Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility

Tag: lawsuit

Attorneys spar over jurisdiction in Baltimore bus crash lawsuit

In this frame from video, emergency personnel work at the scene of a fatal school bus and a commuter bus crash in Baltimore, Tuesday, Nov. 1, 2016. (WBAL-TV via AP)
In this frame from video, emergency personnel work at the scene of a fatal school bus and a commuter bus crash in Baltimore, Tuesday, Nov. 1, 2016. (WBAL-TV via AP)

A proposed class action lawsuit filed by victims of a fatal crash between a Baltimore school bus and commuter bus that initially was removed to federal court returned to state court last month after a federal judge granted the plaintiffs’ request to remand the case.

U.S. District Judge J. Frederick Motz did not issue a memorandum explaining his June 19 ruling, but filings by both sides accuse the other of inappropriately attempting to circumvent procedural rules.

The November crash killed six, including both drivers, and injured 11. Glenn Chappell, who was driving the school bus when it rear-ended a car and collided with an oncoming bus, did not have a valid commercial driver’s license because his medical certification had expired.

The , filed in in May, alleges by the school bus company and its medical certification company, Concentra Health Services.

Concentra removed the case from state court the day it was filed based on diversity jurisdiction because it is a foreign corporation, but it later learned that a fellow defendant who is a Maryland resident had already been served with the complaint by the time Concentra acted.

The remaining defendants were Maryland corporations or residents and a case cannot be removed to federal court without complete diversity between plaintiffs and defendants.

In a supplement to its petition, Concentra alleged the Maryland resident who was served was only named so that quick service of process could be made “to thwart the anticipated removal of this matter” and asked the court to disregard service of the Maryland defendant. With no properly joined and served Maryland defendant, Concentra argued, the case was properly removed on the date the action was filed.

The defendant was identified as an owner or manager of AAAfordable Transportation Inc., the school bus company, but Concentra claimed in the filing that he is an employee without hiring or supervising responsibility and did not serve as the resident agent for the business.

Communications between the plaintiffs’ attorneys and attorneys for the corporate defendants did not indicate the man was being sued individually, and he was not named on a draft complaint, according to Concentra. The addition of his name and the resident agent’s was allegedly the only substantive change from the draft complaint to the one filed.

In a motion to remand the case filed June 2, however, the plaintiffs argued AAAfordable Transportation is a properly joined Maryland citizen and Concentra removed the case within hours before the Maryland business could be served in an attempt to avoid the requirement of complete diversity.

The plaintiffs called Concentra’s allegation of fraudulent joinder of a Maryland resident a “thin reed to which Concentra clings” and argued the forum defendant rule has never been interpreted to allow removal based on the timing or sequence of service or process.

In response, Concentra claimed the court had jurisdiction over the case based on “diversity between the real parties” and that joinder and service of a “sham defendant” does not defeat that diversity.

The circuit court docketed the remand on June 28. A trial date is scheduled for June 2018.

Concentra is represented by Barry C. Goldstein and John T. Sly of Waranch and Brown LLC in Lutherville. Goldstein did not return a call seeking comment Wednesday.

The plaintiffs are represented by attorneys from Schochor, Federico and Staton P.A. and Murphy, of Murphy, Falcon & Murphy in Baltimore. Attorneys at the firms did not respond immediately to requests for comment.

The case is Michelle Kennedy et al. v. AAAfordable Tansportation LLC et al., 24C17002426.

Lawsuit claims Cambridge officers assaulted, wrongfully arrested woman

An Eastern Shore woman alleging she was assaulted and wrongfully arrested by has filed an in federal court, claiming the interaction “thoroughly validated every hackneyed stereotype about small town cops south of the Mason-Dixon line.”

Theresa D. Stafford went to the Wal-Mart in Cambridge around midnight April 1 because she learned her nephew was being held by the Cambridge Police Department on suspicion of shoplifting, according to the complaint, filed Tuesday in . After finding her nephew handcuffed and seated in the back of a police cruiser, Stafford asked why he was being restrained if he was not under arrest, at which point she claims Officer Joshua Guiles “became agitated and argumentative.”

Stafford turned to walk away and speak to her niece, who was also present, when Guiles allegedly struck her in the back of the head, according to the complaint. She called the department to report that an officer assaulted her but the lawsuit alleges Sgt. Jeffrey Smith, also at the scene, told the dispatcher not to send anyone and instructed Guiles to arrest Stafford if she was interfering in his investigation.

Stafford was never informed of her rights but was handcuffed and placed in a police cruiser, the lawsuit states. When she asked for the handcuffs to be loosened, Stafford claims Guiles tightened them and struck her when she complained, only loosening them when another officer spoke to him.

The complaint also alleges Guiles and Smith discussed fabricating charges against Stafford, which she overheard; criminal charges of obstructing and hindering and disorderly conduct against Stafford ultimately were dismissed by prosecutors. The charges against her nephew were also dismissed.

“Guiles acted with palpable hostility toward Dr. Stafford, apparently because she is an African-American female who dared to question his dubious treatment of another African-American,” the complaint states.

Smith also has a history of complaints for his “racially-hostile and insensitive interactions with African-American females,” according to the complaint.

Robin R. Cockey, one of Stafford’s lawyers said the case was “astonishing” and shows “how things can go so bad so quickly.”

“She’s a strong person but, on the other hand, this strikes me as an ordeal that would test the mettle of just about anybody, so she’s not happy,” said Cockey, Brennan & Maloney PC in Salisbury.

The Cambridge Police Department has not responded to Stafford’s request for body-camera footage and other documents related to the incident, according to the complaint.

Cambridge City Manager Sandra Tripp-Jones declined to comment on the lawsuit Wednesday.

The lawsuit alleges violations of Stafford’s constitutional rights as well as battery, false imprisonment and false arrest. Stafford claims her wrist was injured and her already high blood pressure was elevated after the incident.

The case is Theresa D. Stafford v. Sergeant Jeffrey Smith et al., 1:17-cv-01776-RDB.

Judge rejects Maryland’s plea to start Purple Line construction during appeal

An image of a Purple Line Train from a 2015 Maryland Transit Administration brochure. (Maryland Transit Administration)
An image of a Train from a 2015 brochure. (Maryland Transit Administration)

A federal judge Monday said his court order holding up construction of Maryland’s Purple Line will remain in effect while the state continues to fight a opposing the light-rail project.

In a 12-page ruling, U.S. District Judge Richard J. Leon rejected the state’s plea to reinstate the project’s federal environmental approval, which Leon revoked in August. Construction on the 16-mile Purple Line can’t begin – and the state can’t secure $900 million in federal grants – until a court restores that approval.

Leon said the state’s lawyers did not meet two “stringent requirements.” The state, he said, did not show “a likelihood of success” in appealing part of the lawsuit that it lost and did not prove it would suffer “irreparable harm” if the project is further delayed.

Leon rejected the state’s arguments that legal delays are costing taxpayers $13 million a month and put the project at risk of being canceled, which would cost millions in contract termination penalties. Leon noted that the state signed a $5.6 billion public-private partnership two months after he suspended its environmental approval and continued to spend money on pre-construction work amid legal uncertainty.

“Maryland was explicitly on notice that plaintiffs were asking me to vacate the [environmental approval] and could have structured its public-private arrangements to better protect its financial interests” in case the environmental approval remained suspended, Leon wrote.

Leon’s ruling probably will have little effect on the speed of the legal case because Maryland officials have asked an appeals court to decide the same issue. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit has yet to rule on whether the environmental approval should be reinstated during the lawsuit’s appeal.

The state is appealing Leon’s August decision that the ridership forecasts done as part of the Purple Line’s environmental study failed to adequately account for the Metro subway system’s safety problems and declining ridership. The Purple Line would be separate from Metro, but 27 percent of its riders are expected to use it to reach Metro stations.

Federal transit officials have said studies show that the Purple Line’s ridership would be “one of the most robust” among U.S. light-rail systems, even if no Metro riders used it, and that ridership would not affect the rail line’s environmental footprint.

The plaintiffs have said the rail line should not be built until questions surrounding its potential environmental impacts have been resolved. Starting construction, they say, would destroy trees, wildlife habitat and other environmental resources.

Dozens of Baltimore businesses sue over response to 2015 riots

The burnt out DTLR store on Pennsylvania Avenue in Northwest Baltimore the day after the riots. (The Daily Record / Maximilian Franz)
A burnt-out store on Pennsylvania Avenue in northwest Baltimore after the April 2015 riots. (The Daily Record / Maximilian Franz)

A group of Baltimore businesses that sustained damage during the 2015 riots following the death of  is suing the city, alleging officials failed to suppress the riots.

The nearly 700-page complaint was filed in in March but only recently removed to at the request of the defendants. The plaintiffs, which include dozens of businesses and their owners, claim former Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake and former Baltimore Police Commissioner Anthony Batts violated state and federal law.

“This is the result of the City and the other Defendants failing to do right by these property and business owners,” said attorney Peter K. Hwang. “The City and the other Defendants failed them when they adopted a policy of restraint and issued stand-down orders, caring more about the public perception that they feared would result with increased police presence than preventing what were clearly preventable riots.”

Roughly 390 businesses reported damage from the riots, which broke out on April 25 and 27 in response to the death of Freddie Gray from injuries sustained in police custody.

The lawsuit alleges violation of the Maryland Riot Act, which creates a cause of action when a municipality had notice of the riot and the ability to prevent damage.

The plaintiffs also claim violations of the state and federal constitutional right not to be deprived of property without due process or just compensation.

The city prevented arrests for unlawful assembly, issued a stand-down order to the police and gave protesters room to destroy property, “which constituted a policy of restraint and was tantamount to an official sanction of privately inflicted injury,” according to the complaint. The defendants also failed to request additional resources, including the Maryland National Guard, in a timely manner, and “emboldened participants to riot, engage in violent acts and destroy property.”

The plaintiffs report businesses being looted, burned and destroyed as well as personal injuries from assaults and robberies.

The Baltimore Business Recovery Initiative, launched to offer financial assistance to the damaged businesses in the aftermath, required business owners to waive their right to file a lawsuit against the city. At the time, The Shepard Law Firm LLC in Glen Burnie and Sung & Hwang LLP in Columbia, which represent the plaintiffs in the current lawsuit, called the requirement “unconscionable” and said they had sent notice letters to the Baltimore City Solicitor’s Office on behalf of a few dozen businesses who were contemplating lawsuits.

A spokesman for the mayor’s office declined to comment on pending litigation.

Timeline of events

Hwang said the city failed his clients by not responding adequately to protests that turned violent and then failing to take responsibility for the riots.

The lawsuit’s factual allegations, which cover 37 pages, lay out a timeline of events and statements from Rawlings-Blake and Batts purporting to show their awareness that the protests, which began on April 18 and grew on April 19 after Gray died, were escalating.

The complaint cites a report by the Fraternal Order of Police’s Baltimore lodge which found officers were “ordered to allow the protestors (sic) room to destroy and allow the destruction of property so that the rioters would appear to be the aggressors” and at one point a radio communication instructed them to let looting happen on April 25.

Rawlings-Blake and the city were more concerned about public perception of increased police presence and failed to take “reasonable steps to prevent violence and destruction,” according to the lawsuit.

Even after the events of April 25, city officials failed to adequately protect businesses from further damage, according to the complaint, and police lacked the resources to respond once unrest broke out at Mondawmin Mall and then other locations throughout the city on April 27.

“While the BCPD was unable to prevent the violence at Mondawmin, it was completely unprepared and unable to even have an officer present at affected Locations as they were pulled in different directions when calls of violence and destruction came flooding in,” the complaint states.

Rawlings-Blake also refrained from asking for assistance from the Maryland National Guard until “it was far too late.”

As a result, the plaintiffs “suffered the consequences, according to the complaint.

The case is Chae Brothers et al. v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore et al., 1:17-cv-01657.

UMD workers allege hostile work environment, retaliation

Two facilities workers at the , College Park campus filed suit in federal court this week alleging they were subject to a hostile work environment and retaliation when they reported misconduct within their department.

Michael Bell and DuRay Jones, both black, worked in the Facilities Management Department at the college. In 2013 they sent a letter to their human resources department with concerns about job safety and working outside job classifications, according to the complaint, filed in in Baltimore Monday.

Bell is a high-voltage electrician and Jones is an electrical system reliability technician. They claimed they were being given incorrect work assignments outside of their job descriptions and qualifications.

Management of Bell and Jones’ department was informed of the allegations and denied the majority of them. Afterward, the plaintiffs’ supervisor began noting communication problems on their performance reviews and issued write-ups for things that white employees did not receive admonishment for doing, according to the complaint.

“It has, to me, been blatant discrimination and continued retaliation over a period of four years,” said Largo solo practitioner Christal E. Edwards. “That’s kind of just amazing to me for a big university like that to continue to let this go on.”

A spokeswoman for the University of Maryland was unable to provide a comment by deadline Monday evening.

In 2014, Bell and Jones sent another letter to the management team asking for the misconduct toward them since their first complaint to be addressed when no action was taken, they filed formal grievances, according to the complaint.

The plaintiffs’ supervisor then informed them they had to fill out their own daily paperwork while he continued to fill out the paperwork for other team members and restricted their work assignments, the contends. Bell and Jones were also told they could not communicate directly with the payroll and human resources departments.

During 2015, Bell and Jones were given outside work assignments in extreme heat during the summer and cold during the winter, the complaint says, while the white team members worked inside. They still work at the college, according to Edwards.

“They have been strong and they have been attentive to detail and really trying to work with (the school) and give them every opportunity to correct their actions and they just have not.” she said.

The plaintiffs filed complaints with the EEOC and Office of and after failing to negotiate a resolution were given notice of right to sue in March.

The lawsuit claims violations of the Civil Rights Act and federal constitution as well as defamation and intentional infliction of emotional stress. Each plaintiff seeks $1.5 million in damages and an injunction preventing further acts of discrimination by the defendants.

The case is Michael Bell et al. v. University of Maryland College Park Campus et al., 8:17-cv-01655-PX.

Md. AG Frosh, D.C. to sue Trump alleging breach of constitutional oath

7a-frosh-mf06
Maryland

Maryland Attorney General Brian E. Frosh is joining his counterpart from the District of Columbia in suing President , alleging that he has violated anti-corruption clauses in the Constitution by accepting millions in payments and benefits from foreign governments since moving into the White House.

The , the first of its kind brought by government entities, centers on the fact that Trump chose to retain ownership of his company when he became president. Trump said in January that he was shifting his business assets into a trust managed by his sons to eliminate potential conflicts of interests.

But D.C. Attorney General Karl Racine and Frosh, both Democrats, say Trump has broken many promises to keep separate his public duties and private business interests. For one, his son Eric Trump has said the president would continue to receive regular updates about his company’s financial health.

The lawsuit, which Racine and Frosh described to The Washington Post on Sunday night, could open a new front for Trump as he navigates dueling investigations by special counsel Robert Mueller and congressional committees of possible collusion between his associates and the Russian government during the 2016 presidential campaign.

If a federal judge allows the case to proceed, Racine and Frosh say, one of the first steps would be to demand through the discovery process copies of Trump’s personal tax returns to gauge the extent of his foreign business dealings. That fight would most likely end up before the Supreme Court, the two said, with Trump’s attorneys having to defend why the returns should remain private.

“This case is, at its core, about the right of Marylanders, residents of the District of Columbia and all Americans to have honest government,” Frosh said, referring to part of the Constitution known as the emoluments clause, which prohibits U.S. officials from taking gifts or other benefits from foreign governments. “The emoluments clauses command that . . . the president put the country first and not his own personal interest first.”

Racine said he felt obligated to sue Trump in part because the Republican-controlled Congress has not taken the president’s apparent conflicts seriously.

“We’re getting in here to be the check and balance that it appears Congress is unwilling to be,” he said. “We’re bringing suit because the president has not taken adequate steps to separate himself from his business interests.”

The lawsuit, to be filed in for the District of Maryland, will be the second major legal action related to emoluments. The first was filed in January by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, a D.C.-based watchdog group. Last week, a group of Democratic members of Congress said they also planned to file suit soon. Each, however, faces legal hurdles over standing to sue the president.

In the D.C. area, both the District and Maryland will cite ways they have been adversely affected by the opening of the Trump International Hotel last year near the White House.

The hotel has tilted the playing field in the city’s travel and entertainment industry in favor of a venue leased by a Trump company – at least, that is, when it comes to foreign governments that book venues in the nation’s capital.

The Embassy of Kuwait held an event at the hotel after initially booking at the Four Seasons. Saudi Arabia, the destination of Trump’s first trip abroad, also booked rooms at the hotel through an intermediary on more than one occasion since Trump’s inauguration. In April, the ambassador of Georgia stayed at the hotel and tweeted his compliments. Trump himself has appeared at the hotel and greeted guests repeatedly since becoming president.

As a result, the hotel may be drawing business away from both the taxypayer-owned D.C. convention center and one in nearby Maryland subsidized by taxpayers, Frosh and Racine said.

Norman Eisen, who served as White House ethics lawyer for President Barack Obama and is CREW’s board chairman, said jurisdictions such as the District and Maryland are among the “most perfect plaintiffs” to sue over emoluments because they have a coequal say in making sure the Constitution is being enforced.

“In the emoluments clauses, we have these ancient air bags that were placed in the Constitution by the framers that are now being deployed,” said Eisen, who has been advising the District and Maryland on their suit. “Trump is the framers’ worst-case scenario; a president who would seize office and attempt to exploit his position for personal financial gain with every governmental entity imaginable, across the United States or around the world.”

The suit will allege that Trump has taken favors from the U.S. government. It will argue that the U.S. General Services Administration wrongly allowed Trump’s company to continue to lease the Old Post Office building, where Trump built his D.C. hotel, even though a clause in the contract said no elected official could remain on the lease.

The GSA initially said Trump would have to fully divest from the hotel after the election. But after Trump proposed increasing GSA’s budget, the agency issued a letter saying Trump was in full compliance with the lease.

The suit will seek an injunction to force Trump to stop violating the Constitution, but will leave it up to the court to decide how that should be accomplished.

(This story will be updated.)

Montgomery Co. settles transit center lawsuit for $25M

(Maximilian Franz/The Daily Record)
(Maximilian Franz/The Daily Record)

on Tuesday reached a $25 million settlement with the designer, general contractor and inspection firm responsible for the , which was beset by construction delays and cost overruns.

The $25 million settlement was announced three weeks into a six-week jury trial before Montgomery County Circuit Judge Michael D. Mason, The Washington Post reports.

The county sought $67 million from Parsons Brinckerhoff Inc., Foulger-Pratt Contracting LLC and Robert B. Balter Co. for and misrepresentations, which delayed the opening of the Paul S. Sarbanes Transit Center and lead to millions of dollars in construction overruns.

“I am pleased that the county has settled the we brought to recover taxpayer costs associated with the repair and remediation of the Silver Spring Transit Center,” County Executive Isiah Leggett said in a statement. “This is very much in the public interest. The $25 million payment to the county will cover 90 percent of the hard costs we incurred to deliver a safe and durable Silver Spring Transit Center.”

At opening arguments May 10, William D. Nussbaum, an attorney representing the county, told the jury his client identified issues in the design and construction plans after signing contracts with Parsons Brinckerhoff and Foulger-Pratt. After delays and concerns about the adequacy of the design, concrete at the structure began cracking severely enough for rainwater to leak through.

An attorney for Parsons-Brinckerhoff said the structure was code-compliant, and the county insisted on unnecessary remediation to address shear and torsion, the potential expanding and contracting of the structure over time; Foulger-Pratt’s attorney countered that the county was unprepared to undertake the project when it did.

An attorney for Facchina Construction Company Inc., which did the concrete work for the project and was pulled into the lawsuit by a third-party claim, also accused the county of wanting to “build a case and no build a facility” when issues arose, echoing other defendants’ allegations that the county did not address the issues properly.

The Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority was initially a plaintiff in the case but settled just before trial, according to court records.

The case is Montgomery County Maryland v. Parsons Brinckerhoff Inc. et al., 408239V.

Pediatrician found not liable in death of Prince George’s newborn

A jury has found a pediatrician was not liable for the death of an infant, determining she complied with the standard of care when she examined him days before his death.

The parents of Momodo Bundu, who died at five days old in January 2015, filed suit against Lisa Pauls, Physician Management Ltd. and others in Prince George’s County Circuit Court. Pauls and Physician Management were the only defendants to go to trial.

The jury returned a for the defendants May 23 after deliberating for around five hours, according to defense attorney Trace Krueger.

Pauls “was obviously disappointed for the family that they lost a newborn baby,” said Krueger, a partner at Baxter, Baker, Sidle, Conn & Jones P.A. in Baltimore. “Nothing changed her sympathy for them, for their loss, but on the other hand, she knew this wasn’t her responsibility.”

The plaintiffs alleged Momodo died of complications stemming from a blood disease because his blood type was incompatible with his mother’s, according to the complaint. The disease causes jaundice, anemia and other issues.

Pauls, who was assigned to Momodo’s care the day after his birth at Laurel Regional Hospital, examined him and did not observe any of these indicators of the disease. But Momodo was later determined to be jaundiced and had dangerous levels of bilirubin, a substance found in bile that can harm nerve tissue if elevated, and taken to another hospital for emergency treatment. Momodo developed further complications prior to his death.

The plaintiffs alleged Pauls failed to properly diagnose and treat Momodo’s blood disease during her examination, but the defense contended the cause of death was an infection, according to Krueger.

Defense witnesses testified that studies have tracked how bilirubin levels rise and created charts which do not go nearly as high as Momodo’s levels were when the issue was first flagged, indicating indicates some other factor was causing the rise, likely an infection, Krueger said.

Despite the dispute over cause of death, the jury based its verdict on whether Pauls breached the standard of care when she examined the newborn, according to Krueger.

“She was very emotionally invested in the case but she prepared for it and she didn’t do anything wrong and she defended herself,” he said of his client.

Momodo’s parents were represented by Burt Kahn and Steven Vinick of Joseph, Greenwald & Laake P.A. in Greenbelt. A call to Kahn’s office was not immediately returned Friday.

Got a verdict or settlement you want to share? Tell us about it. 

Estate of Momodo Bundu v. Lisa Pauls M.D. et al.

Court: Prince George’s County Circuit

Case No.: CAL15-37074

Judge: Leo E. Green

Proceeding: Jury trial

Outcome: Verdict for defendants

Dates:

Incident: Dec. 29, 2014

Suit filed: Dec. 2, 2015

Verdict: May 23, 2017

Plaintiff’s Attorneys: Burt Kahn and Steven Vinick of Joseph, Greenwald & Laake P.A. in Greenbelt.

Defendants’ Attorney: Trace Krueger of Baxter, Baker, Sidle, Conn & Jones P.A. in Baltimore.

Count: , and survival action

US judge: Sound engineer can’t publish unreleased Prince tracks

FILE - In this Feb. 8, 2015 file photo, Prince presents the award for album of the year at the 57th annual Grammy Awards in Los Angeles. Prince has announced plans to perform at a concert in Baltimore following recent unrest in the city over the death of a man who was fatally injured in police custody. A statement issued Tuesday, May 5, 2015, says the pop icon will perform Sunday, May 10, at “Rally 4 Peace,” a concert at the Royal Farms Arena in Baltimore. (Photo by John Shearer/Invision/AP)
FILE – In this Feb. 8, 2015 file photo, Prince presents the award for album of the year at the 57th annual Grammy Awards in Los Angeles. (Photo by John Shearer/Invision/AP)

MINNEAPOLIS (AP) — A sound engineer who worked with Prince is barred from publishing or disseminating any unreleased recordings that compromise the late superstar’s work.

George Ian Boxill worked with Prince on five tracks in 2006 and made at least one recording — “Deliverance” — available online last month. Prince’s estate and Paisley Park Enterprises sued to block it.

On Monday, U.S. District Judge Wilhelmina Wright issued a preliminary injunction saying Boxill and independent label RMA can’t publish unreleased recordings until the dispute is resolved. They are also barred from using Prince’s trademark to sell or promote “Deliverance.”

The says Boxill signed a confidentiality agreement that the recordings would remain Prince’s property. Prince sings and plays guitar and keyboard on the tracks.

Prince died last year of an accidental opioid overdose.

Baltimore Co. jury awards $450K in wrongful-death case against doctor

A Baltimore County Circuit Court jury has awarded more than $450,000 to the family of a man who died from metastatic lung cancer after his primary care physician did not follow-up on lung scans showing an abnormality.

Carl Palmer, a former smoker, voluntarily attended a lung cancer screening program at Greater Baltimore Medical Center in November 2005, where a CT scan revealed an abnormality in his upper right lung, according to James D. Cardea, a lawyer for the plaintiffs.

A letter was sent to Palmer’s primary care physician, E. Timothy Souweine, recommending annual scans but Souweine never arranged one, Cardea said. In March 2008, Palmer had a chest X-ray prior to undergoing surgery for an unrelated issue and again the abnormality was noted and Souweine was notified and a follow-up was recommended but never done.

By the time Palmer was diagnosed with lung cancer in 2010, it was stage four. He died two years later at age 79.

“Our allegation was, had he been diagnosed and treated prior to July of 2008, he would have been a stage one, would have undergone surgery, and would have been cured,” said Cardea, a partner at Schochor, Federico and Staton P.A. in Baltimore.

Palmer’s estate and surviving family filed suit in 2013 against Souweine, GBMC and the two radiologists who identified the abnormality. After a nine-day trial, a jury found only Souweine liable and returned a Thursday of more than $160,000 in economic damages and $300,000 in non-economic damages after approximately five hours of deliberations.

“A follow-up CT scan was required based upon the abnormality in the lung and nobody ever specifically recommended it and nobody specifically scheduled it,” said Cardea, who tried the case with colleague Jonathan Goldberg. “Ultimately, the jury decided it was the primary care doctor that was responsible for scheduling it.”

GBMC’s internal protocol called for a letter to be sent to Palmer and his doctor around 10 months after the screening to remind them of the annual follow-up but the hospital did not, according to Cardea.

A spokesman for GBMC said the hospital “extends sympathy to the family of Mr. Palmer for their loss.”

Palmer’s wife and children were thankful for the verdict after what was an emotional process, according to Cardea.

“It was very emotional, obviously, going through their father’s illness then sitting through a lengthy trial reliving what happened to their father,” he said.

Souweine was represented by Michael J. Baxter and Edwin L. Keating III of Baxter, Baker, Sidle, Conn & Jones P.A. in Baltimore. Baxter did not return a request for comment Friday.

Got a verdict or settlement you want to share? Tell us about it!

Estate of Carl W. Palmer, et al. v. E. Timothy Souweine MD, et al.

Court: Baltimore County Circuit Court

Case No.: 03C13008118

Judge: Michael J. Finifter

Proceeding: Jury trial

Outcome: Verdict for plaintiff against primary care physician $161,862.12 economic damages, $300,000 non-economic damages ($75,000 to the estate, $75,000 to the decedent’s wife, $25,000 each to six surviving adult children)

Dates:

Incident: November 2005 to March 2008

Suit filed: July 19, 2013

Verdict: May 18, 2017

Plaintiff’s Attorneys: James D. Cardea and Jonathan Goldberg of Schochor, Federico and Staton P.A. in Baltimore.

Defendants’ Attorneys: Michael J. Baxter and Edwin L. Keating III of Baxter, Baker, Sidle, Conn & Jones P.A. in Baltimore for defendant E. Timothy Souweine; Andrew E. Vernick of Vernick & Associates LLC in Annapolis for defendants Anthony Chiaramonte III and Advanced Radiology P.A.; Paul J. Maloney, Carr Maloney and Joseph A. Smith of Carr Maloney P.C. in Washington D.C. for defendant Janis M. Kenny and American Radiology Services Inc.; and Neal M. Brown and Christina N. Billiet of Waranch & Brown LLC in Lutherville for defendant Greater Baltimore Medical Center Inc.

Count: , and survival action

EEOC alleges Elkridge business withdrew employment offer to Jewish applicant

(designer491 / Depositphotos.com)
(designer491 / Depositphotos.com)

A delivery logistics company is facing a federal for allegedly rescinding a job offer to a Jewish employee who could not work on Rosh Hashana.

Tzvi McCloud was hired for a customer service position in Georgia-based XPO Last Mile Inc.’s Elkridge office and instructed to report for his first day of work on Oct. 3, 2016, which he informed the company he could not do because of the Jewish new year, according to the U.S. . McCloud was initially told it would be acceptable for him to start the next day, but a supervisor later called and told him to start Oct. 3.

McCloud did not report for work until Oct. 4 and was sent home, which the EEOC lawsuit alleges violates federal law because the company revoked its offer of employment due to McCloud’s observance of a religious holiday.

“The freedom to exercise one’s religious beliefs is one of our nation’s fundamental values,” EEOC Regional Attorney Debra M. Lawrence said in a statement. “Mr. McCloud simply asked if he could start work one day later than scheduled so he could observe Rosh Hashanah, one of the Jewish High Holy Days. A one-day postponement of a start date is not an undue hardship.”

A vice president with the company allegedly told McCloud the company only honored federal holidays and, if McCloud received a religious accommodation, other employees would have to have the same options, according to the EEOC.

“Federal law requires employers to make reasonable adjustments to work schedules or rules that will allow an applicant or employee to practice his or her religion unless it would be an undue hardship,” said EEOC Philadelphia District Office Director Spencer H. Lewis Jr. “Unfortunately, XPO Last Mile’s intransigent refusal to provide a religious accommodation cost them the services of a hard worker and led to this lawsuit.”

The lawsuit was filed in in Baltimore after pre-litigation settlement discussions failed. The EEOC is seeking back pay, reinstatement, compensatory damages, punitive damages and injunctive relieve.

A spokesperson for XPO Last Mile did not respond to a request for comment Wednesday. The lawsuit was filed Tuesday in U.S. District Court in Baltimore.

The case is Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. XPO Last Mile Inc., 1:17-cv-01342-JKB.

Baltimore Co. police face lawsuit for punching man during arrest

A Baltimore County Police helicopter. (U.S. Army / Sgt. Thaddeus Harrington)
A helicopter. (U.S. Army / Sgt. Thaddeus Harrington)

A college student whose 2015 arrest in Towson was recorded by bystanders and showed a Baltimore County police officer punching him filed suit in federal court Friday alleging police used .

Zachary Blumenstein is seeking compensatory and punitive damages on his claims of excessive force, assault, battery, false arrest, false imprisonment, , negligent hiring and intentional infliction of emotional distress stemming from the Dec. 19, 2015 incident outside of The Greene Turtle restaurant.

Blumenstein, who was 19 at the time, was outside The Greene Turtle when he became involved in a verbal altercation with an unknown man, according to the complaint filed in in Baltimore.

After Blumsenstein pushed the man off of him, an individual who did not identify himself as a police officer allegedly grabbed his arm and pepper sprayed him when he tried to pull away. While Blumenstein was on the ground, two other officers arrived and held him down; one of the officers, Jon Slenker, punched Blumsenstein with a closed fist as a bystander recorded the incident.

A statement by Baltimore County police three days later said an officer approached Blumenstein about 40 minutes before the incident when he was in a verbal altercation and told him to leave. Later, the officer saw Blumenstein push a man and initiated the arrest.

“Another officer arrived to assist with the arrest, which Blumenstein continued to resist,” the statement said. “The officer used pepper spray to attempt to subdue the suspect, but he continued to refuse to comply with the officer.”

A spokeswoman for Baltimore County declined to comment Monday on the because it is pending.

Blumenstein was charged with disturbing the peace, disorderly conduct, failure to obey a reasonable and lawful order, trespassing and resisting arrest. The charges were placed on the inactive docket in Baltimore County Circuit Court on March 25, 2016. Slenker was placed on administrative duties following the incident.

Blumenstein is represented by Robert B. Hetherington of McCarthy Wilson LLP in Rockville. Hetherington did not respond to a request for comment Monday.

The case is Zachary Blumenstein v. Baltimore County, Maryland et al., 1:17-cv-012450-ELH.