We get RESULTS

When You are Injured

10632 Little Patuxent Pkwy #430, Columbia, MD 21044
lloyd.eisenberg@ljeassoc.com
(301) 596-3636

Lloyd J. Eisenberg & Associates, P.A.

About Us

When coming to our office for your first appointment, you will meet with Lloyd J. Eisenberg for a no-fee consultation and he will personally handle your accident or Workman’s Compensation claim for no fee pending your receipt of compensation. He understands the many struggles you face after your accident and will bring his many years of experience and knowledge of insurance companies to assure recovery of the maximum dollars possible in your case. Mr. Eisenberg listens carefully to his clients to be sure he fully understands every aspect of the situation, is prompt in returning your phone calls, and has an outstanding reputation of integrity and winning cases – all of which has resulted in his being highly respected by his colleagues and former clients.

Lloyd J. Eisenberg has focused his practice on representing injured and disabled individuals since 1985. In 1993, he established the law firm of Lloyd J. Eisenberg & Associates. He has represented thousands of individuals in Workman’s Compensation, disability, and personal injury claims throughout Maryland, Virginia and the District of Columbia. His determination for fair and just treatment for his clients has resulted in changes to the law as detailed below. Mr. Eisenberg and his team are committed to providing pro-active, effective and meticulous representation for each of their clients.

Working on behalf of police, firefighters and paramedics, Lloyd J. Eisenberg has repeatedly challenged the actions of the Pension Plan and Disability Review Board. His efforts have resulted in changes in the law, most notably in the case of Officer Steven Kerpelman v. Disability Review Board of Prince George’s County. Prior to Officer Kerpelman’s case, officers were routinely denied their Constitutional rights to an evidentiary hearing. Even after a hearing, decisions were usually delayed by at least two years. As a direct result of Mr. Eisenberg’s efforts, officers are now ensured of their Constitutional right to a hearing challenging the wrongful denial of benefits. Further, the Pension Plan added two additional judges to provide timely decisions. Mr. Eisenberg strongly believes in your rights and will continue to fight for them.

Case Examples

Boddie v. Scott, 722 A. 2d 407, 124 Md. App. 37 (1999)

The Court of Special Appeals ruled that a good Samaritan injured while assisting someone who negligently caused a fire in their own house can recover compensation from the homeowner who called him for help, and he is not barred from recovering compensation by the doctrine of assumption of the risk. Before this case, this rule applied only to good Samaritans trying to save someone from physical harm, and did not apply to helping someone save his property.
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=3089787290620147423&q=scott+v.+boddie&hl=en&as_sdt=20000006&as_vis=1

Kerpelman v Disability Review Board, 843 A.2d 877, 155 Md. App. 513 (2004)

The Medical Advisory Board reviewed Officer Kerpelman’s condition six separate times without making any formal recommendations. The MAB did not forward its findings to the Disability Review Board as required. As a result, Officer Kerpelman was denied retirement benefits and not given a decision which could be appealed. He was, therefore, denied his constitutional right to process and to an evidentiary hearing. The Court of Special Appeals ordered the Disability Review Board and Medical Advisory Board to follow procedure, granting Officer Kerpelman the right to a hearing. Following this decision, Officer Kerpelman was awarded service-connected disability retirement.
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=9920499960879746356&q=kerpelman+v.+disability+review&hl=en&as_sdt=20000006&as_vis=1

Borzym v. Darcars, 841 A. 2d 828, 379 Md. 249 (2004)

Upheld an award of punitive damages against Darcars. (In Maryland, punitive damages are extraordinarily difficult to obtain. The court must find that the defendant, through its actions, had specific malicious intent against the plaintiff.) The Court Of Appeals upheld the jury’s finding of malice and the level of proof required to support an award of punitive damages.
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=3496371159710998831&q=borzym+v.+darcars&hl=en&as_sdt=20000006&as_vis=1

If you are seeking information or the highest-level representation, call or email us now:

(301) 596-3636

Lloyd.Eisenberg@LJEassoc.com

Free Case Evaluation
Fill out this for Free Case Evaluation