Published by Arfaa Law Group
In high-stakes medical malpractice litigation, the rules of evidence are more than procedural technicalities; they can be the difference between a fair trial and a mistrial. A recent decision from a Maryland court emphasizes the strict limitations on presenting evidence of liability insurance to a jury. When plaintiff’s counsel improperly introduced insurance-related language during trial, the court held that the error was too prejudicial to ignore, granting the defendant’s motion for a mistrial. This case serves as a reminder of the high bar courts impose when litigants attempt to reference insurance in the context of negligence claims. If you sustained losses due to the carelessness of a healthcare provider, you should talk to a Baltimore medical malpractice attorney about your avenues for seeking justice.
Factual and Procedural History
It is reported that the plaintiff underwent a calf-implant surgery on June 30, 2021. Following the procedure, the plaintiff received post-operative care from physician assistants employed by the defendant hospital. The plaintiff brought suit alleging negligent post-operative treatment, which was set for jury trial in April 2025.
Allegedly, during the second day of trial, plaintiff’s counsel displayed an unredacted version of an Alternative Supervising Physician Agreement that included a sentence indicating the hospital carried malpractice liability insurance for its physician assistants. It is reported that the plaintiff’s counsel then drew the jury’s attention to the sentence, stating that it showed the hospital’s insurance coverage.
The defendant objected immediately. A bench conference followed, during which the court noted that although the parties had stipulated to the document’s admissibility, the agreement presented by the plaintiff included unredacted language that the defense had previously removed from its exhibit. The judge excused the jury from the courtroom to consider the matter.
Insurance in the Context of Medical Malpractice Claims
It is reported that the plaintiff argued the insurance reference was offered not to show negligence, but rather to support a claim of agency or control, an exception recognized under Federal Rule of Evidence 411. The court disagreed. The judge emphasized that the defendant had already stipulated to agency and control of the physician assistants, and the trial record contained ample testimony to that effect.
Citing longstanding precedent and Rule 411, the court reiterated that evidence of liability insurance is inadmissible to prove negligent conduct, due to the risk of undue prejudice. It also referenced Rule 403, which permits exclusion of even relevant evidence if its prejudicial effect substantially outweighs its probative value. The judge found that any marginal relevance the sentence might have had was far outweighed by the danger it posed to the defendant’s right to a fair trial.
In considering whether a curative instruction might be sufficient, the court cited Fourth Circuit precedent warning that the taint of an insurance reference often cannot be easily undone. The court found that, despite the plaintiff’s claim of a fleeting mention, the reference was neither accidental nor fleeting, and could not be presumed harmless. As a result, the court exercised its discretion and granted a mistrial.
Meet with a Trusted Baltimore Medical Malpractice Attorney
Medical malpractice trials are governed not only by complex factual issues but also by strict evidentiary rules that protect the fairness of the proceeding. Introducing information that the rules explicitly prohibit, even inadvertently, can bring a case to a halt. At Arfaa Law Group, our experienced Baltimore medical malpractice lawyers understand the importance of trial precision and procedural integrity. If you or a loved one has experienced harm due to negligent medical care, we can help you pursue justice while safeguarding your rights. Call us at (410) 889-1850 or complete our online form to schedule a free consultation.