Source: https://www.foranlaw.com/miscellaneous-administrative-issues.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-22 18:28:30+00:00

Document:
Contact the DC Hack Commission, they will tell you who owns the cab and the address of the cabbie. It may require a Freedom of Information Request.
See Dynamic Corp. v. Shan Enterprises, LLC, 175 MD App 211 927 a 2d 20 (2007). Copying a document is a related act within the meaning of Maryland Rule 2-422 (c). Unless otherwise ordered it is the responsibility of a requesting party, not a producing party to pay the expense of making copies. See also Clever View Investments Ltd. v Oshatz, 233 F.R.D. 393; holding that the producing party need only make requested documents available for inspection and need not pay for copying costs.
http://www.militarysearch.org/ or http://www.defenselink.mil/faq/pis/PC09SLDR.html or https://www.dmdc.osd.mil/scra/owa/home. The first site may be a private company and a fee may apply. The second site one can get an affidavit that the person is in the military. The third site is just for a military locate.
“Public Library of Law” at www.plol.org.
Health General Article of the Maryland Code, section 19-710P which, with certain exceptions, prohibits health care providers from balance billing HMO members. However, there is a serious question as to whether the statute would apply outside the state of Maryland. It would be important to obtain the HMO language itself because most, if not all, contracts between HMOs and their participating providers contain hold harmless language that does not allow providers to seek reimbursement from HMO members for coverage services. If a provider or lab is a participating provider, then the HMO should warn the lab not to violate its contract.
It is undecided whether a third party claim must pay the total medical bill after the bill was paid pursuant to the fee guide under worker’s compensation. Plank v. Summers, 203 Md. 552 (1954) suggests the Plaintiff is entitled to recover the “reasonable value” of medical services, regardless of what, if anything, the plaintiff actually owes to the provider of services. Queen v. Ager, 287 Md. 342 (1980) held that the medical provider could not charge a patient more than the fee guide if the provider accepted worker’s compensation payments, unless the Commission approved the greater amount. This prohibition exists even if the patient signed a contract with the provider to pay whatever the provider charged. In a third party setting, the defense might suggest that it was inappropriate for Plaintiff to rely on a total bill for damages when only the amount on the fee guide was paid. This argument would likely rest on Labor and Employment Article, Section 9-731(a)(1)(ii). This article only applies, however, if the medical services were provided under Subtitle 6, Part IX of the Maryland Worker’s Compensation Act. In a third party setting, the question would be whether the medical care provided by the employer or insurer under the Worker’s Compensation Act or was it provided by the third party defendant. The provider might argue that in the third party setting, the care , once the third party recovery is made, was not provided under the worker’s compensation act and therefore the provider may balance bill. This is undecided by the courts of Maryland. The Plaintiff would then argue that, if the provider could balance bill, there should be a proportionate reduction of the balance for the plaintiff’s attorney’s fees and litigation expenses pursuant to the “common fund” doctrine. See Garcia v. Foulger Pratt Development, Inc. 155 Md. App. 634 (2003). The plaintiff could also argue that it would be inappropriate to limit the plaintiff to use only the fee guide for what was paid to the provider for evidence in the third party case because the issue of balance billing is undecided and the provider may be able to come after the plaintiff for more money as a result of the thirds party action. Moreover, 22 Am. Jur. 2d Damages Section 571 indicates that the general rule is that reasonable value may be recovered: recovery is not necessarily limited to expenditures actually made or obligations incurred for medical care. Similarly, section 198 at 170 suggests that recovery for medical expenses is, as a rule, controlled by what the services rendered were reasonably worth and not what was actually paid or contracted to be paid. See also Kujawa v. Baltimore Transit Authority, 224 Md. 195, 208 (1961) and Thomas v. Owens, 28 Md. App. 442, 445 (1975) regarding expert testimony needed for reasonableness of medical bills in order for them to be admitted. If the defendant tries to suggest that the legislature, by adopting the fee guidelines, has established what is fair and reasonable, the plaintiff would argue that there is absolutely nothing in the Maryland Worker’s Compensation Act to suggest that the legislature determined what was reasonable for services. Indeed, in Falik v. Prince George’s Hospital & medical center, 322 Md. 409 (1991) the Court suggested that the fee guide amounts do not necessarily equal reasonable value of medical services. Rather the fee guide payments are amounts that do not exceed, but do not necessarily correspond to rates prevailing within the state. Moreover, if a court would adopt the defense argument, it would not allow for cross examination of a schedule that under Falik supra is not necessarily reasonable. In addition, the defendant should not be allowed to cross examine based up[on the fee guide either because the defendant is liable for full damages without diminution for collateral payments. See Kilgore v. Collins, 233 Md. 147, 158 (1963).
As of October 1, 1994, the law allowing physicians to charge specific funds for preparation and production of medical records went into effect. It is codified in Health General Article Section 4-304 (c) (3) of the Maryland Code. These fees are adjusted annually for inflation using the Consumer Price Index on July 1 of each year. Since 1995, MedChi has calculated and published the appropriate adjustment as a service to its member and the Maryland public. As of 2007, the adjusted rate for medical record copying was as follows: 1) a preparation fee of no more than twenty-one dollars; 2) plus a fee of no more than sixty-nine cents per page copied; 3) plus the actual cost of shipping and handling. The physicians may demand payment of these fees and charges before turning the records over to the patient or other authorized person. The law does not authorize any practitioner to withhold production of medical records until the fees for medical services themselves have been paid. The preparation fee for twenty-one dollars may not be charged if the patient himself or herself requests the records, it may be charged to an attorney. See Health General Article 4-401 and 4-304. Health General Article Section 4-309 provides civil and criminal penalties for any doctor that does not disclose medical records within twenty-one days. Including a one-thousand dollar fine for the first offense. Outstanding balances, refusal to sign A&A’s and other reasons are not valid reasons to fail to provide the records.
Under Senate Bill 413, an Amendment to Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article Section 6-313, provided that an automobile driven by a non-resident driver in which the non-resident driver is named as a party, that service of process is sufficient service on an non-resident driver if service is made by personal delivery, or by serving a copy of the process, with a certification of the last known address of the non-resident driver, with the Motor Vehicle Administration. The Motor Vehicle Administration is entitled to a fee for the service of process and must file an Affidavit of Compliance with the Clerk of the Court in the action that is pending and provide a copy of the Affidavit to the party seeking service. The party seeking service then shall send it by certified mail, return receipt requested, a copy of the Affidavit of Compliance to the Motor Vehicle Insurer of the non-resident driver. This provision took effect on October 1, 2008.
In Maryland see Estates and Trust Article 13-401, 13-501, particularly 2008 supplement.
If a person dies without a will, the spouse gets one-half if there is a surviving minor child. If there is no surviving minor child but surviving issue, the spouse gets $15,000.00 plus one-half of the residue. If there is no surviving issue but a surviving parent, the share will be $ 15,000 plus one half the residue. See Estates and Trusts Article Section 3-102. If there is no surviving issue or parent, the share shall be the entire estate. The net estate shall be calculated without a deduction for tax as defined in 7-308 of the Tax-General Article. The net estate, exclusive of the share of the surviving spouse, shall be divided equally by the surviving issue by representation as defined in Section 1-210. Funeral expenses to an estate are limited to $ 5,000.
Instead of taking property left in a will, the surviving spouse may elect to take one-third of the net estate if there is also surviving issue or one-half if there is no surviving issue(no deduction for tax). This choice needs to be made within seven months of the appointment of the personal representative, if the elective share is taken, all property that passes under the will shall be treated as if the surviving spouse passed first and the surviving spouse won’t get anything under the will. The time limitation for making an election is not later than seven (7) months after the date of the first appointment of a personal representative under a will. The spouse may withdraw the election at any time before the expiration of the time for making the election. If the election is exercised, all property or other benefits that would have passed to the surviving spouse under the will shall be treated as if the surviving spouse had died before the execution of the will.
Small estates generally can be as high as $30,000.00, but can be $50,000.00 if the spouse is the sole legatee or heir (See Section 5-602 of the Estates and Trusts Article of the Annotated Code of Maryland). In small estates, notice to creditors may be required for certain small estates. A petition for probate with schedule B attached must be filed. A list of interested persons must be filed including those named in the will and those who would inherit if there was no will. There must be consent to appointment of personal representative filed if the person entitled to appointment is not applying. If the will lacks an attestation clause, there must be proof of execution of the will, information report must be filed listing trusts, jointly held property, retirement and pay on death accounts, gifts made within two years of death, other non-probate property and real property not located in Maryland. A notice of appointment, notice to creditors, designated in approved newspaper for publication may be required for some small estates. A certificate of compliance may be required to be filed before closing the estate. A paid funeral bill needs to be provided, copy of death certificate. There are no commissions for small estates.
A petition for probate with Schedule A attached must be filed as well as a notice of appointment, notice to creditors.. A bond usually is required by law. Consent to appointment of personal representative is required if the person entitled to appointment is not applying. Appointment of resident agent, if the petitioner is not a Maryland resident, must also be filed. Proof of execution of the will if the will lacks attestation clause is necessary. A list of interested persons and those who would inherit if there is no will must be attached. Copy of death certificate must be provided. If the regular state is in judicial probate, the list of interested persons must be filed within twenty days after appointment of the personal representative, under administrative probate or at the time of filing of the petition for judicial probate. The bond is required immediately after the court appoints the personal representative or special administrator for judicial probate. The inventory and information report must be filed within three months from the date of appointment. The first account must be filed within nine months, subsequent accounts must be filed as required by law until the estate is closed. Petitions for personal representative’s commissions and attorneys fees are subject to court approval.
Under Estates and Trusts Article 8-104, a suit must be filed against the estate or against the person to whom the property has been distributed. You must do it within the claimed time limit unless there is insurance, see 8-104 (e), in which case you are limited to the insurance. You may also file a claim under 8-104 c within the claim period even though there isn’t an estate. Under this provision a claim may actually be filed with the Register even if an estate is not opened. You don’t have to open an estate, you simply file the claim. The best way to handle things is to immediately file the claim with the register of wills and file suit if it is timely. Alternatively, immediately file the claim and then file suit when it becomes necessary. Many times it won’t be necessary because the insurance covers things. For survival action claims made by an estate, file a small estate as a place holder, if the amount of the settlement or judgment coming to the estate exceeds $30,000.00, the small estate threshold will be exceeded and you will have to convert the small estate to a regular estate and usually wait six months before you can distribute, since there was probably no publication with the small estate and no notice to unknown heirs. This can cause problems with clients as they do not tend to understand why they have to wait an additional amount of time before they can collect money from a claim, especially if the claim has already settled and the money is available for distribution.
In order to subpoena Verizon phone records, Verizon Maryland Custodian of Records, One East Pratt Street, Baltimore, MD 21202. The office that supplies the subpoenaed records is Verizon Legal Compliance, 99 Shawan Road, Room 133, Cockeysville, MD 21030, their telephone number 888-483-2600.
Subpoena for T-Mobile, Custodian of Records: serve T-Mobile Subpoena Compliance, 4 Sylvan Way, Parsippany, NJ 07054; fax 973-292-8697; phone 973-292-8911.
Subpoena for Verizon records outside of state: serve Custodian of Records, Verizon CellCo Partnership/ D/B/A/ Verizon Wireless Subpoena Compliance, 180 Washington Valley Road, Bedminster, NJ 07921, fax 888-667-0028, voice 800-451-5242.
Subpeona for AT&T records(including what used to Cingular): serve Custodian of Records, AT&T, Subpoena Compliance, P.O. Box 24679, West Palm Beach, FL 33416, fax 888-938-4715, voice 800-451-5242.
Subpoena for Sprint records, including now what used to be Nextel: serve Custodian of Records, Sprint Corporate Security, 6480 Spring Parkway, Overland Park, Kansas, 66251, fax 913-315-0736 or 913-315-0735, voice 800-877-7330.
Subpoena for Cricket Records: Serve: Attn: Subpoena Compliance, Cricket Communications/Leap Wireless, 10307 Pacific Center Court, San Diego, CA 92121, fax 858-882-9237, voice 858-882-6084.
U.S Department of Health and Human Services Centers for Disease Control and Prevention/National Center for Health Statistics. Vital and Health Statistics.
Call the Maryland Reception Diagnostic and Classification Center at 410-878-3500. Diagnostics will tell you where any Maryland State Inmate is at any given time as well as their six-digit ID number.
The most comprehensive criminal records can be obtained by having the subject of inquiry sign an information release to obtain a nationwide criminal record through the criminal justice information system in Baltimore. http://www.dpscs.state.md.us/aboutdpscs/ataglance.shtml. Maryland criminal court information is at http://casesearch.courts.state.md.us/inquiry/inquiry-index.jsp. Better details on case history are at the computer terminals at the Courthouses and on the District Court computer system that might still be available through the CJIS by dial-up system. To know what a person is in jail for in state prisons, one must find the inmates location at http://www.dpscs.state.md.us/inmate. To find prison inmates out of state, use http://www.bop.gov/iloc2/LocateInmate.jsp. For federal facilities, http://www.inmatesplus.com.
In the event an attorney is discharged by a client, the attorney would be entitled to a fee based upon “quantum meruit” for the value of services rendered. In Somuah v. Flach, 352 Md. 241 (1998) the court indicated there are two different types of “cause” for firing an attorney, what the dissenting opinion indicates is high grade and low grade cause. Depending on whether it is high grade cause or low grade cause would determine whether a fee was earned and when it is due. Somuah did not change the law that an attorney who is discharged without cause is entitled to a fee immediately. Western Maryland Telegraph Co.v. Semmes, 73 Md. 9 (1890), Boyd v. Johnson, 145 Md. 385 (1924), and Palmer v. Brown, 184 Md. 309 (1945) involve situations where a plaintiff dropped a claim entirely. The Court of Appeals found the attorney was entitled to a fee under these circumstances. Post v. Bregman, 349 Md. 142 (1998) held the Rules of Professional Conduct, including Rule 1.5 have the force of law. Thus, the term “quantum meruit” would be subject to Rule 1.5. There are circumstances where an attorney would be entitled to a contingency fee if fired without cause, such as if the client then tried to settle the claim directly with the insurance company for the same amount of money.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.