Medical professionals must exercise due diligence in monitoring and treating patients with mental health conditions, regardless of the treatment settings, and if they fail to do so, it may constitute medical malpractice. The legal consequences of inadequate healthcare services in correctional settings were demonstrated in a recent case involving the tragic suicide of a detainee at a federal facility. If you or a loved one suffered harm because of inadequate medical care, it is advisable to speak to a Baltimore medical malpractice attorney regarding your rights.
Factual Background and Procedural History
It is reported that the plaintiff, acting on behalf of herself and as the representative of a deceased detainee’s estate, brought a wrongful death and medical malpractice action against the defendants. In it, she alleged that while under the care of the jail and its healthcare providers, the decedent committed suicide. The plaintiff claimed that the defendants failed to adequately monitor, treat, and provide mental health accommodations for the decedent despite known risk factors and a documented history of psychiatric concerns.
It is further reported that the United States substituted itself for the defendants under the Federally Supported Health Centers Assistance Act, which treats certain nonprofit healthcare providers as employees of the federal government when acting within the scope of a qualifying grant-supported activity. Consequently, the plaintiff’s claims against the defendants were converted into claims under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), and those claims were later voluntarily dismissed.
The District, however, remained a defendant in the litigation and initiated a third-party action seeking indemnity from the defendants, relying on contractual provisions obligating the defendants to hold the District harmless for liabilities arising from medical services rendered under the contract. Unity responded with a motion to dismiss, arguing that the court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over the indemnity claim and that because the United States had already substituted itself in the defendant’s place, it was immune from further litigation. Continue Reading ›
Published by Arfaa Law Group

