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 may argue that a non-party medical provider caused a patient’s injuries without presenting expert testimony to establish that provider’s negligence. If you or a loved one suffered harm due to questionable medical care in Maryland, it is advisable to speak with an experienced Baltimore medical malpractice attorney about how you can protect your rights.
Case Setting
Allegedly, the plaintiff was diagnosed with kidney cancer and an enlarged lymph node, and a surgeon removed the cancerous kidney but left the lymph node in place due to its proximity to a major blood vessel. After surgery, the plaintiff received oncology care and chemotherapy, which appeared to reduce the size of the lymph node, leading providers to believe the cancer was in remission.
It is alleged that, over several years, imaging studies were performed without contrast dye, and radiologists interpreting those studies repeatedly reported no abnormal lymph node enlargement while noting that the scans were suboptimal. During this period, the plaintiff’s treating oncologist relied on those reports and continued monitoring rather than pursuing further intervention.
Reportedly, a later imaging study identified changes suggesting the lymph node had increased in size and was inseparable from the nearby blood vessel. A biopsy confirmed the presence of cancer, and subsequent providers concluded that surgical removal was no longer feasible. The plaintiff then filed a medical malpractice action against multiple providers, asserting that earlier failures to identify and address the lymph node allowed the cancer to progress to an inoperable state.
It is reported that, before trial, the plaintiff dismissed claims against some providers, leaving radiology defendants as the sole remaining parties. Those defendants denied negligence and asserted that any injury resulted from the conduct of non-party physicians, including surgeons and oncologists. Although they raised this theory during discovery and trial, they did not designate experts to testify that the non-party providers breached the applicable standard of care or caused the alleged harm. The jury found in favor of the defendants, and the plaintiff moved for a new trial. The intermediate court granted the motion, and the defendant appealed.
Expert Testimony in Medical Malpractice Cases
On appeal, the court reviewed de novo whether Maryland law requires expert testimony to support a defense based on non-party medical negligence. The court emphasized that medical malpractice claims are grounded in traditional negligence principles and generally require expert testimony to establish the standard of care, breach, and causation because such issues exceed the common knowledge of lay jurors.
The defendants argued that expert testimony was unnecessary because they did not assert non-party negligence as a formal affirmative defense but instead raised it as an alternative causation theory while denying liability. The court rejected this distinction, reasoning that the complexity of medical negligence does not change based on how the argument is framed. Whether raised offensively or defensively, a claim that a physician acted negligently still requires competent expert evidence.
The court further explained that a party seeking to place an issue before the jury bears a burden of production. Without admissible expert testimony establishing that a non-party breached the standard of care to a reasonable degree of medical probability, the jury lacks a lawful basis to make such a finding. General statements about preferred treatment or what a provider might have done differently do not satisfy this requirement.
Applying these principles, the court concluded that the defendants failed to present sufficient expert evidence to support their theory of non-party negligence. As a result, the trial court erred by allowing the jury to consider that issue and by including a verdict sheet question asking whether non-party physicians caused the plaintiff’s injuries. The error was prejudicial because it likely influenced the jury’s deliberations, as evidenced by an initial inconsistent verdict that awarded damages despite finding no negligence on the part of the defendants. As such, the court affirmed the decision ordering a new trial.
Consult with a Skilled Baltimore Medical Malpractice Attorney
If you suffered harm due to incompetent medical care, it is important to understand your rights, and you should talk to an attorney. The skilled Baltimore medical malpractice attorneys at Arfaa Law Group can evaluate your case and advocate on your behalf. We represent clients throughout Baltimore and across Maryland. You can reach us through our online contact form or by calling (410) 889-1850 to schedule a consultation.