Articles Posted in Medical Malpractice

Published on: | by

When a doctor improperly performs a dental procedure, it can lead to decay, tooth loss, and lasting pain. Thus, a person harmed by a negligent dentist may be able to recover damages via a malpractice lawsuit. As with malpractice claims against doctors, though, people seeking compensation for harm caused by careless dentists must comply with jurisdictional and procedural rules; otherwise, their claims may be denied. This was demonstrated in a recent opinion in which the court dismissed the plaintiff’s claims because of his failure to abide by the conditions precedent under Maryland law. If you were harmed by a careless dentist, it is smart to speak to a Maryland medical malpractice lawyer to determine whether you may be owed compensation.

The Plaintiff’s Injuries

It is reported that the defendant performed oral surgery on the plaintiff, which involved exposing the bone under his bottom gum, grinding it down, and closing the gum with sutures. After the surgery, the plaintiff’s lower dentures no longer fit properly. He was then advised that the surgery should not have been performed and that he would need dental implants. As such, he filed a lawsuit against the defendant in federal court, arguing he committed malpractice by performing the surgery.  The defendant filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that the court lacked jurisdiction over the claims. The court ultimately granted the motion.

Pursuing Malpractice Claims in Maryland Federal Courts

Federal courts have limited jurisdiction. Thus, they must assume that a matter lies outside of their jurisdiction unless proven otherwise. The party asserting that jurisdiction is proper bears the burden of establishing subject matter jurisdiction. Typically, federal courts can only hear claims arising out of federal questions or where there is a diversity of citizenship, which requires the parties to be residents of different states and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. In the subject case, the court noted that the plaintiff had not alleged diversity jurisdiction or that the parties were citizens of different states. As such, the court found that diversity jurisdiction had not been established. Continue Reading ›

Published on: | by

Many Maryland veterans seek treatment from medical centers dedicated to caring for people who have served in the military. Such facilities are typically funded by the federal government, and therefore, any patient harmed by negligent medical care received at these centers will bring claims against the treating physician under the Federal Tort Claims Act (the Act). While the Act allows parties to pursue claims against a doctor that commits malpractice, exceptions to the Act may limit claims against the hospitals that employ negligent practitioners. The discretionary function exception to the Act was the topic of a recent Maryland opinion, in a case in which the court ultimately dismissed the plaintiff’s negligent hiring and supervision claims. If you are the victim of a doctor’s negligence, it is in your best interest to meet with a Maryland medical malpractice lawyer to discuss your potential claims as soon as possible.

The Plaintiff’s Harm

Allegedly, the plaintiff presented to the defendant facility for numerous mental health disorders. He began treating with a therapist, and the two eventually began a sexual relationship. The therapist often insisted that the plaintiff engage in sexual relations with her, advising him that it was a way to cure intimacy issues that stemmed from his childhood.

Reportedly, the plaintiff ended the relationship with the therapist after approximately a year and filed a medical malpractice lawsuit, asserting, in part, negligent hiring, supervision, and retention claims against the facility.  The defendant moved to dismiss the plaintiff’s claims on the grounds they were barred by the discretionary function exception of the Act. The trial court granted the motion, and the plaintiff appealed. Continue Reading ›

Published on: | by

Most laypeople do not have independent knowledge regarding the level of care doctors must provide to their patients. Thus, in a case in which a plaintiff alleges that a physician breached the applicable standard of care and committed malpractice, the plaintiff typically must provide an expert report in support of his or her position. The need for expert testimony in a medical malpractice case was the topic of a recent opinion issued in a case in which the plaintiff asserted medical negligence claims against the defendant. If you suffered injuries because of inept medical treatment, you might be owed damages, and you should speak to a Maryland medical malpractice lawyer as soon as possible.

The Plaintiff’s Harm

Reportedly, the plaintiff received care at a hospital managed by an agency of the federal government for an ulcer. He was prescribed medication and discharged but later developed periodontitis. He then filed a medical malpractice lawsuit against the federal government pursuant to the Federal Tort Claims Act, arguing that the medication caused his periodontitis and other harm. Following the close of discovery, the defendant moved for dismissal of the plaintiff’s claims via summary judgment, arguing in part that the plaintiff failed to produce expert testimony in support of his claims.

Expert Testimony in Medical Malpractice Cases

The court explained that, under the relevant law, the plaintiff was required to demonstrate the applicable standard of care, a departure from the standard by the defendant, and a causal relationship between the departure and the plaintiff’s harm. Typically, the court noted, each of these elements must be established by expert testimony in medical malpractice cases. Continue Reading ›

Published on: | by

People harmed by incompetent medical care can seek damages from the health care providers that caused their injuries. They are only afforded one chance to prove liability, though. This means not only that plaintiffs cannot attempt to re-litigate a medical malpractice claim that has already been resolved but also that they are not permitted to pursue multiple medical malpractice claims arising out of the same set of facts. This was demonstrated in a recent opinion issued by a Maryland court, in which the court dismissed the plaintiff’s medical malpractice case due to claims splitting. If you suffered injuries due to neglectful care from a medical professional, it is smart to speak to a Maryland medical malpractice lawyer to discuss your potential claims.

The Plaintiff’s Claims

It is reported that the plaintiff underwent treatment with the defendant for a wound on his leg that would not heal. He was prescribed multiple tests and medications, but the wound did not improve. He continued to treatment and had ongoing symptoms of pain and swelling. He eventually filed a lawsuit against the defendant, setting forth numerous claims, including medical negligence. The defendant moved to dismiss the plaintiff’s claims on several grounds, including the fact that the plaintiff had a similar lawsuit pending in another court that arose out of the same alleged harm.

Splitting Medical Malpractice Claims

In its review of the plaintiff’s claims and the defendant’s motion, the court noted that when the plaintiff filed the subject case, he already had a lawsuit in another court in which he alleged harm caused by improper medical care in the context of treatment of his leg wound. The court explained that plaintiffs are typically not permitted to pursue the same claims in more than one simultaneous lawsuit. It elaborated that the rule against claim splitting bars plaintiffs from prosecuting their claims piecemeal. Instead, they are obligated to present all claims arising out of a single act in one lawsuit. Continue Reading ›

Published on: | by

In Maryland, a plaintiff who is injured by a negligent doctor has the right to pursue damages via a medical malpractice lawsuit. Prior to pursuing such claims, though, plaintiffs must meet certain requirements imposed by the Maryland Health Care Malpractice Claims Act (HCMCA), and if they do not, they may waive the right to recover damages. The implications of failing to comply with the HCMCA was the topic of a recent Maryland opinion issued in a case in which the court dismissed the plaintiff’s claims as to one of the defendants. If you sustained damages due to a negligent care provider, it is advisable to speak to a trusted Maryland medical malpractice lawyer as soon as possible to determine your rights.

Factual and Procedural History of the Case

Allegedly, the plaintiff’s decedent treated with the defendant neurologists, twelve in total, who failed to diagnose a brain abscess that ultimately cost the decedent her life. The plaintiff filed a medical malpractice lawsuit against the defendants, arguing they were liable for the decedent’s death. One defendant moved to dismiss the plaintiff’s claims against her on the grounds that the plaintiff never filed a claim against her in Health Claims Alternative Dispute Resolution Office (HCADRO) as demanded by the HCMCA. The court found in favor of the defendant and dismissed the plaintiff’s claims.

Penalties for Failing to Comply with the HCMCA

The Maryland courts have repeatedly ruled that the requirements imposed by the HCMCA are conditions that must be fulfilled prior to filing a medical malpractice lawsuit. Specifically, a plaintiff must file a statement of claim and certificate of qualified expert against a health care provider in the HCADRO before pursuing civil claims. Additionally, a plaintiff has to exhaust state arbitration remedies as a condition to filing a civil lawsuit in federal or state court. If a plaintiff files a medical malpractice action without fulfilling these requirements, it must be dismissed. Continue Reading ›

Published on: | by

Generally, a plaintiff has the right to determine where to file a lawsuit, and as long as jurisdictional requirements are met, the plaintiff’s choice will not be disturbed. There are exceptions, however, that will allow a court to transfer a case to another venue, despite the plaintiff’s protests. Recently, a Maryland court discussed the grounds for requesting a change of venue in a ruling issued in a medical malpractice case. If you or someone you love suffered harm due to the incompetence of a doctor, you may be owed damages, and it is prudent to meet with a trusted Maryland medical malpractice lawyer to assess your options.

The Procedural History of the Case

It is reported that the plaintiff mother was treated at the defendant medical center during her pregnancy. The plaintiff child suffered severe injuries at birth, and the mother subsequently filed a medical malpractice lawsuit against the defendant on his behalf in Baltimore City. The defendant filed a motion to transfer venue to Baltimore County on the grounds of forum non-conveniens.  The court granted the motion. The plaintiff then appealed, arguing that the court abused its discretion in granting the motion. On appeal, the appellate court affirmed.

Grounds for Granted a Change of Venue

Pursuant to the Maryland Rules of Civil Procedure, a court can transfer any case to another court where the matter may have been brought if the transfer is for the convenience of the witnesses and parties. Notably, a court may transfer a matter to another venue even if the case was brought in a proper venue. The plaintiff’s choice of venue is given deference, but the right to choose where a matter is heard is not an absolute privilege.  Thus, the court must weigh the interests of justice, which is comprised of public and private interests, and the convenience of the parties, in determining whether a transfer of venue is appropriate. Continue Reading ›

Published on: | by

Many medical facilities throughout Maryland are funded by the federal government. A person who suffers harm due to incompetent medical care at a federal facility, therefore, will likely file any medical malpractice claims in federal court naming the federal government as the defendant. Plaintiffs pursuing claims for medical negligence in the federal arena must nonetheless comply with Maryland’s requirements regarding malpractice claims, otherwise they may waive the right to recover damages, as demonstrated in a recent opinion issued by a Maryland court. If you were harmed by inadequate medical treatment in a federal facility, it is in your best interest to speak to a skillful Maryland medical malpractice attorney as soon as possible.

The Plaintiff’s Care

It is reported that the plaintiff sought treatment at a hospital operated by the defendant federal government for a pilonidal cyst. He underwent a procedure to remove the cyst that was performed by the defendant’s physicians, after which he suffered ongoing discomfort and pain. He then filed an administrative claim with the defendant in which he stated his allegations regarding his negligent care. The defendant denied his claim, and he filed a lawsuit against the defendant under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), asserting medical negligence claims.

It is alleged that the defendant filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that the court did not have subject matter jurisdiction because the plaintiff failed to comply with Maryland’s statutory requirements for pursuing a medical negligence claim. The court agreed and ultimately dismissed the plaintiff’s complaint. Continue Reading ›

Published on: | by

In medical malpractice lawsuits, medical documents and images detailing the plaintiff’s treatment are essential to proving liability. As such, if a defendant refuses to produce certain records, it can greatly impair a plaintiff’s ability to present a compelling case. In some instances, though, a defendant is permitted to withhold evidence, such as when the documents sought are privileged. In a recent opinion, a Maryland court discussed medical peer review privilege in a case arising out of alleged medical negligence during a surgical procedure. If you or a loved one suffered injuries due to a careless treatment provider, you may have a viable claim for compensation, and it is in your best interest to speak to a Maryland medical malpractice lawyer about your options.

The Procedural History

It is reported that the plaintiff’s minor son underwent a surgical procedure that was performed by physicians at a military medical center funded by the defendant, the federal government. He was deprived of oxygen during the surgery and suffered a permanent brain injury and seizure disorder. The plaintiff then filed a lawsuit against the defendant, alleging claims of medical negligence and lack of informed consent.

It is alleged that during the course of discovery, the plaintiff sought certain medical records from the defendant, which it refused to produce, citing privilege under the medical quality assurance statute. The plaintiff objected to the defendant’s claims of privilege and filed a motion to compel the documents. The court then conducted an in camera review of the requested documents and ultimately ruled in favor of the defendant.   Continue Reading ›

Published on: | by

Medical malpractice claims are generally more complex than other matters, and those asserted against employees of the federal government are especially complicated. Thus, plaintiffs pursuing medical negligence cases against federally employed defendants must take special care to follow proper procedures; otherwise, their claims may be terminated. This was demonstrated in a recent Maryland ruling, in which a pro se plaintiff’s claims against a doctor were dismissed due to his failure to abide by state and federal law in filing his lawsuit. If you were injured by the incompetence of a health care provider, it is advisable to meet with a practiced Maryland medical malpractice attorney to assess your rights.

The Plaintiff’s Claims

It is alleged that the plaintiff, who was in a federal facility, received inadequate medical care from the defendant doctors who worked at the facility despite his repeated requests. He filed numerous claims against the defendants in a federal lawsuit, including medical malpractice claims. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss, or in the alternative, a motion for summary judgment. The plaintiff sought and received an extension but ultimately failed to file a response to the motion. The court, upon reviewing the pleadings, found in favor of the defendants and dismissed the plaintiff’s claims.

Medical Malpractice Claims Against Agents of the Federal Government

The court explained that, with regards to suits against the federal government, the United States is protected from liability via the doctrine of sovereign immunity, except where it has explicitly waived its immunity to suit. The Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) expressly waives the sovereign immunity of the United States for specific torts committed by its employees. Continue Reading ›

Published on: | by

In medical malpractice cases, as in all other matters, it is vital that the plaintiff receive a fair trial before an impartial judge. Thus, a plaintiff who believes a judge harbors an implicit bias can file a motion seeking recusal. It is equally important that a plaintiff follow the proper procedure for pursuing claims of medical negligence, as the failure to do so can also impact the right to recover damages, as demonstrated in a recent opinion in which the plaintiff’s motion seeking recusal was ultimately denied due to the court’s lack of jurisdiction. If you were hurt by incompetent medical care, it is important to consult a seasoned Maryland medical malpractice attorney to determine what claims you may be able to pursue.

The Plaintiff’s Harm and Subsequent Filings

Allegedly, the defendants were the plaintiff’s primary care providers who had diagnosed the plaintiff with paranoia, which caused her to be detained and treated against her will. The plaintiff filed a lawsuit seeking damages for medical malpractice, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and negligence. The plaintiff and each of the named defendants were residents of Maryland.

It is reported that the plaintiff filed a motion seeking recusal, arguing the judge was biased due to an adverse ruling in a prior bankruptcy matter. The court ultimately denied the plaintiff’s motion, however, due to the lack of subject matter jurisdiction over the case. The court dismissed the plaintiff’s complaint. Continue Reading ›

Contact Information
2002 Clipper Park Rd #300
Baltimore, MD 21211
Phone: (410) 889-1850Fax: (410) 235-3297

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Please do not include any confidential or sensitive information in a contact form, text message, or voicemail. The contact form sends information by non-encrypted email, which is not secure. Submitting a contact form, sending a text message, making a phone call, or leaving a voicemail does not create an attorney-client relationship.

Copyright © 2025, Arfaa Law Group
JUSTIA Law Firm Blog Design