The right to recover for the wrongful death of a loved one is a right created by the legislature and not by the courts through common law precedent. Under the Maryland Wrongful Death Act, Md. Cts. & Jud. Proc. Code Ann. § 3-901, et seq. (2009), the following persons are entitled to recover for the death of a relative:

Md. Cts. & Jud. Proc. Code Ann. § 3-901 thru 904.

An illegitimate minor child may recover and is by law considered the child of the mother unless judicially determined in a prior family law proceeding that the child is the father's, or the father, prior to the death of the child, acknowledges in writing that he is the father or has acted openly as if he is the father.

If there is no person satisfying the criteria as a primary beneficiary, a secondary beneficiary may recover if he or she is related by blood or marriage to the deceased and who can prove they were "wholly dependent" upon the deceased. Md. Cts. & Jud. Proc. Code Ann. § 3-904(b).

Wrongful death claims are complex and become increasingly more difficult as the number of primary beneficiaries increase. Some family members are estranged or missing, and many decedents die without a will, which may provide for a different hierarchy of beneficiaries at the decedent's choosing.

The lawyers at Belsky, Weinberg & Horowitz, LLC have handled numerous wrongful death cases arising from a variety of tragic accidents, including motor vehicle collisions, plane and train crashes, construction accidents, and acts of medical negligence.  Please feel free to contact our firm with questions you have about your wrongful death claim.

Last week, the Court of Appeals of Maryland disbarred Michael U. Gisriel, a well known real estate lawyer who hosted a talk show, and was a past member of the Maryland House of Delegates.  This was considered "breaking news" by the Daily Record, Maryland's legal newspaper.  The facts of the case are interesting for several reasons and can be read at the Maryland Judiciary website.

Mr. Gisriel has been retained by clients to resolve a real estate dispute. During the course of the representation, he filed court papers that were later deemed frivolous and the trial court imposed sanctions upon Mr. Gisreal and his client of more than $3,000, which Mr. Gisriel paid to opposing counsel. He was later discharged by the clients, who continued part of their case without an attorney. They ultimately resolved their case at a mediation session where it was agreed they would be paid certain monies being held in escrow by the court.

A $1,000 check was sent by the court trustee to Mr. Gisriel who, without authority, signed the clients' names to the check and deposited it into his general account. He assumed the payment was in partial reimbursement of the fees he paid on his own behalf and on behalf of the clients as sanctions to opposing counsel. The clients were waiting for their $1,000. When they learned that Mr. Gisriel had signed their names and cashed the check, they reported him to the Maryland Attorney Grievance Commission who sought and obtained disbarment.

Mr. Gisriel had claimed that he honestly believed the check was his to cash and that he didn't give it more than "five seconds" of thought between receiving the check and endorsing it. The Court found he intentionally misappropriated the funds and that his lack of thought was indicative of deceit and not helpful to his defense.

This case is very unfortunate, Many, including two of the seven judges on the Court of Appeals (Bell and Eldrige (retired), believed the decision was too harsh. The two judges, in a dissenting opinion, indicated they would have indefinitely suspended and not disbarred Gisriel based on his good standing and lack of discipinary problems during his more than 30 years in practice. What is also interesting is that the clients who reported Mr. Gisriel wished to withdraw their grievance and signed an affidavit that the matter had been resolved to their satisfaction and that they didn't want to bring harm to Mr. Gisriel's legal career. Those pleas obviously fell upon deaf ears at the Grievance Commission who has the right to do what it wishes notwithstanding what the reporting party wishes.

The bottom line is that an attorney may never sign a client's name to a check or legal document without their express authority. That is basic law with a little common sense mixed in. This action was viewed as theft, as it very well might have been, and is just another example of how some will risk their careers over very small amounts of money.

At Belsky, Weinberg and Horowitz, we request that clients endorse a limited power of attorney whenever there is a need to sign on behalf of clients. There are more extensive powers of attorneys that can be used in other circumstances. We would be happy to discuss free-of-charge our process for preparing powers of attorney.

The County of Frederick has agreed to pay $300,000 to the family of a firefighter trainee who died from heatstroke after an outdoor workout in July 2002 at the Public Safety Training Center in Frederick. In addition to the financial settlement, the County has agreed to place a plaque in memory of Andrew Waybright, the trainee who died. The $3 million lawsuit had alleged that the County failed to recognize the symptoms of hyperthermia and failed to  timely administer first aid. According to allegations within the suit, Mr. Waybright's body temperature upon arrival at the hospital was 107.4 degrees. The case was set for a two week jury trial in August of this year.

Municipalities usually enjoy limited sovereign immunity from lawsuits. The Maryland General Assembly also has enacted local tort legislation that places caps on the amount negligence victims may recover. A survival claim was brought on behalf of the estate of Andrew Waybright; wrongful death claims were brought by his surviving heirs. Frederick County had engaged outside counsel to represent it. The settlement was reached after a seven hour mediation session.

Every jurisdiction in the United States has established deadlines within which lawsuits must be filed for different types of causes of action. Maryland has a somewhat complicated method for determining when the statute of limitations "accrues" or begins and when it expires. Knowledge of these unique deadlines will make the difference between a viable cause of action and one that is barred by expiration of limitations, which is a devastating consequence of inaction.

Many understand that Maryland law allows three years from the date of the negligent act to bring a lawsuit. Only the filing of a lawsuit or a claim (depending upon the type of case) will "toll" or stop limitations from expiring. In medical malpractice cases, however, there is an additional period allowed under the applicable statutory enactment setting the limitations periods in this state. A medical malpractice claimant has the earlier of three years from the date he knew or should have known of the event of malpractice or five years from the date of malpractice without regard to knowledge of the act or omission or, in legal parlance, "discovery" of the allegedly wrongful act. Note that the operative term is "the earlier of." For example, say a person is the victim of a wrongful act on June 1, 2006 but does not become aware of facts raising suspicion or giving rise to the need to inquire further about the possibility of a negligent act until July 1, 2006. Under the "discovery rule, that person would have three years from July 1, 2006 to file their claim. Under the typical non-medical malpractice statute of limitations, the claim would have expired on June 1, 2009. The discovery rule extended that deadline for one month and can extend the deadline for an additional two years in some cases.

"Discovery" of facts giving rise to the need to inquiry further about the possibility of a claim is sometimes a difficult event to pinpoint. This is where a lawyer's advice will certainly help. Certain events clearly start the "discovery" limitations clock. For example, allegations or accusations that a mistake was made starts the clock. Consultation with an attorney about the possibility of claim starts the clock. Discussion amongst family members about the possibility of a mistake or a claim starts the clock. Belief in one's own mind that a mistake may have been made starts the clock.  Other events, however, are less certain. Courts apply a "reasonable person" standard in determining whether someone similarly situated would have either known or should have know of the need to further inquire or investigate the possibility that malpractice was committed.

Please contact the attorneys in the medical malpractice department at Belsky, Weinberg & Horowitz for further analysis of your claim. We will be happy to discuss when we believe the statute of limitations began to run and determine whether you have a legitimate claim.