When patients turn to hospitals for treatment, they expect to leave healthier, not with new complications. For military retirees and others receiving care at federal facilities, the consequences of medical negligence can be devastating, and the path to justice is not always straightforward. A recent ruling from a Maryland court demonstrates that even when serious injuries occur, medical malpractice claims rise or fall on the strength of expert testimony. Without reliable experts, courts will not allow these cases to move forward. If you or a loved one sustained losses due to negligent treatment at a federal or military hospital, speaking with a Baltimore medical malpractice lawyer is the critical first step toward protecting your rights.
Case Setting
It is alleged that the plaintiff, a military retiree, presented to a federal medical center in 2018 for treatment of plantar warts. A surgical resident performed cryotherapy using liquid nitrogen. According to the complaint, the procedure caused a large blister on the plaintiff’s foot. Despite the plaintiff’s reports of severe pain, medical staff allegedly refused to drain the blister.
It is reported that the plaintiff later sought outside treatment, where the blister was eventually drained. The plaintiff asserted that the delay in proper care resulted in permanent nerve damage and chronic pain. He filed suit under the FTCA, bringing claims that the resident improperly administered liquid nitrogen, that the resident failed to request supervision, that the attending physician failed to provide supervision, and that the staff failed to properly treat the blister after the procedure.
It is alleged that the plaintiff designated a medical expert who opined that the standard of care required draining the blister and that failure to do so caused lasting harm. The expert also suggested that the plaintiff may have developed compartment syndrome, although this opinion was later challenged.
It is reported that the government moved to exclude the plaintiff’s expert testimony. The court applied the standards of Federal Rule of Evidence 702, which requires expert opinions to be both relevant and reliable. The court excluded the expert’s opinion on compartment syndrome, finding it speculative and unsupported by the medical record. However, the court allowed the expert to testify about the necessity of draining the blister and the connection between delayed treatment and the plaintiff’s long-term pain.
Procedural Challenges in Medical Malpractice Cases
On review, the court addressed each of the plaintiff’s claims. The claims concerning the administration of liquid nitrogen and the lack of supervision were dismissed. The court concluded that without admissible expert testimony establishing the standard of care for administering cryotherapy or the duty of supervision in a teaching hospital setting, those claims could not proceed.
The court denied summary judgment, however, on the plaintiff’s claim that the blister should have been drained. The court explained that under Maryland law, a medical malpractice plaintiff must prove the applicable standard of care, a breach of that standard, and a causal link to the injury. The plaintiff’s expert provided testimony sufficient to create a dispute of fact as to whether failing to treat the blister constituted negligence. As a result, the claim regarding post-treatment care survived and will proceed to trial.
Meet with a Capable Baltimore Medical Malpractice Attorney
If you or someone you love has been harmed by negligent treatment at a federal or military hospital, the capable Baltimore medical malpractice attorneys at Arfaa Law Group can provide the guidance and advocacy you need. Call our office at (410) 889-1850 or complete our online contact form to schedule a consultation and learn more about your legal options.