Articles Posted in Medical Malpractice

Medical malpractice cases involving hospital-acquired conditions often raise the question of whether negligence can be inferred from the outcome alone. While doctrines such as res ipsa loquitur may allow plaintiffs to rely on circumstantial evidence, courts apply these principles cautiously in complex medical contexts. A recent Maryland opinion highlights the challenges plaintiffs face when attempting to establish liability without strong expert support. If you believe negligent medical care caused serious harm, consulting with a Baltimore medical malpractice attorney can help you understand your legal options.

Facts and Procedural History

Allegedly, the decedent was admitted to a hospital with serious underlying medical conditions and remained hospitalized for several months, during which he developed a severe pressure ulcer.

It is alleged that the plaintiff filed suit asserting that medical providers failed to implement appropriate preventative measures, including repositioning and wound care, and also asserted a claim for lack of informed consent. Continue Reading ›

Claims arising from medical care provided in correctional facilities frequently straddle the line between medical malpractice and constitutional law. Courts must determine not only whether care was appropriate, but whether alleged deficiencies rise to the demanding level of deliberate indifference under the Eighth Amendment. A recent decision from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland examined these issues in the context of cataract surgery provided to an incarcerated individual who objected to the use of artificial lenses. If you believe you were harmed by inadequate medical treatment while incarcerated in Maryland, it is important to consult with a Baltimore medical malpractice attorney who can evaluate whether your claims are viable under state or federal law.

Facts and Procedural History

Allegedly, the plaintiff, who was incarcerated at a Maryland correctional institution, suffered from progressively worsening vision due to cataracts and sought medical treatment through prison health services. He was evaluated by outside specialists and informed that cataract surgery would involve the removal of the natural lens and the implantation of an artificial lens.

It is alleged that, after returning to the correctional facility, the plaintiff informed medical staff that he objected to having any artificial material implanted in his body and consented only to the removal of the cataracts. Despite these objections, cataract extraction surgeries were later performed on both eyes, and artificial intraocular lenses were implanted during the procedures. Continue Reading ›

In medical malpractice litigation, defendants sometimes attempt to avoid liability by arguing that a patient’s own conduct contributed to the injury. Maryland law permits contributory negligence defenses in limited circumstances, but courts strictly confine when and how such arguments may be presented to a jury. A recent decision from a Maryland court examined whether a surgeon could rely on a patient’s delay in seeking treatment, before any physician-patient relationship existed, as a basis for contributory negligence. If you or a family member suffered harm following surgical treatment in Maryland, it is wise to speak with a Baltimore medical malpractice attorney about your potential claims.

History of the Case

Allegedly, the plaintiff experienced severe abdominal pain and presented to a hospital emergency room, where initial triage was performed, but no physician evaluation occurred before the plaintiff left after a lengthy wait. The pain subsided temporarily, and the plaintiff returned home without a diagnosis or treatment plan.

It is alleged that the plaintiff continued to experience worsening symptoms over the next several days and ultimately returned to the hospital, where diagnostic imaging revealed an inflamed gallbladder and possible gallstones. The defendant surgeon was consulted, recommended surgical intervention, and obtained consent to perform a laparoscopic gallbladder removal. Continue Reading ›

Medical malpractice litigation in Maryland often hinges on whether a plaintiff has satisfied the statutory prefiling requirements designed to screen claims before they proceed to court. One recurring dispute involves the Certificate of Qualified Expert and whether the expert’s specialty sufficiently aligns with the care at issue. A recent decision from a Maryland court demonstrates how courts must focus on the substance of the medical conduct alleged, rather than rigidly categorizing provider specialties, when evaluating these certificates. If you or a loved one suffered harm due to substandard medical treatment in Maryland, speaking with a knowledgeable Baltimore medical malpractice attorney can help you understand how this decision may affect your potential claim.

Facts and Procedural History

Allegedly, the plaintiff was admitted to the defendant hospital after presenting with altered consciousness and remained hospitalized for approximately two weeks under the care of multiple physicians and nurses employed by or acting as agents of the defendant. During this admission, the plaintiff, who was noted to have significant mobility limitations, did not receive timely preventative measures for pressure injuries, and a specialized bed was not ordered until several days into the hospitalization.

It is alleged that the plaintiff developed a sacral pressure ulcer during the hospital stay, which later required surgical debridement and resulted in prolonged pain, functional limitations, and additional medical treatment after discharge. Medical records contained conflicting documentation regarding whether the ulcer was present upon admission or developed during hospitalization, prompting the plaintiff to assert alternative theories of negligence under both scenarios. Continue Reading ›

Medical malpractice verdicts involving catastrophic injury frequently give rise to post-trial challenges focused not on liability but on how damages were presented to the jury and whether the resulting award can withstand appellate scrutiny. Hospitals and medical providers often argue that verdict forms, closing arguments, or large non-economic damage awards improperly influence jurors or exceed permissible bounds. A recent decision addresses these issues in the context of a complex malpractice case involving prolonged steroid treatment, permanent joint damage, and life-altering consequences for the patient. If you are the victim of medical negligence, it is advisable to speak to a Baltimore medical malpractice attorney to understand how courts evaluate both liability and damages in serious injury cases.

Factual and Procedural History

Allegedly, the plaintiff sought treatment from healthcare providers affiliated with the defendant medical center for management of severe Crohn’s disease. The treatment plan involved prolonged steroid therapy, which the plaintiff contended exceeded nationally accepted guidelines and exposed him to serious risks that were neither properly managed nor disclosed.

It is alleged that the plaintiff remained on high-dose steroids for several months beyond the recommended treatment window. During this period, his underlying condition failed to improve, and he developed significant complications, including deterioration of both hip joints. The plaintiff later required multiple hip replacement surgeries at a relatively young age. Continue Reading ›

When patients enter a hospital for surgery, they trust that the physicians and staff will follow accepted medical standards to ensure their safety. A recent Baltimore County jury verdict serves as a reminder that hospitals can be held accountable when preventable medical errors lead to a patient’s death. If you or someone you love suffered harm because of medical negligence, you may be owed damages, and you should talk to a  Baltimore medical malpractice lawyer as soon as possible.

Case Background

It is reported that the decedent, a 77-year-old woman, underwent surgery at a Maryland hospital to treat early-stage rectal cancer. During the operation, the patient allegedly suffered massive internal bleeding and died on the operating table. According to the plaintiff, who was the patient’s daughter, the hospital and its surgical staff failed to anticipate and respond appropriately to the bleeding that occurred during the procedure.

It is alleged that the colorectal surgeon breached the standard of care by failing to plan for a foreseeable complication and not following all of the recognized steps that could have stopped the hemorrhage. The plaintiff’s attorney argued that the hospital also failed to have adequate equipment on hand and did not maintain sufficient safety measures to manage the emergency. The family maintained that if the correct procedures had been followed, the decedent would likely have survived and enjoyed additional years of life. Continue Reading ›