Abstract
The ruling in Lai v. Sagle, 818 A.2d 237 (Md. 2003), begins thus: “Courts often are reluctant to declare brightline rules or standards. There are good reasons for this usually. In this case, we overcome the reluctance.” The crux of this case concerned the opening statement by the plaintiff’s attorney to the jury: “When Dr. Lai was practicing in Michigan for eight years, he was sued five times for malpractice.” Although the judge gave several “curative” instructions during the trial pertaining to what is and is not evidence to be considered, the jury awarded the plaintiff $131,500.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callSimilar Papers
More From: American Journal of Orthodontics & Dentofacial Orthopedics
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
