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 under Maryland law. A recent Maryland decision illustrates how disputes over evidence and discovery can shape the outcome of a malpractice case long before trial. If your child suffered harm at birth due to negligent obstetrical care, you should speak with a Baltimore medical malpractice attorney to understand your possible claims.
Facts and Procedural History
Allegedly, the plaintiffs brought a malpractice action on behalf of their child, who was born at thirty weeks’ gestation and later diagnosed with spastic diplegic cerebral palsy. They asserted that physicians at the defendant medical center failed to intervene with a timely Cesarean delivery despite evolving fetal heart rate patterns and clinical signs consistent with preeclampsia. They claimed that an earlier delivery would have prevented the child’s neurological injury.
It is alleged that the plaintiffs filed a complaint alleging medical negligence and lack of informed consent, asserting that the defendant’s personnel misinterpreted fetal monitoring data and failed to respond appropriately to changes in fetal status. According to the complaint, the infant’s post-birth acidemia, decreased tone, and need for immediate respiratory support were consistent with an intrapartum hypoxic event that should have been prevented.
Reportedly, the defendant challenged the plaintiffs’ expert testimony through a Daubert motion under Maryland Rule 5-702, arguing that the causation opinions lacked scientific support. The defendant contended that the experts relied on markers that were not predictive of the timing of neurological injury, failed to rule out prematurity as a primary cause, and depended on literature that contradicted their conclusions. After a two-day hearing, the circuit court excluded the plaintiffs’ causation experts and subsequently granted summary judgment.
It is reported that the plaintiffs appealed, arguing that the circuit court misapplied Daubert, improperly weighed evidence, overlooked the experts’ experience, and required more than a preponderance of the evidence. They also raised concerns about judicial impartiality.
Evidence in Birth Injury Cases
On appeal, the court examined the exclusion of the plaintiffs’ causation experts under the abuse of discretion standard. The court emphasized that Maryland Rule 5-702 requires expert opinions to be supported by a reliable factual basis, consistent methodology, and adherence to accepted scientific principles. The court reviewed the testimony presented at the Daubert hearing and the medical literature submitted by both sides.
The court agreed with the circuit court that the experts’ causation theory relied heavily on markers that, according to the literature, were not reliable indicators of the timing of neurological injury. The experts acknowledged that factors such as fetal heart rate variability, acidemia, and nucleated red blood cell counts were not independently predictive, yet attempted to combine them without citing scientific authority demonstrating that these markers, when aggregated, could reliably establish the timing or mechanism of injury. The court held that this approach created an analytical gap between the data and the conclusions offered.
The court further noted that prematurity alone significantly increases the risk of cerebral palsy and that the plaintiffs’ experts did not adequately address this alternative explanation. The court also rejected the assertion that the experts’ clinical experience could substitute for the scientific rigor required by Daubert. Because the plaintiffs failed to present admissible causation evidence, summary judgment was appropriate.
The court additionally determined that the judge did not abuse his discretion regarding the recusal request. The judge’s spouse’s past medical career did not create a reasonable basis to question impartiality.
Consult a Seasoned Baltimore Medical Malpractice Attorney
If your child sustained injury during pregnancy, labor, or delivery and you believe medical negligence may have played a role, the seasoned Baltimore medical malpractice attorneys at Arfaa Law Group are prepared to evaluate your case and advise you of your options. Call our office at (410) 889- 1850 or contact us online to schedule a consultation. We proudly serve clients throughout Baltimore and Maryland.