Generally, parties in medical malpractice cases rely on expert testimony to support their positions. As such, if they can present evidence discrediting an expert, it may help to convince jurors to return verdicts in their favor. Not all evidence is admissible, however, as demonstrated in a recent Maryland opinion issued in a neurosurgeon malpractice case, in which the court found that the prejudicial nature of the proposed testimony outweighed its relevance. If you were harmed by a surgical procedure, you should speak to a Maryland medical malpractice lawyer as soon as possible to determine your rights.
The Plaintiff’s Harm
Allegedly, the plaintiff presented to the defendant neurosurgeon with complaints of pain in her lower back that radiated to her left leg and foot. The defendant recommended that she undergo a bilateral laminectomy, regardless of the fact that the plaintiff had no symptoms on the right side. The plaintiff underwent the surgery, after which she experienced neurological deficits, pain, and disability. She then filed a medical malpractice lawsuit against the defendant, alleging that the surgery on the right side of her spine violated the standard of care.
It is reported that prior to trial, the plaintiff filed a motion asking the court to preclude the defendant from questioning the plaintiff’s expert regarding his disciplinary history. The court granted the motion in spite of the defendant’s objections, and a jury ultimately found in favor of the plaintiff. The defendant filed an appeal, arguing that the trial court erred in granting the plaintiff’s motion. Continue Reading