Medical malpractice cases involving hospital-acquired conditions often raise the question of whether negligence can be inferred from the outcome alone. While doctrines such as res ipsa loquitur may allow plaintiffs to rely on circumstantial evidence, courts apply these principles cautiously in complex medical contexts. A recent Maryland opinion highlights the challenges plaintiffs face when attempting to establish liability without strong expert support. If you believe negligent medical care caused serious harm, consulting with a Baltimore medical malpractice attorney can help you understand your legal options.
Facts and Procedural History
Allegedly, the decedent was admitted to a hospital with serious underlying medical conditions and remained hospitalized for several months, during which he developed a severe pressure ulcer.
It is alleged that the plaintiff filed suit asserting that medical providers failed to implement appropriate preventative measures, including repositioning and wound care, and also asserted a claim for lack of informed consent.
Reportedly, during litigation, the plaintiff shifted her theory and relied on res ipsa loquitur, arguing that the development of a severe ulcer during hospitalization alone supported an inference of negligence.
It is reported that the defendants moved for summary judgment and sought to exclude the plaintiff’s expert testimony. The trial court granted both motions, leading to the plaintiff’s appeal.
Res Ipsa Loquitor in Maryland Medical Malpractice Cases
On appeal, the court reviewed the summary judgment decision de novo and focused on whether the plaintiff established a viable res ipsa loquitur claim. The court explained that this doctrine applies only when an injury ordinarily does not occur absent negligence and when other potential causes can be reasonably excluded.
The court found that the decedent had numerous serious comorbidities that significantly increased the risk of pressure ulcers, including conditions affecting circulation, oxygenation, and nutrition. These factors provided alternative explanations for the development of the ulcer.
The court determined that the plaintiff’s experts failed to account for these conditions or to demonstrate that negligence was the more probable cause. Without such evidence, the plaintiff could not rely on res ipsa loquitur to establish liability.
The court also rejected the lack of informed consent claim, noting that the plaintiff failed to identify a specific procedure requiring disclosure or to provide expert testimony establishing a duty to warn.
Accordingly, the appellate court affirmed the grant of summary judgment.
Consult with a Knowledgeable Baltimore Medical Malpractice Attorney
If you sustained damages because of inadequate medical care, it is wise to speak to an attorney about your potential claims as soon as possible. The knowledgeable Baltimore medical malpractice attorneys at Arfaa Law Group can evaluate your case and guide you through the complexities of litigation. Contact us through our online contact form or call (410) 889-1850 to schedule a consultation.