Representation of a client in an obstetrical malpractice case which resulted in $5,000,000 settlement.

Michael Dano Jackley, founder of the business law and tax department at Joseph, Greenwald & Laake, PA, died Sunday, December 22, 2019, in Winchester, Virginia.

Mr. Jackley, a Baltimore native, was 77 years old. He joined the Prince George’s County firm in 1973 when the firm decided to expand its litigation based practice to business. He later added to his department and expanded its practice to include estate planning. He was a partner at the firm for 32 years, having been so elected after just three years of employment there.

Mr. Jackley was a graduate of the University of Maryland (political science) and attended the University of Maryland School of Law at night while working full time as a financial analyst for the Internal Revenue Service. He then attended the George Washington National  Law Center, again as a night student, earning a master’s degree in corporate law with highest honors.

Mr. Jackley, known for his humor and love of music, represented a wide variety of local,  regional, and national business clients, ranging from actress Tippi Hedron, to singers Peaches and Herb, to numerous businesses including medical practices, accounting firms, builders, printers, and major government contractors.

Before his retirement in 2008 due to heart issues, Mr. Jackley was named as among Washington’s top tax attorneys by Washingtonian Magazine five times and as one of the top local business attorneys by Baltimore Magazine.

In his retirement, Mr. Jackley was active in the Loudon Fairfax Survivors of Traumatic Brain Injuries.

Mr. Jackley is survived by his wife, Karen K. Jackley, of Middleburg, Virginia, whom he married in 1987, a daughter Megan of Seattle and two grandsons, and two step-daughters.

A celebration of Mr. Jackley’s life will be held in Middleburg, Virginia, in mid-January 2020.

Upheld the then largest ever verdict against Prince George’s County in police abuse case; established new cause of action for pattern or practice of constitutional violations under Maryland Constitution. Prince George’s County v. Longtin (Md. 2011)

Maryland – The 2020 edition of Maryland, Super Lawyers magazine recently named 13 Joseph Greenwald & Laake, P.A. attorneys to its annual Maryland, Super Lawyers lists.

Among which Patrick W. Dragga was listed as one of the lawyers who ranked top in the 2020 Maryland Super Lawyers (Top 100)

The Maryland, attorneys who made this year’s Super Lawyers list, including their primary practice areas as identified by Super Lawyers, are:

GREENBELT, MD –

  • Andrew E. Greenwald –  Medical Malpractice: Plaintiff

  • Burt M. Kahn – Medical Malpractice: Plaintiff

  • Jay P. Holland – Labor & Employment

  • Steven M. Pavsner – Medical Malpractice: Plaintiff

  • Timothy F. Maloney – Gen Litigation 

  • Walter E. Laake – Medical Malpractice: Plaintiff

ROCKVILLE, MD – 

  • David M. Bulitt – Family Law

  • Jeffrey N. Greenblatt – Family Law

  • Patrick W. Dragga – Family Law 

  • P. Lindsay Parvis – Family Law 

  • Anne E. Grover – Family Law

RISING STAR  – 

  • Alyse Prawde – Civil Litigation: Plaintiff 

  • Rama Taib-Lopez – Family Law

  • Christopher R. Castellano – Family Law

Super Lawyers is a rating service of outstanding lawyers from more than 70 practice areas who have attained a high degree of peer recognition and professional achievement. The selection process includes independent research, peer nominations and peer evaluations.

About Joseph Greenwald & Laake

For more than 40 years, Joseph Greenwald & Laake has worked with individuals and businesses in Maryland and the District of Columbia, taking on the most complex of legal issues with sophisticated counsel and a personal touch. JGL serves clients in virtually all areas of the law.

After more than four decades of serving his clients in the Washington, DC, area, one of our founding partners, Walter Laake has decided to retire from the practice of law effective October 30, 2019.

As one of the area’s preeminent personal injury lawyers over the years, Walter won sizeable verdicts for countless individuals who suffered serious injuries and helped to establish many landmark legal precedents. He had a very creative approach to some of the legal problems our clients faced.

He served as the managing director of our Firm, for many years. In his spare time, he served as Prince George’s County Bar Association’s President as well as serving as President of the Maryland Association of Justice (known at the time as The Maryland Trial Lawyers Association)

We stand ready to continue in Walter’s footsteps and to provide the highest quality legal services to the people of Maryland and beyond.

Successfully obtained a settlement on behalf of 13 children who had been sexually abused by a teacher’s aide at Sylvania Woods Elementary School in Prince George’s County.

US Department of Justice Files Complaint Against Surgeon in JGL Whistleblower Case

Claims Surgeon Received Kickbacks, Performed Unnecessary

Spinal Surgeries, Resulting in Patient Harm

Last month, we reported here that we represent two surgeons who stepped forward as whistleblowers by filing  a lawsuit against Sanford Health in South Dakota and Sanford neurosurgeon Wilson Asfora, M.D. Sanford Health recently settled its portion of the lawsuit for more than $20 million. The lawsuit alleged that Sanford Health had failed to take appropriate corrective action to prevent illegal kickbacks and unnecessary spine surgeries performed by spinal surgeon Wilson Asfora. The case received widespread local and national media attention.

With the hospital having settled and entered into a Corporate Integrity Agreement requiring continued monitoring by the federal government, on November 13, the latest development in this case emerged when the US Department of Justice filed a detailed 83-page  complaint  against remaining defendants, Dr. Asfora and his physician-owned distributorship, Medical Designs.

The Justice Department’s complaint claims that Dr. Asfora performed medically unnecessary spinal surgeries on Medicare and Medicaid patients at Sanford Health in order to profit from the devices he manufactured and used in those surgeries. Dr. Asfora’s activities violated federal anti-kickback laws, the complaint alleges, and as a result of some of those surgeries, patients were paralyzed or were forced to endure surgeries on the wrong body site.

JGL’s Veronica Nannis and Jay Holland proudly represent the whistleblower surgeons who initially brought this case to the federal government in 2016 after countless efforts to correct the issue internally failed. “The allegations in this case are incredibly serious, and we are grateful to the government for stepping into this case to partner with us,” said Ms. Nannis.

While the hospital settled its portion of the case, the federal government, alongside Nannis, Holland and their clients, continue to pursue the civil case against the doctor and his companies. For  media coverage of the Justice Department’s filing, see this article from the Sioux Falls Argus Leader.

Earlier this year, the hospital announced that it was suspending the purchase of devices sold by Dr. Asfora’s device companies. It has since announced the termination of Dr. Asfora from the hospital system.

Bethesda Magazine surveyed attorneys who practice in Montgomery County asking them to name the attorneys they would recommend in 25 practice areas.

8 JGL attorneys were included in the resulting “Top Attorney” listings:

Family Law/Divorce

David Bulitt

Jeffrey Greenblatt

Anne Grover

Lindsay Parvis

Trusts & Estates

Paul Riekhof

Appellate

Timothy Maloney

Business/Corporate

Jerry D. Miller

Employment Law

Jay P. Holland

For the complete article, visit www.bethesdamagazine.com and click on “Digital Edition” (requires subscription).

1.       What made you become a lawyer?

My college professor was a personal injury lawyer and taught a course called Legal Aspects of Medicine.  He soon became a mentor.  I then was applying to Medical School but my wife got pregnant which changed my career path as Medicine would take 12 + years and Law took only 3 years. Hence, I chose law. 

2.       What will be the biggest challenge for the generation behind you?

Billable hours.  Most lawyers earn money on how they bill.  With the advancement of technology, we work much faster and efficiently, as a result the new generation takes less time to write a pleading. The negative part of this is that I think the new generation is less prepared for litigation as they are doing virtually everything on-line and miss important legal concepts and facts that are on paper.

3.       What is the most interesting case you’ve ever had?

I had represented a prominent football coach. That’s all I can reveal.

4.       How do you measure success?

What others say about you when you are not around, especially professionally is extremely important. I measure success through one’s reputation.

5.       What do you look forward to when you go to work every day?

I look forward to leaving the office. Jokes aside, I look forward to a productive day and then getting back to my kids.

GREENBELT, MD – October 28, 2019 – A whistleblower case alleging kickbacks and unnecessary spine surgeries has been settled by Sanford Health in South Dakota for $20.25 million. The False Claims Act settlement is believed to be one of the largest in the district.

Two Sanford surgeons filed the complaint under seal in August 2016 under the whistleblower process (qui tam) in the False Claims Act. It alleged that the lucrative Sanford neurosurgeon, Dr. Asfora, was selling medical devices to Sanford for surgeries he performed, resulting in an unlawful economic incentive for him to use, and overuse, the devices on unwitting patients. The complaint alleged that this kickback scheme resulted in multi-level, medically unnecessary spinal fusion surgeries to scores of Medicare and Medicaid patients.

The complaint recounted the numerous efforts made over many years by the physician whistleblowers and others to implore Sanford to take appropriate actions to stop the alleged unlawful kickbacks and the resulting unnecessary spinal surgeries. As alleged, Sanford repeatedly failed to take corrective measures, and the physicians had no choice but to bring their grave concerns to the federal government “as a last resort” by filing the whistleblower complaint and fully cooperating with the Government’s investigation.

Their efforts have now successfully met their goal of protecting patients from these unnecessary and harmful surgeries. The case received widespread local and national attention after the Government intervened and the court unsealed the record in June 2019. In July, the hospital announced that it was suspending the purchase of devices sold by Dr. Asfora’s device companies. It has since announced the termination of Dr. Asfora from the hospital system.

The Department of Justice announced today that Sanford settled its share of the litigation for $20.25 million. In addition, the government entered into a Corporate Integrity Agreement (CIA) with Sanford, requiring that “Sanford maintain a compliance program, implement a risk assessment program, and hire an Independent Review Organization to review Medicare and Medicaid claims at Sanford Medical Center.” Moreover, the CIA also requires compliance-related certifications from the board of directors and key executives at Sanford, increasing individual accountability. The case against Dr. Asfora and his company, Medical Designs, continues to be prosecuted.

JGL’s Veronica Nannis and Jay Holland are honored to represent the physician relators. They are also thankful for the assistance of local counsel, Robert Anderson, and for the comprehensive investigation performed by the experienced government attorneys dedicated to this case, particularly DOJ Trial Attorney Chris Terranova and Assistant U.S. Attorney Meghan Roche from the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Sioux Falls. “The government’s commitment to investigating and wholeheartedly pursuing this case underscores its keen desire to protect patients, root out fraud and protect taxpayer dollars,” said Holland.

Greenbelt, Maryland based Joseph, Greenwald & Laake filed the lawsuit in August 2016. The case caption is US ex rel Bechtold v. Sanford Health, et al., Case 4:16-cv-04115-LLP (S.D.).

Jay Holland is a partner at Joseph, Greenwald & Laake, and is Chair of the Firm’s Labor, Employment and Qui Tam practice. He is an employment and a whistleblower attorney with a nationwide qui tam practice. His False Claims Act cases have resulted in recoveries of over $600 million for the United States. His recent publications include articles for The National Law Journal, Trial Magazine, DC Trial Lawyer, and the Maryland State Bar Association Employment Law Deskbook.

He can be reached at jholland@jgllaw.com

 

Veronica Nannis is a partner at Joseph, Greenwald & Laake, and is the Chair of the Firm’s Civil Litigation Department. She is a whistleblower and a class action attorney focusing on fraud cases. A Super Lawyer’s Rising Star in DC and Maryland for the last several years, she was also awarded the Maryland Association for Justice’s Trial Lawyer of the Year Award in 2011 with the team from Joseph, Greenwald & Laake. Recent publications include those for Law 360 and The Daily Record.

She can be reached at vnannis@jgllaw.com

This blog, the second in a three-part series, (click here for Part 1) looks at other states’ grounds for divorce and how they compare to Maryland, when considering the broader question (discussed in Part 3) about whether it’s time to overhaul Maryland’s grounds for divorce.  Part 1 looks at trends in changes to Maryland’s grounds for divorce over the last several years.  I welcome hearing from readers about their thoughts.

How Other States Approach Grounds for Divorce?

Without comprehensively discussing all states’ laws, there are some notable trends and differences.

Most states’ grounds for divorce fall into the same broad categories as Maryland:

1)      Fault and no fault grounds; and,

2)      Grounds requiring a physical separation and those that do not.

Like Maryland, most states include grounds for incarceration/conviction of a crime, insanity, cruelty/domestic violence, and separation (fault or no fault).

What Do Other States Do Differently?

As for differences, at least 20 states do not recognize adultery as a ground.  Approximately 11 states offer one or very few grounds for divorce, being no fault only divorce states.  And, many states allow “legal separation” as either an alternatively or precursor to divorce.  Among the states allowing separation-based divorce, whether on a fault or no fault basis, separation periods vary from 3 months to 7 years, with an average no fault separation period of 1 to 2 years. 

Grounds permitted by other states of note:

·         Drug and/or alcohol addiction;

·         A breakdown in the marriage, often requiring no separation, having varying titles, such as:

o   Irreconcilable differences;

o   Complete incompatibility;

o   Irretrievable breakdown in the marriage, sometimes requiring failed reconciliations attempts;

·         Impotence;

·         Fraud or fraudulent contract, such as a deception that undermines the essence of the marriage;

·         Pregnancy, if unknown at the time of marriage and by someone other than the spouse;

·         Refusal to financially support a spouse;

·         Varying religious grounds (for example, joining a religious sect disavowing marriage);

·         Bigamy;

·         Deviant sexual behavior, which may include marital rape;

·         Ouster forcing a spouse out of the home and marriage;

·         Gross neglect of legal duties, either to the marriage, a spouse, or child; and,

·         Attempted murder of one’s spouse.

Closing Thoughts

Given the variety of grounds for divorce recognized by other states and developments in Maryland’s grounds for divorce (discussed in Part 1), it is time for Maryland to look at its grounds for divorce, addressing such questions as:

·         Whether to shift away from fault grounds to no fault only grounds?

·         Whether to continue to have fault grounds, and if how expand Maryland’s fault grounds?

·         Whether to further shorten or eliminate separation periods?

·         Whether there is a need for Maryland to offer and recognize “legal separation”?

·         Whether any of Maryland’s grounds are obsolete and should be eliminated?

My next blog in this series ties together Maryland’s trends with other states’ approaches, to consider whether it’s time for a broader update to Maryland’s grounds for divorce and what types of updates.

You can follow Lindsay Parvis for discussion, news, and developments in Maryland family law on LinkedInFacebookInstagramTwitter, and LindsayParvis.com, as well as subscribe to her Newsletter

Sharing our thoughts, photos and personal details on social media is so ingrained in many peoples’ lives that we do not think twice about the wealth of information left behind for anyone and everyone to discover.  But it should be a thought and consideration if you find in yourself heading towards a divorce or custody litigation.  As part of the discovery process you will likely have to produce complete copies of the history of your social media accounts.  It does not matter if your accounts are set to private – there is still a duty to provide the relevant discovery.

Most people cannot recall everything they have posted on social media since the inception of their accounts.  Posts that may have seemed glib or sarcastic in the moment do not always age well.  Further, they can take on a new meaning or be viewed in a different light when presented to a judge in a courtroom.  Things that they posted years ago, or in a fleeting moment, can come back to haunt you, especially during divorce or custody proceedings.  

So what can you do?  If you have not yet initiated divorce proceedings, you may want to deactivate your social media accounts.  There are a couple of reasons for doing so.

First, you will not be tempted to post negative things about your ex on social media.  It is easy when emotions run high, to send a quick tweet about dealing with a deadbeat ex.  What may have been venting in a moment of frustration, will turn into an exhibit to show a Judge that you are mean spirited and not willing to co-parent.  

Also, if you delete your social media, there will not a forum for well-meaning friends and relatives to make those types of comments on your account.  Your friends are generally able to comment on your posts, tag you in photos and locations, and mention you in their posts.  All of which may be well-meaning, and intended to be supportive during a difficult time, but not always helpful to your case!

Additional Reading: Five Reasons to Deactivate or Delete Your Facebook Account While Your Divorce Case is Pending ​

Quitting social media can also be good for your mental health and emotional wellbeing.  When going through a break up it can be particularly difficult to view all of the happy images on social media of intact families, not to mention seeing the posts of what were mutual friends, but have sided with your ex.  Or seeing posts of couples nights out, etc. or other events which will only make you feel left out.  A better option might be to spend that time joining a new group or picking up a new hobby where you can learn new skills, or meet new people.  

If you need more motivation, keep in mind the fact that the average individual spends about two and a half hours a day on social media.  When you are going through a divorce, that is valuable time you will need to meet with your attorney, gather documents and otherwise participate in the litigation process.  Often, clients are not prepared for the amount of time they must devote to their case – by the end they are referring to it as a part-time job.

But, before you delete any accounts, or take any final actions, make sure to consult with an attorney.  Under certain circumstances you may be prohibited from deleting any evidence, including social media accounts.  Failing to abide by these restrictions could be even more damaging than the actual information contained in your social media accounts.  If the Court finds that you were purposefully trying to hide information they can impose sanctions which can negatively impact your case.

Subscribe