Claims arising from medical care provided in correctional facilities frequently straddle the line between medical malpractice and constitutional law. Courts must determine not only whether care was appropriate, but whether alleged deficiencies rise to the demanding level of deliberate indifference under the Eighth Amendment. A recent decision from the United…
Medical malpractice claims brought against the federal government under the Federal Tort Claims Act require plaintiffs to satisfy demanding procedural and evidentiary standards, particularly when expert testimony forms the backbone of the case. Federal courts serve a critical gatekeeping role in determining which expert opinions may be presented to a…
In medical malpractice litigation, defendants sometimes attempt to avoid liability by arguing that a patient’s own conduct contributed to the injury. Maryland law permits contributory negligence defenses in limited circumstances, but courts strictly confine when and how such arguments may be presented to a jury. A recent decision from a…
Medical malpractice litigation often turns on expert testimony, particularly when a defendant attempts to shift blame to a non-party physician. Courts carefully police these efforts because juries cannot be asked to evaluate complex medical standards without proper evidentiary support. In a recent decision, Maryland’s highest court addressed whether a defendant…
Medical malpractice litigation often turns not only on the merits of the claim but also on the ability of the parties to properly develop expert testimony addressing standard of care, causation, and damages. In surgical malpractice cases involving permanent airway or neurological injury, expert discovery is especially critical because the…
Medical malpractice litigation in Maryland often hinges on whether a plaintiff has satisfied the statutory prefiling requirements designed to screen claims before they proceed to court. One recurring dispute involves the Certificate of Qualified Expert and whether the expert’s specialty sufficiently aligns with the care at issue. A recent decision…
Medical malpractice claims arising in custodial settings often involve complex questions about who owed a duty of care, how medical services were delivered, and whether delays in diagnosis or treatment caused preventable harm. When incarcerated patients rely entirely on institutional healthcare systems, failures in medical response can have serious and…
Medical malpractice verdicts involving catastrophic injury frequently give rise to post-trial challenges focused not on liability but on how damages were presented to the jury and whether the resulting award can withstand appellate scrutiny. Hospitals and medical providers often argue that verdict forms, closing arguments, or large non-economic damage awards…
Medical malpractice litigation often turns on whether expert testimony on causation is sufficiently grounded in accepted scientific principles to be presented to a jury. In cases involving complex birth injuries, courts must evaluate competing expert opinions, examine the clinical literature, and determine whether the evidence meets the reliability threshold required…
Facilities responsible for treating committed patients must maintain appropriate clinical oversight, respond to signs of injury, and provide referrals when a patient’s condition warrants specialized evaluation. When medical staff fail to offer timely treatment or overlook known risks, questions arise about whether those failures constitute actionable medical malpractice. A recent…