Published by Arfaa Law Group
Patients who believe they have suffered injuries because of negligent dental or medical treatment often pursue multiple legal theories in an effort to obtain relief. However, even when serious allegations are made, courts must determine whether they have jurisdiction to hear the claims and whether the plaintiff has complied with Maryland’s procedural requirements for pursuing malpractice actions. A recent Maryland case illustrates the importance of understanding the distinction between federal and state claims before filing suit. If you believe you were harmed by negligent dental or medical care, you should speak with a Baltimore medical malpractice attorney to ensure your claims are brought in the proper forum and in compliance with Maryland law.
History of the Case
Allegedly, the plaintiff filed suit in federal court against a dental practice and several individual defendants arising from dental treatment that the plaintiff claimed resulted in injury. After the defendants challenged the original complaint, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint asserting claims for dental malpractice, additional state-law theories, an alleged violation of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA), and allegations of unauthorized banking transactions.
Reportedly, the defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint, arguing that the federal court lacked jurisdiction over the action and that the complaint failed to state legally viable claims. The court reviewed the amended pleading under the standards applicable to motions to dismiss, accepting the plaintiff’s factual allegations as true for purposes of the motion while recognizing that the plaintiff was proceeding without legal counsel.
Procedural Requirements in Dental Malpractice Cases
The district court first examined whether it had subject-matter jurisdiction over the case. Although the plaintiff relied on HIPAA to invoke federal-question jurisdiction, the court explained that HIPAA does not create a private right of action that allows individual patients to sue healthcare providers directly for alleged violations. Instead, Congress assigned enforcement authority to the United States Department of Health and Human Services. Because private litigants cannot pursue damages under HIPAA, the court dismissed that claim with prejudice.
The court next considered the plaintiff’s remaining allegations, which centered on dental malpractice and other related state-law causes of action. After dismissing the only federal claim, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law issues. Federal courts commonly dismiss state law claims when no independent basis for federal jurisdiction remains, allowing those claims to proceed in the appropriate state court if the plaintiff chooses to pursue them.
Importantly, the court also explained that Maryland law imposes mandatory procedural requirements before most medical or dental malpractice claims may proceed in court. The plaintiff was advised that any future malpractice action filed in Maryland state court must first be submitted to the Health Care Alternative Dispute Resolution Office. In addition, Maryland law generally requires a claimant to file a Certificate of Qualified Expert and an accompanying expert report explaining how the healthcare provider allegedly departed from the applicable standard of care and how that departure caused the plaintiff’s injuries. The court emphasized that failing to satisfy these statutory requirements can result in dismissal of an otherwise viable malpractice claim.
The court also addressed the plaintiff’s requests to seal portions of the court record containing sensitive medical information. Recognizing the public’s general right of access to judicial records while balancing important privacy interests, the court granted the requests in part by ordering that medical records containing protected health information remain sealed or appropriately redacted. Ultimately, the court dismissed the federal HIPAA claim with prejudice, dismissed the remaining state law claims without prejudice so they could be pursued in state court if appropriate, and closed the federal action.
Consult a Skilled Baltimore Medical Malpractice Attorney About Your Potential Claims
If you or a loved one suffered injuries because of negligent medical or dental treatment, you should consult an attorney about your potential claims. The skilled Baltimore medical malpractice attorneys at Arfaa Law Group can assess your case and help you pursue the compensation you deserve. Call Arfaa Law Group at (410) 889-1850 or use the firm’s online form to schedule a confidential, free consultation.