American Board of Trial Advocates
Best Attorneys
Multi Million Dollar
Million Dollar
Maryland Association for Justice
Super Lawyers
Awards 2015
The American
Super Lawyers
Top 50 Woman - Maryland
SuperLawyers
Top 100 - Maryland
Best Lawyers

Published on: | by

Diagnosing rare medical conditions can present significant challenges. However, healthcare providers are still expected to recognize warning signs, order appropriate testing, and refer patients for additional evaluation when the accepted standard of care requires it. When a patient later suffers catastrophic harm because a serious condition went undiagnosed, the resulting medical malpractice litigation often turns on expert testimony establishing what reasonably competent physicians should have done under the circumstances. A recent Maryland decision illustrates how evidentiary rulings concerning expert opinions and medical literature can shape the outcome of a medical negligence trial. If you or a loved one suffered harm because a healthcare provider failed to diagnose a serious medical condition in a timely manner, you should speak with a Baltimore medical malpractice attorney to discuss your legal options.

Factual and Procedural Setting

Allegedly, the decedent sought medical treatment over a period of approximately two years for symptoms that included shortness of breath, lightheadedness, and other cardiovascular complaints. Multiple healthcare providers evaluated the decedent, underwent cardiac testing, and were hospitalized on more than one occasion. Despite continued treatment, the decedent was never diagnosed with cardiac amyloidosis, a progressive condition caused by abnormal protein deposits in the heart.

Reportedly, the decedent died suddenly in December 2017. An autopsy concluded that the death most likely resulted from an arrhythmia caused by previously undiagnosed cardiac amyloidosis. The decedent’s family subsequently filed a medical malpractice action alleging that the defendants failed to recognize the condition, diagnose it during the years preceding the decedent’s death, and provide treatment that could have extended the decedent’s life. Following a jury trial, the jury found that none of the defendants breached the applicable standard of care. The plaintiffs appealed, challenging several evidentiary and procedural rulings made before and during trial.

Continue Reading ›

Published on: | by

Many medical malpractice cases never reach a jury because they are resolved on procedural issues before the evidence of negligence is fully considered. Maryland law requires patients to satisfy specific pre-suit obligations, and courts will also examine whether a complaint contains sufficient factual allegations connecting each healthcare provider to the claimed injury. A recent Maryland decision demonstrates that even where a patient alleges inadequate follow-up treatment and worsening medical conditions, a lawsuit may be dismissed if these legal requirements are not met. If you believe you or a loved one suffered preventable injuries because of substandard medical care, an experienced Baltimore medical malpractice attorney can help you understand whether you have a viable claim and the steps necessary to protect your rights.

Facts and Procedural History

Allegedly, the plaintiff suffered serious pelvic injuries after being struck by a vehicle while incarcerated and was transported to a hospital for emergency treatment. After returning to the correctional facility, the plaintiff maintained that recommended follow-up care was denied and that the plaintiff continued experiencing severe back and hip pain, difficulty walking, and declining mobility. According to the complaint, repeated requests for additional treatment, including physical therapy and mobility assistance, were either delayed or inadequately addressed, resulting in worsening physical limitations.

Reportedly, the plaintiff filed suit asserting several claims against correctional officials and healthcare providers. As relevant to the medical negligence allegations, the plaintiff contended that the healthcare providers failed to provide appropriate follow-up treatment, delayed physical therapy, failed to provide a wheelchair in a timely manner, and prescribed ineffective medications that did not adequately address the plaintiff’s condition. The healthcare defendants moved to dismiss the medical negligence claim, arguing both that the plaintiff failed to satisfy Maryland’s mandatory pre-suit requirements and that the complaint did not sufficiently allege malpractice.

Continue Reading ›

Published on: | by

Medical malpractice claims often involve allegations that a healthcare provider failed to recognize known risks, prescribed inappropriate treatment, or did not respond appropriately when complications developed. Before Maryland courts will consider whether a healthcare provider breached the applicable standard of care, however, injured patients generally must satisfy specific procedural requirements established by state law. A recent Maryland decision highlights both the importance of those procedural rules and the distinction between medical malpractice claims and other legal theories arising from medical treatment. If you suffered injuries because of negligent medical care, you should speak with a Baltimore medical malpractice attorney to protect your rights and ensure your claim is properly filed.

Facts and Procedural History

Allegedly, the plaintiff received medical treatment for a hand injury that included prescription medications intended to manage pain and inflammation. After beginning the prescribed treatment, the plaintiff experienced severe gastrointestinal symptoms, including stomach pain and signs of internal bleeding. According to the complaint, the plaintiff later discovered that the medications carried warnings advising against their combined use because of an increased risk of serious gastrointestinal complications.

Continue Reading ›

Published on: | by

Patients who believe they have suffered injuries because of negligent dental or medical treatment often pursue multiple legal theories in an effort to obtain relief. However, even when serious allegations are made, courts must determine whether they have jurisdiction to hear the claims and whether the plaintiff has complied with Maryland’s procedural requirements for pursuing malpractice actions. A recent Maryland case illustrates the importance of understanding the distinction between federal and state claims before filing suit. If you believe you were harmed by negligent dental or medical care, you should speak with a Baltimore medical malpractice attorney to ensure your claims are brought in the proper forum and in compliance with Maryland law.

History of the Case

Allegedly, the plaintiff filed suit in federal court against a dental practice and several individual defendants arising from dental treatment that the plaintiff claimed resulted in injury. After the defendants challenged the original complaint, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint asserting claims for dental malpractice, additional state-law theories, an alleged violation of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA), and allegations of unauthorized banking transactions.

Continue Reading ›

Published on: | by

Medical malpractice cases frequently focus on whether a healthcare provider complied with the applicable standard of care. In some situations, however, disputes arise over what patients were told about the providers responsible for their treatment and whether those representations affected a patient’s legal rights. A recent Maryland decision addressed whether claims for fraudulent misrepresentation and conspiracy arising from a hospital’s alleged statements regarding a surgeon’s relationship with the hospital were barred by Maryland’s medical malpractice statute of limitations. If you suffered harm due to negligent medical care or misleading conduct by a healthcare institution, you should speak with a Baltimore medical malpractice attorney to discuss your legal options.

Facts and Procedural History

Allegedly, the plaintiff presented to a hospital emergency department in October 2015 with symptoms that led physicians to diagnose gallbladder disease. An on-call surgeon evaluated the plaintiff, confirmed the diagnosis, and recommended emergency surgery. The surgeon subsequently performed a procedure to remove the plaintiff’s gallbladder.

Reportedly, the plaintiff later underwent additional surgery at another hospital after complications developed following the initial procedure. During the course of treatment, the plaintiff learned facts that formed the basis of a medical malpractice claim against both the surgeon and the hospital. Continue Reading ›

Published on: | by

Medical malpractice cases involving delayed cancer diagnoses often present difficult questions regarding causation, timing, and the impact of missed opportunities for treatment. When healthcare providers fail to order appropriate testing or recognize warning signs of a serious condition, patients may lose valuable time during which a disease remains more treatable. A recent Maryland decision addressed whether a patient could proceed with claims arising from an alleged delay in diagnosing parotid gland cancer. If you believe a healthcare provider failed to diagnose a serious illness in a timely manner, you should speak with a Baltimore medical malpractice attorney about your potential claims.

Factual and Procedural Setting

Allegedly, the plaintiff sought medical care after experiencing swelling, tenderness, and pain in the area near the right ear. The plaintiff had a history of thyroid cancer and underwent diagnostic evaluation, including imaging studies. Although certain abnormalities were identified, the plaintiff contended that healthcare providers failed to pursue an adequate oncological workup to determine whether cancer was present.<

Reportedly, one defendant physician evaluated the plaintiff in 2019 and attributed the symptoms to other conditions rather than parotid gland cancer. According to the plaintiff, the physician did not order additional diagnostic testing, such as a PET scan, MRI, or ultrasound, nor did the physician discuss the potential need for such studies. The plaintiff maintained that the applicable standard of care required further investigation. Continue Reading ›

Published on: | by

Medical malpractice claims arising during extraordinary public health emergencies can present unique legal questions. Courts must often determine whether healthcare providers remain subject to traditional negligence principles when they are operating under emergency protocols designed to address widespread crises. A recent Maryland decision considered whether a hospital could invoke statutory immunity for care provided during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic, even though the patient ultimately did not have the virus. If you believe negligent medical treatment caused serious harm, it is important to speak with a Baltimore medical malpractice attorney about your potential claims.

Case Setting

Allegedly, the plaintiff was admitted to a hospital in April 2020 after experiencing acute respiratory failure, breathing difficulties, and other symptoms consistent with COVID-19. Because the admission occurred during Maryland’s declared catastrophic health emergency, the hospital implemented extensive isolation precautions and treated the plaintiff as a potential COVID-19 patient while diagnostic testing was performed.

Continue Reading ›

Published on: | by

Medical malpractice cases often involve more than disputes over whether healthcare providers met the applicable standard of care. Parties frequently litigate procedural and evidentiary issues that can significantly affect the scope of a trial. A recent Maryland decision addressed whether healthcare providers could continue to maintain affirmative defenses after acknowledging that they would not pursue them before a jury. If you believe you were harmed by negligent medical treatment, it is wise to speak with a Baltimore medical malpractice attorney to understand your legal options.

Factual and Procedural History

Allegedly, the plaintiff filed a medical malpractice lawsuit against multiple healthcare providers arising from medical treatment related to a bacterial infection. The plaintiff asserted that negligent care by various providers caused substantial injuries and damages. The case proceeded through discovery and pretrial motion practice in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland.

Reportedly, the defendants filed answers to the complaint that included affirmative defenses of contributory negligence and assumption of the risk. Under Maryland law, such defenses can bar or limit recovery if supported by sufficient evidence. As the litigation progressed, however, communications between counsel revealed that the defendants no longer intended to pursue those defenses at trial. Continue Reading ›

Published on: | by

Medical malpractice litigation often involves multiple defendants whose interests may appear aligned during trial but diverge behind the scenes. When undisclosed agreements alter those relationships, they can undermine the fairness of the proceedings and the integrity of the jury’s evaluation. A recent Maryland decision highlights the risks posed by secret settlement arrangements between plaintiffs and co-defendants, particularly in complex medical negligence cases involving hospitals and physicians. If you were harmed by medical negligence, you should speak with a Baltimore medical malpractice attorney to understand what measures to take to protect your interests.

Facts and Procedural History

Allegedly, the plaintiff filed a medical negligence action against the defendant hospital and a co-defendant physician following a birth injury that occurred during obstetrical care. The plaintiff asserted that the hospital was directly negligent through its nursing staff and vicariously liable for the physician’s conduct. The case proceeded to a jury trial lasting nearly two weeks.

It is reported that shortly after the jury was selected but before opening statements, the plaintiff disclosed the existence of an agreement with the co-defendant physician but refused to reveal its terms. The defendant hospital argued that the agreement constituted a Mary Carter agreement, requiring disclosure to both the court and the jury. The trial court declined to compel immediate disclosure and allowed the trial to proceed. Continue Reading ›

Published on: | by

Medical malpractice claims involving treatment within federal systems often present complex procedural barriers that can limit recovery even where negligent care may have occurred. When a government agency delays or fails to act on a malpractice claim, injured parties may seek judicial intervention, but strict legal standards can prevent meaningful relief despite apparent wrongdoing. A recent Maryland decision highlights how procedural doctrines can restrict a claimant’s ability to recover attorney’s fees, even when a lawsuit prompts agency action on an underlying medical negligence claim. If you or a loved one has been harmed by negligent medical care connected to a government provider, you should speak with a Baltimore medical malpractice attorney to evaluate your options.

Case Setting

Allegedly, the plaintiff filed a civil action against the defendant, a federal official, asserting that a government agency failed to act on a medical malpractice claim brought on behalf of her child under a federal statutory scheme. The complaint sought relief under the Administrative Procedure Act, alleging that the agency’s inaction warranted judicial intervention.

It is reported that after the plaintiff initiated the lawsuit, the defendant moved to dismiss the complaint or, alternatively, for summary judgment. The plaintiff did not oppose the motion to dismiss but instead asserted that the lawsuit had effectively achieved its purpose by prompting the agency to respond to the underlying malpractice claim. Continue Reading ›

Contact Information
2002 Clipper Park Rd #300
Baltimore, MD 21211
Phone: (410) 889-1850Fax: (410) 235-3297

Please do not include any confidential or sensitive information in a contact form, text message, or voicemail. The contact form sends information by non-encrypted email, which is not secure. Submitting a contact form, sending a text message, making a phone call, or leaving a voicemail does not create an attorney-client relationship.

Copyright © 2026, Arfaa Law Group
JUSTIA Law Firm Blog Design