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

Published on: | by

Many health care facilities in and around Maryland are funded and operated by the federal government. As such, if a party wishes to pursue medical malpractice claims for harm caused by incompetent treatment in such facilities, they typically must comply with the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), and if they fail to do so, their claims may be dismissed. This was illustrated in a recent ruling in which the court dismissed a pro se plaintiff’s medical malpractice claim due to his failure to exhaust his administrative remedies. If you were injured by inadequate medical treatment, you have the right to seek damages, and it is in your best interest to confer with a Maryland medical malpractice attorney.

The Plaintiff’s Reported Harm

It is alleged that the plaintiff received treatment from the defendant, a federally certified provider, while he was incarcerated. He alleged that the defendant’s employees offered him negligent care by failing to provide him with adequate pain medication or necessary tests. As such, he filed a medical malpractice claim against the defendant. The defendant moved the case to federal court, and the United States government moved to substitute itself as the defendant and to dismiss the plaintiff’s claims.

Requirements for Pursuing Medical Malpractice Claims Under the FTCA

The court ultimately granted the defendant’s motions. With regard to the plaintiff’s claims pertaining to the administration of pain medication, the court found that he failed to exhaust his administrative remedies as required by the FTCA. Specifically, he only filed one administrative tort claim, and it failed to describe the facts out of which the claim arose with sufficient specificity to allow the agency to investigate his claim. Thus, it was dismissed. Continue Reading ›

Published on: | by

Typically, people who lose loved ones due to incompetent medical treatment can choose where to pursue medical malpractice claims against the parties that caused their losses. In some instances, though, the courts will transfer a case to another venue. Recently, a Maryland court discussed the factors weighed in determining whether a change of venue is appropriate in a wrongful death and medical malpractice case filed in Maryland. If you lost a loved one due to negligent medical care, you could be owed compensation, and you should speak to a Maryland medical malpractice lawyer regarding your options.

History of the Case

It is alleged that the defendants treated the decedent before his death, which was caused by an occlusive pulmonary embolism. The decedent resided in Maryland prior to his death, but the defendants treated him in Washington D.C. The plaintiff filed a wrongful death and medical malpractice lawsuit against the defendants in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland.

Reportedly, the defendants moved to transfer the case to the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, arguing that the only connection to Maryland was that the decedent lived there prior to his death. The plaintiff opposed the motion, noting that after discharging the decedent from their facility, the defendants continued to provide care for the decedent in Maryland through an intermediary. Continue Reading ›

Published on: | by

People who suffer harm due to incompetent medical care can seek damages via medical malpractice claims. Only treatment administered in the context of a medical relationship will give rise to liability, however. This was demonstrated in a ruling in which the court dismissed the plaintiff’s medical malpractice claims on the grounds that she could not prove that a treatment relationship existed. If you were hurt by an incompetent health care provider, you may be able to pursue a claim for damages, and you should consult a Maryland medical malpractice lawyer regarding your possible claims.

The Plaintiff’s Allegations

It is alleged that the plaintiff suffered an injury at work, after which she filed a disability claim. As part of the claim process, she underwent an independent medical examination, and her disability leave was managed by a nurse case manager. She attempted to return to work on numerous occasions but was advised she would not be released from the disability program until she authorized the release of her medical information. She ultimately returned to work but was terminated a few months later.

It is reported that the plaintiff, acting pro se, subsequently filed a lawsuit asserting medical negligence and malpractice claims against the supervisor of the nurse case manager responsible for handling her claim. The defendant moved the case to federal court and then moved to dismiss the plaintiff’s claims. Continue Reading ›

Published on: | by

Nurses, like doctors, can be held liable if they carelessly perform their duties and cause people harm. Malpractice lawsuits against nurses must be pursued in the appropriate forum, however, and if they are not, the defendant can ask the court to transfer the case to another venue. There can be more than one proper venue, though, and the court will not transfer a case if the plaintiff’s chosen forum is appropriate. This was demonstrated in a recent Maryland nursing malpractice case in which an appellate court ultimately reversed the trial court’s ruling granting the defendant’s motion for a change of venue. If you suffered permanent losses due to the negligence of a nurse, you could be owed damages, and you should speak to a Maryland medical malpractice attorney as soon as possible.

Background of the Case

It is alleged that the plaintiff visited the defendant’s clinic in Baltimore City in 2010 to have an IUD implanted. She presented to another clinic owned by the defendant in Baltimore County in 2018 to undergo removal of the IUD. During the removal, which the defendant nurse performed, a piece of the IUD broke off and remained in the plaintiff’s uterus. She underwent a procedure to attempt to remove the fragment but ultimately had to undergo a hysterectomy.

Reportedly, the plaintiff then filed a lawsuit in Baltimore City alleging lack of informed consent, medical negligence, and other claims against the defendants and the entities that manufactured and sold the IUD. The defendants moved to transfer venue to Baltimore County; the trial court granted the motion, and the plaintiff appealed. Continue Reading ›

Published on: | by

Dentists, like other healthcare providers, have an obligation to provide their patients with competent care. If they fail to uphold their duties and consequently cause their patients to suffer harm, they may be liable for malpractice. It can be difficult to ascertain the source of harm caused by dental malpractice, though, and it is not uncommon for a plaintiff to pursue dental malpractice claims years after the harm occurs. While any claim against a healthcare provider must comply with the applicable statute of limitations, there are circumstances that allow for the tolling of the statute. Recently, a Maryland court discussed the discovery rule in the context of dental malpractice in a case in which it ultimately determined that the plaintiff’s claims were time-barred.  If you sustained injuries due to negligent dental care, it is in your best interest to speak to a Maryland dental malpractice attorney as soon as possible.

The Facts of the Case

It is alleged that the plaintiff filed a dental malpractice lawsuit against the defendant, arising out of injuries sustained following incompetent dental care. The defendant moved for dismissal of the plaintiff’s claims via summary judgment, arguing that they were barred by the statute of limitations. The trial court granted the defendant’s motion, and the plaintiff appealed. Upon review, the appellate court affirmed the trial court ruling.

Tolling of the Statute of Limitations in Dental Malpractice Cases

Under Maryland law, an action for compensation for harm arising out of the rendering or failure to render professional services by a healthcare provider must be pursued within three years of when the injury was discovered.  In evaluating when the statute of limitations began to run, the courts will generally invoke the discovery rule. Continue Reading ›

Published on: | by

It is not uncommon for patients to change medical providers over the course of their care. Thus, if a provider initially tasked with treating a patient commits medical malpractice, it is possible that a subsequent health care professional could continue the pattern of negligent care, further harming the patient. Each provider’s liability must be independently established in a medical malpractice case, however. This was discussed in a recent Maryland opinion in which the claims against the plaintiff’s second care provider were dismissed after the court found that, as a matter of law, the plaintiff could not recover damages from the second practitioner. If you were hurt by incompetent medical care, you could be owed compensation, and it is advisable to consult a Maryland medical malpractice attorney regarding your options.

The Plaintiff’s Treatment and Claims

It is reported that the plaintiff, who was detained at a federal facility, received care from the defendants during his confinement. Specifically, the first defendant cared for the plaintiff from 2014 through 2018, while the second defendant cared for him from 2019 forward. In 2014, he underwent a procedure during which ureteral stents were placed in his kidneys. He was scheduled to return for a follow-up procedure to remove the stents, but it was delayed for approximately two and a half years.

Allegedly, during the time in which his second surgery was delayed, the stents caused him to develop large kidney stones, renal obstruction, infection, and severe damage to his kidneys. Thus, he filed a medical malpractice lawsuit against the defendants. The second defendant filed a motion to dismiss, arguing the plaintiff failed to set forth facts sufficient to establish liability. Continue Reading ›

Published on: | by

Medical malpractice cases are typically more complicated than other civil lawsuits, due to the complexities of the nature of the plaintiff’s harm. Additionally, in some instances, the plaintiff will not only have pending claims against the negligent healthcare providers but also against a person or entity that caused an injury that required the allegedly inadequate medical treatment.  In any matter in which a plaintiff is pursuing not only medical malpractice claims but also other civil claims arising out of a single injury, it is essential to understand how the resolution of one claim may affect the others.

This was discussed in a recent case decided by the Court of Special Appeals of Maryland, in which a plaintiff’s workers’ compensation provider sought reimbursement from a settlement in the plaintiff’s medical malpractice case.  If you suffered an injury and were subsequently harmed by a negligent medical provider during the treatment of your injury, it is essential to retain an attorney who will fight to protect your rights.

Facts of the Case

It is reported that the plaintiff suffered an elbow injury at work, after which he sought treatment from a family practitioner who diagnosed him with a strain or sprain. He returned to work but continued to experience elbow pain. Five weeks later, however, he was diagnosed with a complete tear of his bicep. He underwent surgery and filed a workers’ compensation claim. His employer paid for his surgery and also paid him disability benefits.

The plaintiff then filed a medical malpractice lawsuit against the family practitioner, alleging that he suffered permanent damages due to the practitioner’s failure to diagnose the tear or recommend follow-up testing. The plaintiff ultimately settled the medical malpractice case. The plaintiff’s employer then sought reimbursement not only for the disability benefits paid to the plaintiff but also for the cost of the plaintiff’s medical expenses. The Workers’ Compensation Commission and the circuit court found that the plaintiff’s employer was not entitled to the cost of the plaintiff’s medical treatment, after which the plaintiff’s employer appealed. Continue Reading ›

Published on: | by

In many medical malpractice cases, medical records from entities that are not parties to the case will be relevant to establishing or refuting liability. If a party is unable to obtain such records, therefore, it may detrimentally affect the outcome of his or her case. As such, it is critical for all parties to comply with the rules of procedure when subpoenaing outside parties. This was demonstrated in a recent Maryland medical malpractice case in which the court held that a patient information system did not have to comply with a subpoena issued by the defendant because the defendant did not comply with the Maryland Rules in issuing the subpoena. If you were injured because of negligent medical care, it is advisable to consult a trusted Maryland medical malpractice attorney regarding what evidence you may need to produce to recover damages.

Procedural Background

It is reported that the plaintiff filed a medical malpractice lawsuit against the defendant treatment providers, arising out of the defendants’ treatment of the plaintiff with opioid pain medication. The defendants then served the patient information system (PIS) with a subpoena, seeking the plaintiff’s medical records. The PIS objected to the subpoena, arguing that compliance would violate state and federal law and would require it to breach contractual agreements with healthcare providers.

Allegedly, three months after the PIS filed the objection, the defendants responded, stating that the PIS should be ordered to comply with the subpoena, but did not serve the response on the PIS. The trial court issued an order requiring compliance, and the PIS appealed, arguing that the defendant’s response was procedurally improper and untimely. The appellate court agreed and reversed the trial court ruling. Continue Reading ›

Published on: | by

Expert testimony is an essential component of medical malpractice cases. In other words, as the standard of care that applies to medical professionals and the duties imposed under the standard are beyond the purview of most jurors, parties need medical experts to clarify the issues and support their claims. Parties must disclose their experts prior to trial to allow the opposing party to fully assess their opinions and offer a response, and if they do not, they run the risk that their expert will not be permitted to testify. In a recent ruling issued in a dental malpractice case, a Maryland court addressed when it is appropriate to strike an expert. If you were harmed by the carelessness of a dentist or other healthcare provider it is important to talk to a Maryland medical malpractice attorney about what evidence you must produce to recover damages.

The Facts of the Case

It is alleged that the plaintiff suffered harm due to incompetent dental care provided by the defendant. She subsequently filed a federal lawsuit against him asserting dental malpractice claims. The court established discovery deadlines, including a date by which the parties must set provide expert disclosures. The defendant failed to abide by the expert disclosure deadline, and instead produced an expert report that was over a month late. The plaintiff then moved to strike the defendant’s expert.

Grounds for Striking an Expert in a Medical Malpractice Case

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure dictate that parties must disclose the experts they intend to call at trial in a timely manner. Further, when they disclose their experts they must offer a written report setting forth a comprehensive statement of all of the opinions the witness will provide and the reasons and basis for each opinion The report must also include the data or facts the witness relied on in formulating its report, and identify any exhibits they will use to support or summarize their opinion. Continue Reading ›

Published on: | by

Typically, medical malpractice claims are pursued in state court. In some cases, however, a defendant may attempt to move a case to federal court with the hopes that they will have a better chance of obtaining a verdict in their favor. The federal courts have limited jurisdiction, however, and can only preside over certain cases. Recently, a Maryland federal district court analyzed whether it had jurisdiction over lack of informed consent claims and other causes of action asserted in a class-action lawsuit relating to the implantation of defective medical devices. If you were injured by a doctor’s failure to advise you of the risks associated with a procedure, you have the right to seek compensation, and it is smart to meet with a Maryland medical malpractice lawyer to discuss what compensation you may be owed.

The Plaintiff’s Allegations

It is alleged that each of the fourteen plaintiffs underwent surgical fusion of their spines at the defendant medical center. The operations were performed by the defendant doctor, who employed hardware manufactured by the defendant company during the procedure. The plaintiffs asserted that the defendant doctor failed to advise the plaintiffs that the hardware was not cleared or approved by the Federal Food and Drug Administration (FDA) prior to implanting it. The plaintiffs subsequently suffered failure of the hardware and had to undergo surgical removal. They filed a class action lawsuit in Maryland state court against the defendants alleging lack of informed consent and other claims. The defendants then removed the case to federal court. The plaintiffs moved to remand the case back to state court.

A Federal Court’s Jurisdiction Over Lack of Informed Consent Claims

The court ultimately granted the plaintiff’s motion. The court explained that a party named as a defendant in a state civil lawsuit can remove the matter to federal court but only if the federal court can exercise jurisdiction over one or more of the claims. The party seeking to remove a case to federal court must establish the federal court’s jurisdiction. Continue Reading ›

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

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

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 © 2022, Arfaa Law Group
JUSTIA Law Firm Blog Design