Published by Arfaa Law Group
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.
Reportedly, the plaintiff asserted that the defendant providers failed to timely transition him to alternative therapies and failed to obtain informed consent regarding the risks associated with extended steroid use. He claimed that appropriate intervention within the recommended treatment window would have reduced or avoided the permanent joint damage he ultimately sustained.
It is reported that the case proceeded to trial, where the jury found the defendants liable for breaching the national standard of care and for failing to obtain informed consent. The jury awarded an aggregate of $4 million in damages, allocating separate amounts for physical injury and emotional distress. The defendants appealed, challenging the verdict form, statements made during the closing argument, and the size of the damages award.
Damages Awards in Medical Malpractice Cases
On appeal, the court addressed three principal issues: whether the verdict form improperly encouraged duplicative damages, whether the plaintiff’s closing argument unfairly prejudiced the jury, and whether the damages award was excessive. The court reviewed the trial court’s decisions under an abuse-of-discretion standard, emphasizing the broad latitude afforded to trial judges in managing jury trials.
The defendants argued that listing physical injury and emotional distress on separate lines of the verdict form improperly divided noneconomic damages and risked double recovery. The court rejected this argument, explaining that while both categories fall within noneconomic damages, they represent conceptually distinct harms. Physical injury and emotional distress address different aspects of a patient’s suffering, and the court found no abuse of discretion in allowing the jury to evaluate them separately. The court further noted that jury instructions reinforced the distinction and that the jury’s differing awards demonstrated an understanding of the separate categories.
The court also rejected claims of improper closing argument. The defendants contended that references to patient safety misstated the legal standard and that suggesting a range of potential damages improperly anchored the jury. The court found that the plaintiff’s counsel repeatedly referenced the national standard of care and that any potential confusion was cured by a limiting instruction requested by the defense and given by the trial court. With respect to damages, the court reaffirmed longstanding precedent permitting counsel to suggest a range of possible awards so long as no specific dollar amount is urged.
Finally, the court addressed the argument that the $4 million award was excessive. Applying the deferential standard governing remittitur, the court emphasized that jury verdicts are entitled to great weight and should be disturbed only when they shock the conscience or reflect passion or prejudice. Given the extensive evidence of permanent physical injury, multiple surgeries, chronic pain, and profound emotional impact, the court concluded that the award was reasonable and supported by the record. The judgment was affirmed in full.
Meet With a Trusted Baltimore Medical Malpractice Lawyer to Discuss Your Case
Medical malpractice cases involving long-term disability, informed consent failures, and substantial non-economic damages require careful litigation and thorough expert support. If you or a loved one suffered serious injury due to improper medical treatment or undisclosed risks, you should talk to an attorney about your potential claims. The Baltimore medical malpractice attorneys at Arfaa Law Group understand how trial and appellate courts evaluate complex negligence claims and high-value verdicts. You can reach us at (410) 889-1850 or contact us online to schedule a consultation.