Published by Arfaa Law Group
In medical malpractice litigation, defendants sometimes attempt to avoid liability by arguing that a patient’s own conduct contributed to the injury. Maryland law permits contributory negligence defenses in limited circumstances, but courts strictly confine when and how such arguments may be presented to a jury. A recent decision from a Maryland court examined whether a surgeon could rely on a patient’s delay in seeking treatment, before any physician-patient relationship existed, as a basis for contributory negligence. If you or a family member suffered harm following surgical treatment in Maryland, it is wise to speak with a Baltimore medical malpractice attorney about your potential claims.
History of the Case
Allegedly, the plaintiff experienced severe abdominal pain and presented to a hospital emergency room, where initial triage was performed, but no physician evaluation occurred before the plaintiff left after a lengthy wait. The pain subsided temporarily, and the plaintiff returned home without a diagnosis or treatment plan.
It is alleged that the plaintiff continued to experience worsening symptoms over the next several days and ultimately returned to the hospital, where diagnostic imaging revealed an inflamed gallbladder and possible gallstones. The defendant surgeon was consulted, recommended surgical intervention, and obtained consent to perform a laparoscopic gallbladder removal.
Reportedly, during the procedure, the surgeon encountered extensive scarring and anatomical difficulty, prompting consultation with another surgeon and modifications to the planned approach. After removal of the gallbladder, bile leakage was detected, leading to further testing and the discovery of a bile duct injury. The plaintiff was transferred to another medical center, where additional surgery was required to repair the bile duct and address vascular complications.
It is reported that the plaintiff and his wife subsequently filed a medical malpractice action, alleging that the surgeon breached the standard of care during the procedure and caused significant injury. In response, the defendant asserted contributory negligence, claiming that the plaintiff’s initial decision to leave the emergency room and delay treatment worsened the condition and made the surgery more complex. Following a trial, the jury found in favor of the defendant, prompting the plaintiffs to appeal.
Contributory Negligence in Medical Malpractice Cases
On appeal, the court reviewed de novo whether contributory negligence was legally available under the circumstances presented. The court reiterated that a medical malpractice claim sounds in negligence and that, while defendants may raise generally available affirmative defenses in negligence actions, contributory negligence requires evidence that the plaintiff acted with knowledge and appreciation of the risk involved.
The court emphasized that Maryland precedent permits contributory negligence in malpractice cases primarily where a patient fails to follow medical advice or instructions given during the course of treatment. Examples include ignoring directives to return for follow-up care, failing to take prescribed medication, or disregarding explicit warnings provided by a healthcare professional. In each instance, the defense rests on conduct that occurred after a physician-patient relationship had been established.
By contrast, the court held that a patient’s pre-treatment conduct, including delay in seeking care or actions that create the medical condition requiring treatment, is legally irrelevant to whether a physician later complied with the applicable standard of care. A physician takes the patient as found and may not avoid responsibility for negligent treatment by pointing to the patient’s earlier failure to seek care.
Applying this principle, the court concluded that the trial court erred by allowing the defendant to pursue contributory negligence based solely on conduct that occurred before the defendant ever examined or treated the plaintiff. The error was compounded by permitting extensive testimony and argument on that theory, instructing the jury on contributory negligence, and including the defense on a special verdict sheet.
The court further rejected the argument that these errors were harmless because the jury ultimately found no breach of the standard of care. The record demonstrated that the defense repeatedly blended allegations of patient fault with arguments on medical negligence, effectively inviting the jury to consider the plaintiff’s delay when deciding whether the surgeon acted reasonably. Given the pervasive emphasis on an improper defense throughout the trial, the court held that it was more likely than not that the errors influenced the verdict. The judgment was reversed, and the case was remanded for further proceedings.
Meet with a Dedicated Baltimore Medical Malpractice Attorney
If you believe you were harmed by negligent medical care and you have questions about your rights, you should talk to an attorney. The dedicated Baltimore medical malpractice attorneys at Arfaa Law Group are skilled at demonstrating that negligent healthcare providers should be held accountable, and if you hire us, we will work tirelessly on your behalf. Our firm represents clients throughout Baltimore and the surrounding communities and can be reached through our online contact form or by calling (410) 889-1850 to schedule a consultation.