Articles Posted in Medical Malpractice

Published on: | by

In Maryland, if a doctor negligently performs a surgical procedure in a hospital, both the doctor and the hospital may be liable for the patient’s harm. Determining the proper parties to sue in a medical malpractice case can be challenging, though, as in some matters, parties will take measures to conceal their relationships. As explained in a recent Maryland medical malpractice case, a plaintiff pursuing a claim for fraudulent concealment must set forth certain allegations. If you incurred damages because of an improperly performed procedure, it is important to contact a Maryland medical malpractice attorney about your options.

Facts and Procedure of the Case

It is alleged that the plaintiff underwent surgery for gallbladder disease, which was performed by the defendant. He subsequently developed complications, allegedly due to the negligence of the defendant. The plaintiff also asserted that the defendants failed to inform him of the risks of surgery and did not obtain informed consent. After a series of surgeries and evaluations, the plaintiff filed a claim in the Maryland Health Care Alternative Dispute Resolution Office (HCADRO) in 2018, followed by the current medical negligence action against the defendant in 2023.

It is reported that the plaintiff also argued that the hospital where the defendant performed the surgery fraudulently concealed its relationship with the defendant and conspired to commit fraud against the plaintiff. The defendant filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that the claims were time-barred under Maryland law. Continue Reading ›

Published on: | by

In medical malpractice cases, to establish liability and damages the plaintiff will typically have to retain one or more medical experts. As such, it is not uncommon for a defendant to try to defeat a plaintiff’s claims by arguing that their expert should not be permitted to testify. As discussed in a recent medical malpractice ruling, the courts engage in a multi-step process when faced with challenges to the admissibility of expert opinions. If you suffered losses due to the carelessness of a doctor or dentist, it is wise to meet with a Maryland medical malpractice attorney promptly.

The Facts of the Case

It is reported that the plaintiffs brought a medical malpractice suit against the defendant, alleging negligence in the dental care administered to plaintiff-wife. The claim asserted that a proper biopsy and diagnosis by the defendant in August or December 2015 could have prevented a subsequent neck dissection and radiation therapy.

Reportedly, the defendant moved for summary judgment on the grounds that the opinions of the plaintiffs’ expert witness were inadmissible. First, the defendant contended that the plaintiff’s expert could not provide admissible evidence to establish causation. Second, the defendant asserted that the plaintiffs had not demonstrated the existence of any causation evidence related to a specific appointment. Lastly, the defendant argued that the plaintiffs failed to provide evidence that the defendant breached the standards of care during certain treatments. Continue Reading ›

Published on: | by

In Maryland medical malpractice cases, the strength of the plaintiff’s case often depends on the testimony of a qualified medical expert. If a plaintiff’s expert is unable to testify, it becomes challenging for the plaintiff to recover damages. Maryland law allows only specific individuals to provide expert testimony, and experts who lack the necessary qualifications may be prohibited from testifying. This was illustrated in a recent Maryland case in which the court precluded the plaintiff’s expert from testifying pursuant to Maryland’s 25 percent rule. If you have suffered harm due to a medical procedure gone wrong, it’s crucial to consult with an experienced Maryland medical malpractice attorney who can guide you on what compensation you may be able to recover for your injuries.

Factual and Procedural Background

It is reported that in December 2002, the plaintiff underwent a procedure to treat a brain aneurysm, which resulted in bleeding, a stroke, and significant physical and mental impairment. She subsequently filed a lawsuit against the defendant doctor and hospital, alleging that they provided substandard care and failed to obtain the plaintiff’s informed consent for the procedure. A doctor was called as an expert witness by the plaintiff to testify about the standard of care and informed consent. However, the trial court excluded his testimony on both issues, and the court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants. The plaintiff appealed. On appeal, the appellate court reversed, and the defendants appealed the matter further.

The Court’s Review and Ruling:

On appeal, the primary issue before the court was the interpretation of Maryland’s 25 Percent Rule. This rule restricts expert witnesses from dedicating more than 25 percent of their professional activities to activities directly involving testimony in personal injury claims. The court ultimately determined that the plaintiff’s expert did not meet the requirements of the 25 Percent Rule and should not have been allowed to testify regarding the standard of care, reversing the intermediate court ruling. Continue Reading ›

Published on: | by

In cases where doctors harm their patients, most often, the harm is unintentional. However, in some situations, a physician’s actions may be so egregious that they are considered deliberate. Typically, claims of deliberate indifference to a patient’s medical needs arise in the context of medical treatment provided to incarcerated individuals. It’s essential to recognize the distinctions between deliberate indifference and medical malpractice claims, as highlighted in a recent Maryland case. If you have been injured as a result of a doctor’s negligent or intentional actions, it is advisable to consult with a Maryland medical malpractice attorney to assess the potential claims you may be able to pursue.

Case Background

It is alleged that the plaintiff, who is housed in a federal facility in Maryland, filed a lawsuit against the defendant. He claimed, in part, that in July 2020, he injured his right knee while attempting to access the top bunk in his cell using a plastic chair provided to him. He alleged that despite seeking medical attention for over a year, he received minimal treatment, including Tylenol, and was promised referrals to providers that never materialized.  He also claimed that in July 2022, he was attacked by other inmates, aggravating his knee injury. His lawsuit asserted, among other things, that the defendant violated his Eighth Amendment rights by failing to provide timely and appropriate care for his knee condition. The defendant moved to dismiss his claims.

Deliberate Indifference Versus Medical Malpractice

The court granted the defendant’s motion. In doing so, the court explained that in order to establish a claim for denial of medical care under the Eighth Amendment, a plaintiff must demonstrate that the defendant’s actions or omissions were done with deliberate indifference to a serious medical need. Continue Reading ›

Published on: | by

In Maryland medical malpractice cases, a plaintiff who establishes a defendant’s liability may be granted damages for their economic harm, including the cost of any past medical care and future care they will need and lost wages. To recover such damages, however, they must adequately demonstrate their actual financial losses. In a recent Maryland medical malpractice case, the court analyzed what constitutes sufficient evidence of the economic harm caused by a defendant’s negligence. If you sustained losses because of a careless doctor, it is prudent to meet with a Maryland medical malpractice attorney to discuss your rights.

History of the Case

It is alleged that the plaintiff sued the defendant doctor and the defendant hospital for alleged medical malpractice following a car accident that injured his right leg. The plaintiff asserted a medical negligence against the defendant doctor and an apparent agency claim against the defendant. During the trial, the defendant moved for summary judgment regarding apparent agency, and the court delayed its ruling.

Reportedly, after the trial, both the defendants moved for summary judgment arguing that there was insufficient evidence of economic damages, and the court again delayed its ruling. The jury ultimately found in favor of the plaintiff and determined that the defendant doctor was an agent of the defendant hospital. Both defendants filed motions for judgment notwithstanding the verdict on economic damages, and the court denied these motions. The defendants then appealed. Continue Reading ›

Published on: | by

Pursuant to federal law, health care providers generally must provide people suffering from critical health concerns with emergency care, regardless of their ability to pay. As such, if a medical facility refuses to treat an indigent patient, they can be liable for civil damages. As discussed in a recent Maryland case, however, this duty to provide emergent care ends when a person is admitted as an inpatient. If you were hurt by inadequate medical care, it is wise to speak to a Maryland medical malpractice attorney about your rights.

Case Background

It is reported that the plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the defendant in federal court, alleging that he received inadequate care in July 2019, at the defendant’s health care center. He further claimed that this care violated the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA) and that the United States, the defendant, and the defendant’s employees were liable for medical malpractice, lack of informed consent, and patient abandonment under state tort law. The plaintiff later dismissed his claims against the United States. The defendant filed a motion to dismiss the EMTALA claim or, alternatively, for summary judgment. The plaintiff initially consented to dismissal without prejudice but later opposed it. The court treated the motion as one for summary judgment.

The Duty to Provide Emergency Care

The court began by discussing EMTALA, highlighting that its purpose is to ensure hospitals provide emergency care to all, regardless of their ability to pay. It imposes a duty on hospitals to screen and stabilize emergency conditions. If a hospital admits a patient for inpatient treatment in good faith, its obligations under EMTALA end. Liability under EMTALA is limited and does not cover misdiagnosis or general malpractice.

 

Continue Reading ›

Published on: | by

People who are confined in federal facilities often, unfortunately, suffer harm due to inadequate medical care. While such losses are arguably grounds for pursuing medical malpractice claims, they may give rise to other claims as well, and it is important to understand the distinctions and what evidence is needed to demonstrate liability for various claims. In a recent Maryland ruling, the court explained the differences and ultimately ruled that the plaintiff failed to assert facts that would allow him to recover damages. If you were hurt by the negligence of your doctor, you may be owed compensation, and you should consult a Maryland medical malpractice attorney at your earliest convenience.

Factual and Procedural Background

It is alleged that the plaintiff, a state inmate, filed a Section 1983 lawsuit against the defendants, his medical provider during his incarceration, alleging they were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs related to the treatment of a hand injury. Specifically, while he was incarcerated, the plaintiff suffered a hand fracture and underwent surgery to implant a metal plate and pins. After his surgery, the pins became embedded under his skin and infected, requiring additional treatment.

It is reported that the plaintiff alleged the medical providers were deliberately indifferent by failing to properly treat the complications. Following the completion of discovery, the defendants moved for summary judgment, providing exhibits and an affidavit describing the plaintiff’s treatment. Namely, they noted that after the plaintiff’s injury, he was given x-rays, pain medication, referrals to an orthopedic surgeon, antibiotics, and wound care. His on-site doctors consulted with the surgeon regarding follow-up care. The plaintiff opposed summary judgment, disputing aspects of his treatment. Continue Reading ›

Published on: | by

It is not uncommon for people harmed by medical malpractice to suffer additional harm at the hands of their healthcare providers. While those individuals harmed by medical negligence are permitted to pursue multiple causes of action against their healthcare providers in the same lawsuit, they must nonetheless comply with any applicable procedural rules and statutes of limitations. If they fail to do so, they may be barred from pursuing certain claims, as illustrated in a recent Maryland ruling. If you suffered harm due to incompetent medical care, it is advisable to talk to a Maryland medical malpractice attorney about what claims you may be able to pursue.

History of the Case

It is alleged that the plaintiff filed a medical malpractice lawsuit in January 2020. He named several parties as defendants, including a hospital where he underwent a surgical procedure. Subsequently, in July and August of 2022, more than two years after the plaintiff filed his initial complaint, he moved to amend the complaint to add new claims against the hospital for gross negligence, fraudulent misrepresentation, and punitive damages. In support of his motion to amend the complaint, the plaintiff stated he discovered new supporting facts in the months prior to his proposed amendment.

It is reported that the trial court denied the motions to amend, explaining that the new claims were brought too late after the initial filing, set forth different legal theories of liability, and were proposed after discovery had closed. The court also found the plaintiff failed to explain why facts he received two months before discovery ended necessitated the amendment. The plaintiff then moved for reconsideration. Continue Reading ›

Published on: | by

Typically, people aggrieved by incompetent medical care will file medical malpractice claims against their providers in state or federal court. In rare instances, though, such claims are within the purview of other entities. For example, in a recent Maryland ruling, the court held that it did not have jurisdiction to review the Defense Health Agency’s (DHA) denial of the plaintiff’s medical malpractice claim arising out of the tragic death of her child during birth. If you or someone you love suffered losses due to the recklessness of a physician, it is sensible to confer with a Maryland medical malpractice attorney about your options for seeking justice.

History of the Case

It is reported that the plaintiff, a Naval officer, filed an administrative claim against the Department of Defense (DoD) regarding the tragic stillbirth of her child. She alleged doctors at a Naval medical center were negligent in their treatment when she sought care while pregnant. Specifically, she claimed the doctors dismissed her complaints of severe pain and discharged her, only for her to give birth to a stillborn child less than 14 hours later at a civilian hospital. DoD denied the plaintiff’s claim after an investigation, stating it found the applicable standard of care was met. The plaintiff appealed the denial to the Defense Health Agency appeals board, providing an expert opinion asserting the standard of care was not met. However, the appeals board affirmed the denial.

It is alleged that the plaintiff then filed suit in federal court challenging DoD’s decision under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). She argued DoD failed to provide an adequate explanation supporting its denial, as required by DoD regulations implementing the Military Claims Act (MCA). She sought vacatur of the decision and remand for DoD to issue a new decision with a more detailed explanation. The government moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, arguing the MCA’s finality provision precludes judicial review of claim denials.

Continue Reading ›

Published on: | by

A recent Maryland medical malpractice verdict underscores the complexities of medical malpractice litigation and the role of damages caps in shaping the outcome of such cases. The case arose out of a devastating birth injury caused by negligence. While the damages awarded in the case are substantial, they largely represent the cost of the care the affected child will need throughout the duration of his life. If your child suffered an injury at birth due to the recklessness of a doctor, it is crucial to speak to a Maryland medical malpractice attorney about what damages you may be able to recover.

The Subject Case

It is alleged that the plaintiffs filed a medical malpractice lawsuit against the defendant hospital after their son suffered brain damage and permanent injuries following a premature emergency cesarean section. The hospital defended its actions, claiming that the procedure was necessary to save the lives of both the mother and the baby. The trial lasted for two weeks, and the jury deliberated for four hours before reaching a verdict in favor of the plaintiffs.

It is reported that the jury awarded the plaintiffs damages amounting to approximately $34 million. Due to Maryland’s statutory cap on noneconomic damages in medical malpractice cases, the amount will be reduced to $25.2 million. The bulk of the damages awarded to the plaintiffs was for the child’s future medical expenses, which amount to $20 million. In addition, they received compensation for the child’s loss of earnings as well as his past medical expenses. The plaintiffs were awarded $10 million for pain and suffering as well, but this amount will likely be reduced to around $1 million due to the state’s damages cap. 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