COVID-19 NOTICE: We are still working hard for you. We're available by phone, email, mail and/or videoconference. Call for a free consultation or questions at (410) 889-1850. Learn More »

Articles Posted in Maryland Medical Malpractice Law

Published on:

Generally, a plaintiff alleging a healthcare provider should be held liable for medical malpractice under Maryland law must provide a report from a medical expert to prove the healthcare provider’s liability. The plaintiff must not only produce an expert report on the issue of causation but must also produce the report within the time frame set forth by the court; otherwise, it could adversely affect the plaintiff’s right to recover damages. This was demonstrated in a recent Maryland medical malpractice case in which the court granted judgment in favor of the defendant due to the plaintiff’s failure to produce a timely expert report.  If you suffered harm because of incompetently rendered medical treatment, it is advisable to retain a capable Maryland medical malpractice attorney to assist you in producing the evidence needed to prove liability.

Facts and Procedural History

It is reported that the plaintiff began receiving chiropractic services at the defendant healthcare center following a car accident. The chiropractic treatments ultimately damaged a spinal cord stimulator that had previously been implanted in the plaintiff’s neck. Thus, the plaintiff filed a medical malpractice claim against the defendant. Pursuant to the scheduling order issued by the court, the plaintiff designated an expert witness in February 2018.

Allegedly, after the plaintiff’s expert was deposed in May 2018, however, it was revealed the expert could not opine on the issue of causation. The plaintiff, therefore, amended her expert witness designation to add a second expert. The defendant filed a motion to strike the designation of the second expert as untimely, and the court granted the motion, barring the plaintiff’s second expert from testifying at trial. As such, during the trial, the plaintiff did not present expert testimony on the issue of causation, and the court granted judgment in favor of the defendant. The plaintiff then appealed the trial court’s decision to preclude the testimony of her second expert. Continue Reading

Published on:

In Maryland medical malpractice cases, a plaintiff must show that the defendant’s negligence caused the plaintiff’s harm. In cases in which the plaintiff alleges the defendant’s negligence caused the wrongful death due of a loved one, however, the defendant may be able to argue that the loss of chance doctrine operates to bar the recovery of compensation. The loss of chance doctrine is not always applicable, however, as discussed in a recent Maryland medical malpractice case in which the court explained the doctrine’s parameters. If you lost a loved one due to negligent medical care, it is in your best interest to speak to a skillful Maryland medical malpractice attorney to examine what damages you may be able to recover.

Facts of the Case

It is reported that the plaintiff’s decedent presented to the defendant doctor in February 2013, with complaints of pain in his tongue. The defendant performed a scrape biopsy, which did not indicate cancerous cells were present, but the pathologist noted that the sample was clinically suspicious and may not represent the entire lesion. No further actions were taken at that time, however. In May 2014, the plaintiff’s decedent visited the defendant a second time, and the defendant recommended an excisional biopsy, which was performed in June. The second biopsy revealed that the plaintiff’s decedent was suffering from invasive squamous cell cancer. The plaintiff’s decedent underwent aggressive treatment but ultimately passed away due to the cancer.

It is alleged that the plaintiff failed a medical malpractice lawsuit against the defendant, alleging that the defendant’s failure to diagnose the plaintiff’s decedent in February 2013 caused the decedent’s harm. Specifically, the lawsuit set forth survival and wrongful death claims. At trial, the defendant filed a motion for judgment at the close of the plaintiff’s case, arguing that the loss of chance doctrine barred the plaintiff’s claims. The trial court granted the defendant’s motion, and the plaintiff appealed. Continue Reading

Published on:

Maryland has specific laws regarding the procedures a person must comply with in the pursuit of damages for medical malpractice. If an injured party fails to comply with the requirements, it may result in a dismissal of the claim. However, a failure to abide by the proper procedure does not result in an automatic dismissal. Recently, a Maryland court discussed what a defendant must establish to show that a plaintiff’s medical malpractice lawsuit should be dismissed due to the failure to abide by procedure in a case in which the plaintiff alleged he suffered harm because of malpractice committed in a rehabilitation facility. If you were harmed by the inadequate medical treatment, you might be owed compensation, and it is prudent to speak to a capable Maryland medical malpractice attorney regarding what steps you must take to protect your rights.

Factual History of the Case

It is alleged that the plaintiff was admitted to the defendant rehabilitation facility following hip replacement surgery. He subsequently developed pressure ulcers in multiple locations due to the defendant’s negligence and ultimately required an amputation of his right leg below the knee. The plaintiff instituted his medical malpractice action against the defendant by filing a claim with the Health Care Alternative Dispute Resolution Office (the Office) as required under Maryland law.

The law also requires that after a claim is filed with the Office, the parties must file a certificate of a qualified expert and an attesting report, after which a party can waive the right to arbitration with the office. After arbitration is waived, the plaintiff must file a complaint in the civil courts within 60 days. In this case, however, the plaintiff did not file the complaint until five months after the 60 day period had run. Thus, the defendant filed a motion to dismiss the plaintiff’s complaint as untimely. The trial court granted the motion, and the plaintiff appealed. Continue Reading

Published on:

In Maryland, there are numerous acts that may give rise to a medical malpractice lawsuit. For example, a patient may pursue claims against a practitioner for failing to properly diagnose the patient in a timely manner or operating on the wrong part of the patient’s body, which may constitute medical negligence. Practitioners may fail to advise the patient of the risks and other information regarding a procedure, which may be deemed a failure to obtain informed consent. Recently, a Maryland court highlighted the differences between medical negligence and the failure to obtain informed consent, in a case in which the defendant sought dismissal of the plaintiff’s informed consent claims. If you suffered harm due to improper medical care, it is advisable to meet with a diligent Maryland medical malpractice attorney to discuss your potential claims.

Factual History of the Case

It is reported that the plaintiff’s decedent was admitted to a hospital in August 2017, following a fall, where he complained of pain and swelling in his left knee. He was then transferred to another hospital where he underwent an evaluation by an orthopedic surgeon, who noted the decedent was not a candidate for surgery and should be placed on antibiotics. He was prescribed antibiotics and discharged. He was then transferred back to the detention center where he had previously been incarcerated but he did not fill his prescription or take the prescribed antibiotics. However, he continued to complain of issues in his knee, and his condition deteriorated. He was ultimately transferred to a hospital, where he died of sepsis. The plaintiff then filed a lawsuit against the defendant, the healthcare provider for the detention center, alleging numerous claims, including failure to obtain informed consent. The defendant sought dismissal of the failure to obtain an informed consent claim via summary judgment.

Published on:

When a person dies because of medical malpractice, the person’s family has the right to seek damages via a civil lawsuit. Specifically, the family members may seek compensation via a wrongful death and survival action. While generally the location of the harm is in the same jurisdiction as the deceased person’s residence, an issue can arise as to which state’s laws apply when the harm occurred in a different state than where the deceased person lived. Recently, a Maryland court discussed what state’s laws apply in wrongful death claims and survival actions arising out of medical malpractice in a state other than where the deceased person resided. If you lost a loved one because of incompetent medical care in another state, it is prudent to consult an attorney to discuss what state’s laws may apply in your pursuit of damages.

History of the Case

It is alleged that the plaintiff’s decedent, who was a Pennsylvania resident, traveled to Maryland to undergo a tonsillectomy, septoplasty, and a reduction of the inferior turbinate. Her oxygen levels fell below the normal rate following the surgery, but she stabilized and was discharged. After she traveled back to her home, she died of hypoxia, which was caused by a number of factors. The plaintiff subsequently filed a wrongful death claim and survival action in the Maryland courts. Prior to trial, the defendants filed a motion in limine, arguing that Maryland law should apply to the plaintiff’s claims. Upon review, the court granted the defendant’s motion.

Substantive Law Determined by the Location of the Harm

Under Maryland law, different choice of law rules apply to wrongful death claims and survival actions. Specifically, the Wrongful Death Statute states that if a wrongful act took place in another state, United States territory, or the District of Columbia, Maryland courts will apply the substantive law of the jurisdiction where the act occurred. The courts have construed this provision to mean that if the wrongful act occurred in Maryland, the substantive law of Maryland will apply. In the subject case, the allegedly tortious conduct of the defendant occurred in Maryland. Thus, the court found that Maryland’s substantive law applied with regards to the wrongful death claim. Continue Reading

Published on:

While some medical malpractice claims involve straightforward facts, in other instances, the circumstances surrounding a party’s harm are complicated, and it is not immediately clear who is responsible or what steps are necessary to pursue damages. Any time a person is harmed by negligent healthcare, however, it is prudent for them the consult an experienced attorney as soon as possible to protect the person’s right to seek recourse for his or her harm. This was shown in a recent Maryland appellate case in which the court affirmed the dismissal of a healthcare malpractice claim on the grounds that it was not filed within the time required under the Maryland Tort Claims Act. If you were injured by a healthcare provider at a government-owned entity, it is in your best interest to speak with an experienced attorney to discuss your options for protecting your interests.

Facts of the Case

It is reported that when the minor-plaintiff was fifteen, he was taken into custody by the State Department of Health and ordered to undergo an inpatient evaluation due to self-harming behaviors. While he was admitted to the state facility, it was noted that he had difficulty controlling his impulses, was aggressive, and had a high risk of violence. It was also noted that he posed a danger to himself and to others.

Allegedly, while still in state custody, the minor-plaintiff was placed in a holding cell with other minors and was subsequently involved in an altercation during which he suffered substantial and permanent injuries. The minor-plaintiff and his mother subsequently filed a healthcare malpractice claim against the defendant in the Health Care Alternative Dispute Resolution Office (HCADRO), after which they waived arbitration and filed a complaint in state court against the defendant. The defendant filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that the plaintiffs failed to file the lawsuit in the time required under the Maryland Tort Claims Act (MTCA). The court agreed, granting the motion, and plaintiffs appealed. Continue Reading

Published on:

The COVID-19 pandemic has infiltrated every aspect of life throughout Maryland, including the process of seeking and obtaining medical treatment. As many states have issued orders limiting or eliminating liability for medical professionals, people throughout Maryland may be uncertain regarding their rights to pursue medical malpractice claims against a healthcare provider following negligent treatment during the pandemic. Currently, however, the orders and acts that apply to Maryland largely protect the rights of people injured by medical malpractice to pursue claims for inadequate treatment of COVID-19. If you or loved one sustained damages due to incompetent medical care, it is advisable to consult a skillful Maryland medical malpractice attorney to discuss your rights.

Liability of Healthcare Providers Treating COVID-19 in Maryland

The Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act limits the liability for healthcare providers working as volunteers during the health emergency caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. Specifically, the CARES Act precludes liability for any harm sustained when the professional is providing services that relate to the prevention, diagnosis, or treatment of COVID-19, or the care or assessment of the health of a person suspected of having COVID-19.

There are some exceptions, however, in which the provider may be held liable. For example, a provider may be held liable for treating a patient while intoxicated and for criminal misconduct or gross negligence. It is important to note, however, that the CARES Act only limits the liability of volunteers, which is explicitly defined as healthcare providers that are not being compensated for their services. Continue Reading

Published on:

A case recently decided by the United States District Court for the District of Maryland highlighted the importance of complying with procedural requirements in pursuing a medical malpractice claim. Specifically, the court, in evaluating whether to grant leave to amend a complaint to include medical malpractice claims to a plaintiff who failed to comply with several components of the Maryland Health Care Malpractice Claims Act, ultimately granted leave to amend to claims against some, but not all of the defendants. If you suffered harm due to inadequate medical care, it is crucial to retain a Maryland medical malpractice attorney with ample experience handling medical malpractice cases in the Maryland courts to provide you with a strong chance of a favorable result.

Procedural History of the Case

It is alleged that the plaintiff filed a federal lawsuit against the defendant health care providers in December 2018, alleging he received constitutionally inadequate medical care. At the same time, he filed a medical malpractice claim against the defendants with the Maryland Health Care Alternative Dispute Resolution Office (HCADRO). However, He did not file the required Certificate of Qualified Expert until July 2019. Subsequently, in September 2019, the plaintiff sought leave to amend the complaint in his federal lawsuit to include medical malpractice claims. The defendants objected to the plaintiff’s motion on the grounds that the amendment would be futile.

Grounds for Denying a Motion for Leave to Amend a Complaint

Pursuant to the relevant rules of civil procedure, a complaint may be amended as a matter of course within 21 days of the service of a defendant’s answer or motion to dismiss or with leave of court or the consent of the opposing party. Courts generally grant leave to amend freely, unless an amendment is sought in bad faith or due to a dilatory motive, or would cause the opposing party to suffer undue prejudice. Delay alone, however, is insufficient grounds to deny a leave to amend unless the delay is accompanied by futility, bad faith, or prejudice. A court may also deny leave to amend if the amendment will be futile in that the amended complaint would not withstand a motion to dismiss. Continue Reading

Published on:

Although the majority of Maryland medical malpractice cases allege that a patient suffered harm because of negligent care, suits for harm caused by medical providers are not limited to malpractice claims. In most cases, however, even if a plaintiff’s lawsuit alleges the violation of a statute or regulatory standard pertaining to medical treatment, the plaintiff will have suffered harm due to medical errors as well. Thus, it is critical for anyone who suffered damages due to medical treatment to retain an experienced attorney who will assert the proper claims. This was demonstrated in a recent case in which the court dismissed a plaintiff’s claims alleging violation of the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA), finding that the claims actually alleged medical malpractice. If you suffered harm due to insufficient care in a hospital, you should consult a capable Maryland medical malpractice attorney to discuss what claims you may be able to pursue.

Facts Regarding the Plaintiff’s Treatment and Allegations

It is reported that the plaintiff suffered injuries in a car accident, after which he was transferred to the defendant hospital. He was admitted, intubated, received blood transfusions, and underwent diagnostic tests and a surgical procedure. He remained in the hospital for eleven days. During that time, he required amputation of both legs. The plaintiff ultimately brought a suit against the defendant, alleging it violated EMTALA by neglecting to properly screen him or stabilize his condition. The defendant moved for summary judgment. The court granted the motion, dismissing the plaintiff’s case. The plaintiff appealed.

Violation of EMTALA Versus Medical Malpractice

On appeal, the court affirmed. The court explained that the EMTALA was enacted to prevent hospitals from dumping patients, which is described as either refusing to provide patients who are unable to pay with emergency medical treatment or transferring them before they are in a stabilized condition. Thus, the EMTALA requires hospitals to screen a person to determine whether he or she is suffering from an emergency medical condition and if so, to stabilize the person’s condition in certain circumstances, as is necessary to secure the person’s transfer without allowing the condition to further deteriorate. Continue Reading

Published on:

When people have to contend with the death of a loved one in Maryland, they are often focused on laying the departed loved one to rest and healing emotionally, rather than a potential lawsuit. Thus, an innocent act such a cremating a loved one’s remains may provide fodder for a defendant to argue that his or her defenses have been damaged in a subsequent case that arises out of the deceased person’s death. This was demonstrated in a recent medical malpractice case in which the defendant appealed a verdict in favor of the plaintiff, arguing that the cremation of the plaintiff’s decedent’s remains constituted spoliation. If you suffered the loss of a loved one due to medical malpractice, it is critical to speak with an attorney regarding what you can do to preserve your rights.

Factual Background

It is reported that the plaintiff’s decedent underwent a surgical reversal of a colostomy, which was performed at the defendant hospital. After the surgery, the decedent developed an infection and sepsis. He died five days after the surgery. It was ultimately revealed that he suffered a bowel leak, which the defendant surgeon failed to diagnose and treat in a timely manner. The plaintiff then filed a medical malpractice claim against the defendants. Prior to trial, the defendants filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that the plaintiff engaged in spoliation of evidence by having the decedent’s remains cremated after his autopsy. Following the trial, a jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff. The defendants appealed.

Spoliation Under Maryland Law

Under Maryland law, the doctrine of spoliation is grounded in fairness and symmetry. In sum, it is based on the principle that a party should not be able to base its claims or defenses on physical evidence that it has since destroyed, to the detriment of the opposing party. In assessing whether spoliation has occurred, a court will determine whether there has been an act of destruction, whether the party intended to destroy evidence and whether the destruction occurred before the suit was filed, when the suit was imminent, or after the suit was instituted. Continue Reading

Contact Information