 after GlaxoSmithKline’s Avandia was linked to a higher risk of heart attack. However, the FDA released a safety advisory on June 15, 2011, stating that using Actos for more than one year “may be associated with an increased risk of bladder cancer.”
Tuesday, September 3, 2013 Volume 124 | Number 229 Online at TheDailyRecord.com
Actos trial set for Md.
In first case to go to jury, Calif. judge set aside April verdict of $6.5 million
Jury selection is scheduled to begin Tuesday in a Baltimore family’s $10 million wrongful death lawsuit against the maker of the prescription diabetes medication Actos. Diep An’s widow and three children allege An died because Takeda Pharmaceuticals U.S.A. Inc. and its affiliates did not meet its legal duty to warn doctors and patients that longterm use of the drug could cause bladder cancer. Diep An, who began taking Actos in 2007 for type 2 diabetes, died on Jan. 14, 2012. Takeda denies the family’s allegations and said it plans to mount a strong defense of Actos during what attorneys expect will be a four-week jury trial before Judge M. Brooke Murdock in Baltimore City Circuit Court. Last April, in the first Actos trial to go to verdict, a California state jury awarded the plaintiffs $6.5 million. However, the judge in the case threw out the verdict in May, ruling there was insufficient evidence to link plaintiff Jack Cooper’s bladder cancer to his use of Takeda’s drug. The Deerfield, Ill.-based company is also fighting similar claims elsewhere, including more than a thousand in actions that were filed in federal courts nationwide and consolidated in the U.S. District Court in western Louisiana. “Takeda is confident in the therapeutic benefits of Actos and its importance as a treatment for type 2 diabetes,” Kenneth D. Greisman, Takeda Pharmaceuticals U.S.A. Inc.’s general counsel, said in a statement. “We have empathy for the plaintiff, but Takeda believes that we acted responsibly with regard to Actos,” Greisman added. “Patient safety is a critical priority for Takeda and we intend to vigorously defend Takeda against these lawsuits.” Failure to warn claim Actos has had a checkered history. The federal Food and Drug Administration approved the drug in 1999 to treat type 2 diabetes, and it became the diabetes drug of choice in 2007 after GlaxoSmithKline’s Avandia was linked to a higher risk of heart attack. However, the FDA released a safety advisory on June 15, 2011, stating that using Actos for more than one year “may be associated with an increased risk of bladder cancer.” That same month, Germany and France suspended distribution of the drug due to its suspected link to bladder cancer. In its lawsuit, the An family claims that Takeda knew of the drug’s risks before it was prescribed to Diep but did not warn him or his doctors. The Takeda companies “concealed and continued to conceal their knowledge of Actos’ unreasonably dangerous risks from Diep An, his physicians, other consumers and the medical community,” the complaint states. “Specifically, defendants failed to adequately inform consumers and the prescribing community about the risk of bladder cancer associated with the use of Actos,” the lawsuit adds. “Diep and his physicians would not have used Actos had defendants properly disclosed the risks associated with its long-term use.” The family’s failure to warn claim is one of several related allegations it makes against Takeda. The lawsuit also alleges design and manufacturing defects in the drug, as well as breaches of express and implied warranties of safety by the company. Stuart Simms, an attorney for the family, declined to comment on the coming trial beyond citing the papers filed with the court since the initial filing on June 8, 2012. “From all parties and all sides it would be inappropriate to comment prior to commencement” of the trial, said Simms, of Brown Goldstein Levy LLP. The Baltimore law firm is serving as co-counsel in the case, which was filed by attorney Michael J. Miller of The Miller Firm LLC in Orange, Va. The firm was also on Cooper’s legal team in the California litigation. The An family’s claim is one of at least three similar lawsuits that have been filed against Takeda in state and federal courts in Maryland. On March 2, 2012, the estate and family of John Dunlavey Sr. filed suit