When people seek emergency medical care following traumatic events, they rightfully expect competent, compassionate, and timely treatment. When care falls short of these expectations, the consequences can be severe, and it may constitute grounds for pursuing medical malpractice claims. It can be challenging to demonstrate liability in claims against healthcare providers, however. A recent decision from a Maryland court illustrates some of the legal and procedural hurdles plaintiffs face when pursuing medical malpractice claims in federal court. If you were harmed by negligent medical treatment, it is critical to consult an experienced Baltimore medical malpractice attorney to protect your rights.
Background of the Case
It is reported that the plaintiff, following a motor vehicle accident, was transported to a hospital emergency department where she alleged she sustained a traumatic brain injury, a bleeding head wound, and other serious harm. She contended that she waited an unreasonable amount of time before being treated, and that the attending physician treated her in a disrespectful and impersonal manner.
The plaintiff also alleged that the physician failed to properly examine or clean her wound, did not shave the area prior to stapling, and ultimately used a glue-like substance on the still-bleeding wound without informed consent. She further asserted that racial discrimination influenced the quality of her care, though she did not provide specific allegations to support that claim. The plaintiff filed suit pro se against both the individual physician and the medical center. Her complaint included claims under federal civil rights law, general negligence, and medical malpractice.
Pursuing Medical Malpractice Claims in Federal Court
Because the plaintiff filed her complaint in federal court and requested to proceed in forma pauperis, the court was required under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 to conduct an initial review of the complaint. Under this provision, a case may be dismissed if it fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. The court applied the familiar standard from Ashcroft v. Iqbal, which requires sufficient factual allegations to support a plausible claim for relief.
The court first addressed the plaintiff’s federal claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and concluded that she had not plausibly alleged any facts showing that she was treated differently on the basis of race or other protected characteristics. Because this federal claim failed, and because all parties were Maryland residents (thus precluding diversity jurisdiction), the court turned to the state law claims.
Although the complaint included a count for medical malpractice, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over that claim. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c), federal courts may decline to hear state law claims once all federal claims have been dismissed. The court did so here, dismissing the malpractice and negligence claims without prejudice. This ruling preserved the plaintiff’s right to refile those claims in Maryland state court, where jurisdiction and applicable standards would more properly apply.
Speak With a Skilled Baltimore Medical Malpractice Attorney
Hospitals and emergency physicians have a duty to deliver competent medical care, regardless of the patient’s background or the emergency department’s workload. If you have been harmed due to substandard medical care, the Baltimore medical malpractice lawyers at Arfaa Law Group can help you seek redress for your losses. Call us today at (410) 889-1850 or fill out our online contact form to arrange a free, confidential consultation.