Appellate Advocacy Archive

MDC’s Amicus Brief in the Court of Appeals, CSX v. Miller

The National Association of Manufacturers joined with MDC in this amicus brief filed in the Court of Appeals. MDC and NAM argue that our trial courts need a consistent framework for the application of the relevance and reliability requirements of the Maryland Rules governing expert evidence—the methodology offered by Daubert and its progeny is consistent with the Maryland Rules and should endorsed by the Court.

Download the Brief »

CSX Transportation, Inc. vs. Donald E. Miller

MDC argues for consistent application of the Maryland Rules of Evidence in determining the admissibility of expert testimony where no novel technique or principle is involved.

Download the Brief »

Montgomery Mutual v. Chesson

MDC supported successful Petitioner Montgomery Mutual Insurance Company at both the petition and merits phases before the Court of Appeals, along with fellow Amici Curiae, National Association of Home Builders (“NAHB”) and the National Multi Housing Council (“NMHC”). The Maryland Court of Appeals ruled that the diagnoses and medical causation opinions of Dr. Ritchie Shoemaker in an office mold exposure workers’ compensation case must be subjected to scrutiny under Maryland’s version of the Frye test.

Download the Brief »

Del Marr v. Montgomery County, Maryland

The Maryland Self-Insurers and Employers Compensation Association (MSIECA) joined the MDC in an amicus brief filed on behalf of the successful appellee, Montgomery County. MDC and MSIECA argued that when permanent partial disability benefits are increased in a workers’ compensation matter due to worsening of the injured worker's condition, a credit for previous benefits should be based upon the weeks of benefits previously paid. The Court of Appeals relied upon MDC/MSIECA’s argument that this “weeks-based formula” should be adopted because it is consistent with the entire statutory scheme of the Workers’ Compensation Act, rather than the “dollar-based formula” advanced by the Claimant, which would benefit the Claimant in this case but make it impossible for a single rule to be applied in all cases.

Download the Brief »