Andrew H. baida

Partner

In a decision which represents a significant victory for developmentally disabled individuals throughout the State of Maryland, Cathey v. Board of Review, Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, decided October 25, 2011, Maryland’s highest court agreed with Andy Baida that his client, a developmentally disabled adult who is the subject of an interstate custody arrangement, qualifies for Developmental Disability Administration (DDA) services during the time she lives with her father in this State. Rejecting the DDA’s argument that a developmentally disabled adult can be a resident of only one state, the Maryland Court of Appeals held that such an individual can have multiple residences and is eligible for DDA benefits under Maryland’s Developmental Disabilities Law, which is a remedial statute, while the individual “actually lives” in Maryland.

In a decision issued on April 7, 2011, William S. v. Dept. of Health and Mental Hygiene, the Court of Special Appeals agreed with Andy Baida and Caroline Hecker that their client, Howard County General Hospital, acted properly in hospitalizing an individual following an emergency psychiatric evaluation demonstrating that the individual met the statutory criteria for involuntary admission under the Health-General Article of the Maryland Code.

In Kraitchman v. Davis, decided March 21, 2011, Andy Baida and Caroline Hecker convinced the Court of Special Appeals to overturn the decisions of the Circuit Court for Talbot County and the Town of Oxford's Board of Zoning Appeals denying their client's objection to the grant of a special exception to build a residence on a non-conforming, undersized lot. Agreeing that the Board made no findings on the question whether the lot in question was grandfathered under the Town of Oxford Zoning Ordinance, the Court of Special Appeals held that the Board could not delegate this function to another agency, such as the Town Building Official or Town Commissioners, and that the administrative record was insufficient to support a finding that the lot could be grandfathered.

In D.R.D. Pool Service v. Freed, the Maryland Court of Appeals issued an opinion on September 24, 2010 agreeing with Andy Baida and Doug Furlong that a jury should decide whether a five-year-old boy, Connor Freed, experienced conscious pain and suffering before drowning in a Crofton Country Club pool. The Court of Appeals held that the Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County erroneously concluded that there was no evidence that the child experienced any pain and suffering since no one saw the child drown. Citing expert testimony about the physical process that a healthy individual such as the child in this case experiences while drowning, the appellate court held that there was sufficient evidence for a jury to decide the extent to which the child suffered.

In Office of the Public Defender v. State, decided April 16, 2010, the Maryland Court of Appeals agreed with the position advanced by Andy Baida, who was retained as special counsel for the State of Maryland, by holding that a trial court has the authority to order the Public Defender to represent an indigent individual upon finding that the individual cannot afford a lawyer and that the Public Defender's previous indigency determination was erroneous. Andy was asked to represent the State of Maryland because the Public Defender's position in this case was supported by a formal opinion of the Office of the Maryland Attorney General expressing the view that a trial court may not order the Public Defender's Office to represent an individual it has deemed ineligible for representation. An article about the decision can be viewed here.

In Proctor v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority, decided on March 12, 2010, Andy Baida successfully argued before the Maryland Court of Appeals that the Maryland Tort Claims Act's $200,000 damages limitation does not apply to a negligence claim filed against WMATA seeking $7 million in damages for catastrophic injuries which his client suffered as a result of being hit by a WMATA bus. An article from The Daily Record about this decision may be viewed here.

In Booth v. Shepard, Andy Baida successfully argued before the Maryland Court of Special Appeals that his client in this medical malpractice case was entitled to have a jury decide whether her health care providers breached the standard of care and caused the permanent injuries she suffered following their attempts to give her a regional nerve block. In a decision issued on September 3, 2009, the Court of Special Appeals vacated the judgment of the Circuit Court for Baltimore City and held that there was a sufficient factual basis from which a jury could conclude that the health care providers were negligent in excessively sedating the patient, thereby rendering her unable to warn them that they were about to inflict the nerve injury which she ultimately suffered when they injected a needle into her neck during the attempted block.

In Freed v. D.R.D. Pool Service, the Maryland Court of Special Appeals on July 6, 2009 reversed the decision of the Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County and remanded the case for a jury to decide whether a five-year-old boy, Connor Freed, experienced conscious pain and suffering before drowning in a Crofton Country Club pool. Andy Baida and Doug Furlong successfully argued that the Circuit Court erroneously concluded that there was no evidence that the child experienced any pain and suffering since no one saw the child drown. Citing expert testimony about the physical process that a healthy individual such as the child in this case experiences while drowning, the appellate court held that there was sufficient evidence for a jury to decide the extent to which the child suffered. An article from The Daily Record about this decision may be viewed here.

In Giordano v. Sherwood, decided on April 2, 2009, Andy Baida persuaded the District of Columbia Court of Appeals to overturn a $600,000 judgment that had been entered against his client, Dr. Joseph Giordano, on the ground that there was insufficient evidence to support the jury verdict that Dr. Giordano was negligent in performing a procedure known as a lumbar sympathectomy. Noting that negligence need not be proven with certainty, the Court of Appeals concluded that the jury verdict nevertheless could not be sustained because it was based on speculation and conjecture that the procedure failed to comply with the standard of care.