Jack Gold heads the Karp Frosh firm's appellate division and has been very successful in handling appeals -- cases that have already been to the trial court but where one of the parties wants a higher court to review the lower court's decision.
In addition to briefing and arguing appeals in state and federal appellate courts, Jack handles dispositive motions in many of the firm’s major cases. Given his success, a number of solo practitioners outside the firm have enlisted Jack to handle post-trial motions or appeals in their cases.
The following cases represent several of Jack's "appellate victories" (i.e., cases where Jack won a reversal of an unfavorable trial court decision, or an affirmance of a favorable decision):
Goldston v. Kebe (view PDF) (CSA Case No. 2466, September Term 2005), an unreported decision by Maryland's intermediate appellate court, affirming the trial court's denial of the defendant's motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict in a case where the defendant driver claimed she could not avoid striking the plaintiff due to icy conditions on a roadway maintained by WMATA. The CSA upheld the $346,000 verdict (in a case where the driver's insurer, State Farm, made no offer to settle), finding sufficient evidence to support the jury's finding that the driver's negligence was the sole proximate cause of the collision.
Smith v. WMATA (view PDF) (4th Circuit Case No. 05-1053), an unreported decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, reversing the trial court's decision granting summary judgment in favor of the defendant transit authority, wherein WMATA argued that it was immune from liability for the decedent's death because the negligent conduct at issue did not violate a statute, regulation or ANSI Code provision. The Fourth Circuit vacated and remanded for a determination as to whether WMATA's internal maintenance checklists constitute mandatory directives that WMATA's employees have no discretion to ignore, in which case WMATA can be held liable for the death of a patron who collapsed and suffered a fatal heart attack after climbing a 160-foot stationary escalator on a day when the station's other two escalators were out of service and closed to the public.
Unity Communications v. BellSouth Cellular (5th Circuit Case No. 04-61132), an unreported decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, affirming the trial court's denial of summary judgment on interlocutory appeal. BellSouth (now Cingular) had argued that all of Unity's claims were barred on the basis of accord and satisfaction, but the Fifth Circuit agreed with the trial court (and Unity) that Unity was entitled to its day in court.
Warrick v. Walker, 814 A.2d 932 (D.C. 2003), wherein the D.C. Court of Appeals reversed and reinstated a case involving two passengers in a taxicab who were injured when the cab struck the rear of a properly stopped vehicle. The trial court erroneously directed a verdict against the plaintiff passengers because they did not present any evidence as to the speed of the cab at the time of the collision.
Moldover v. GEICO (#2) (CSA Case No. 1956, September Term 2001), an unreported decision by Maryland's intermediate appellate court, holding that the trial court abused its discretion in declining to entertain the plaintiff's motion for class certification before granting summary judgment based on GEICO's tender to the putative class representative. This decision came two years after the CSA's initial Moldover decision (see below), which -- along with the case of Dutta v. State Farm -- led GEICO to reverse its policy of denying personal injury protection benefits to HMO members who reimburse their HMOs from the proceeds of settlements with the third parties who caused their injuries.
Moldover v. GEICO (CSA Case No. 1316, September Term 2000), an unreported decision of Maryland's intermediate appellate court, reversing summary judgment and reinstating a class action against GEICO based on its improper denial of personal injury protection benefits to HMO members who reimburse their HMOs from the proceeds of settlements with the third parties who caused their injuries. The trial court erroneously determined that the HMO members did not "incur" necessary medical expenses when they reimbursed their HMOs.
Propper v. Adelberg, et al. (CSA Case No. 2897, September Term 2000), an unreported decision of Maryland's intermediate appellate court, reversing summary judgment and reinstating the a legal malpractice action against a defendant domestic relations attorney and his law firm. The trial court incorrectly held that plaintiff former client failed to present any evidence that the defendants' negligence caused the plaintiff any economic harm.
Lawson v. GWU Medical Center, 745 A.2d 323 (D.C. 2000), a medical malpractice case where the D.C. Court of Appeals upheld a verdict exceeding $1 million for a plaintiff who lost most of the function of her dominant hand after a surgeon needlessly amputated her finger based on his misdiagnosis of skin cancer.
Foster v. GWU Medical Center, 738 A.2d 791 (D.C. 1999), wherein the D.C. Court of Appeals reversed and remanded for a new trial, holding that the trial judge committed reversible error when she allowed the courtroom clerk to decide whether to inform the judge of the content of a note from the jury -- a note that ultimately would have demonstrated the jury's confusion regarding contributory negligence (a complete bar to recovery) versus mitigation of damages (a reduction of damages).
Reitmann vs. Hayes-Howerton (CSA Case No. 1098, September 13, 2000), an unreported decision of Maryland's intermediate appellate court, affirming a six-figure jury award in favor of a motor vehicle negligence victim where the defendant unsuccessfully argued that the trial court improperly allowed the jury to consider expert testimony regarding the permanent nature of the plaintiff's injuries.
Brown v. Consolidated Rail Corp., 717 A.2d 309 (D.C. 1998), a premises liability case in which the D.C. Court of Appeals reversed summary judgment, holding that a railroad has a common law duty to inspect and maintain its crossings and a common law duty to use reasonable care to protect passers-by on adjoining public land even if statutory duty to maintain the crossing at issue lies with the District of Columbia.
Moura v. Randall, 705 A.2d 334 (Md.App. 1998), a dog bite case in which the Court of Special Appeals reversed summary judgment on the old "two bite" rule. The Court held that in jurisdictions where there is a leash law or at-large statute, failure to control the dog is evidence of negligence that can be considered by the jury even when there is no prior evidence of the dog's vicious propensities.
Artis v. Corona Corp. of Japan, 703 A.2d 1214 (D.C. 1997), a product liability case in which the D.C. Court of Appeals reversed summary judgment, holding a plaintiff only needs to prove that a safer alternative design was "economically and technologically feasible" rather than having to prove that a safer alternative design was commercially available.
Durphy v. Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, 698 A.2d 459 (D.C. 1997), a medical malpractice case wherein the jury awarded $2 million dollars to the plaintiff whose foot had to be amputated due to his HMO's failure to timely diagnose a bone infection. Although the trial court granted judgment notwithstanding the verdict based on its determination that the plaintiff had contributed to his own injury, the D.C. Court of Appeals reversed and remanded the case.
Houston v. Safeway Stores, Inc., 697 A.2d 851 (Md. 1997), a premises liability case in which the Maryland Court of Appeals reinstated a jury verdict in favor of the plaintiff, holding that the trial court and intermediate appellate court erred in finding, as a matter of law, that the facility at issue was not a public restroom for purposes of applying a unique Maryland statute providing limited immunity from liability when a store permits a customer to use an employee restroom.
Hall v. Agency Rent-A-Car (D.C. App. Case No. 95-CV-516, January 31, 1997), an order of the D.C. Court of Appeals dismissing defendants' appeal (thereby maintaining a $365,000 jury award in a vehicle negligence case). Dismissal of the appeal was granted after plaintiff filed repeated motions to dismiss, each of which noted deficiencies in the content and form of defendants' briefs.
The following decisions are representative of appellate cases handled by other members of the Firm:
MacKaness v. Bowers, an unreported decision of the Virginia Supreme Court, decided in 1997, holding that the legal injury for statute of limitation purposes in a case involving misdiagnosis of cancer did not occur until "the melanoma became invasive and formed a tumor." This was a critical decision in a state where there is no discovery rule in malpractice cases.
George Washington University v. Waas, 648 A.2d 178 (D.C. 1994), affirming $650,000 verdict in medical malpractice case where doctors and hospital failed to timely diagnosis patient's colon cancer, and holding that defendants were not entitled to the specific contributory negligence instruction they requested.
Kane v. Ryan, 596 A.2d 562 (D.C. 1991), affirming $1.3 million jury verdict, upholding trial court's limitation of defendant's cross-examination of plaintiff's medical expert and allowing expert economist's testimony regarding future lost earnings based income plaintiff would have earned had she been able to return to work full-time.
East Penn Mfg. Co. v. Pineda, 578 A.2d 1113 (D.C. 1990), affirming jury verdict in product liability case in favor of plaintiff injured by an exploding battery.
McNeal v. Hi-Lo Powered Scaffolding, Inc., 836 F.2d 637 (D.C. Cir. 1988), reinstating $4.5 million jury verdict in product liability case involving manufacturer's breach of duty to warn.
Martin v. Washington Hospital Center, 423 A.2d 913 (D.C. 1980), D.C. Court of Appeals held that expert testimony in medical malpractice case was appropriate when plaintiff was discharged from ER prematurely and drove home in suicidal fashion, killing himself. Case became a leading case in treating mental patients in ER.
Seigel v. Indian Spring Country Club, an unreported Maryland decision upholding a verdict in favor of a plaintiff who suffered a leg fracture while riding in a golf cart over a golf course bridge. The appellate court determined that expert testimony regarding the bridge design was not required, and that the jury could reasonably infer that the bridge opening was too small to permit the golf cart to navigate safely over the bridge. This case led to the redesign of bridges at the golf course at issue, and improved the safety of golf courses throughout the State.
If you wish to discuss any of the above rulings, contact Jack Gold .
