Published by Arfaa Law Group
When minutes matter, a missed diagnosis can cost a limb – or a life. In a recent Maryland medical malpractice case, a patient’s visit to a government-run clinic for what should have been a routine evaluation turned into a life-altering ordeal. The failure to identify and treat a rapidly advancing infection, necrotizing fasciitis, allegedly led to devastating consequences: a catastrophic amputation and long-term medical complications. As the case moves toward trial, the court’s recent rulings shed light on the critical role of expert testimony and the complex calculations behind life expectancy and medical damages. If you or a loved one has suffered due to a healthcare provider’s failure to diagnose a dangerous condition, an experienced Baltimore medical malpractice attorney can help you navigate your path forward.
Factual Background and Procedural History
It is alleged that the plaintiff sought care from a medical facility operated by an agent of the United States, presenting with symptoms that were ultimately found to be consistent with necrotizing fasciitis, a life-threatening soft tissue infection. It is reported that the government-employed provider failed to recognize or appropriately diagnose the condition, resulting in a delay in necessary medical intervention.
Allegedly, as the infection worsened, the plaintiff suffered severe complications that ultimately necessitated an above-the-knee amputation. The plaintiffs brought suit against the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act, asserting that the negligent care rendered by the federal agent constituted a breach of the applicable standard of care. In addition to the malpractice claim, the plaintiffs sought compensation for medical expenses, pain and suffering, and a diminished quality of life, including the loss of future earnings and life expectancy.
It is reported that in preparation for trial, the defendant filed multiple motions in limine seeking to exclude certain expert testimony related to the plaintiff’s life expectancy and the reasonableness of her medical expenses. Specifically, the government challenged the admissibility of expert testimony by physicians designated by the plaintiffs, arguing that the opinions were either untimely disclosed or methodologically deficient.
Evaluation of Evidence in Medical Malpractice Cases
The court reviewed the admissibility of expert opinions concerning both the plaintiff’s projected life expectancy and the reasonableness of past and future medical costs. In doing so, the court applied the principles of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26, which governs disclosure obligations, and Rule 37, which provides for sanctions or exclusion in cases of nondisclosure.
The court rejected the defendant’s effort to exclude the life expectancy testimony of the plaintiffs’ medical expert, finding that the opinion was timely supplemented and directly addressed the rebuttal testimony offered by the government’s own expert. The court ruled that the expert’s conclusions, namely that the plaintiff was expected to have a normal life expectancy despite her amputation and other health conditions, were helpful to the trier of fact and not unfairly prejudicial.
With respect to damages, the court reached a more nuanced conclusion. It is reported that two of the plaintiffs’ experts had offered opinions on the reasonableness of medical expenses. The court found that one of the experts, an infectious disease specialist, lacked a sufficient basis for opining on whether the expenses were fair and reasonable, particularly given his admission that he had not differentiated between costs attributable to negligence and those related to preexisting conditions. As a result, the court excluded his testimony on that issue.
However, the court allowed a second expert, a general surgeon, to testify regarding the reasonableness of charges for services rendered. This expert relied on extensive experience reviewing medical billing and confirmed that the services were medically necessary due to the delayed diagnosis. The court found this testimony admissible and relevant to establishing the economic harm suffered by the plaintiff.
Consult a Skilled Baltimore Medical Malpractice Attorney
Diagnostic errors involving rapidly progressing infections can result in permanent, life-altering harm. When medical providers fail to act on clear clinical signs, patients and their families are often left to face unimaginable consequences. At Arfaa Law Group, our experienced Baltimore medical malpractice attorneys are committed to holding negligent providers accountable and fighting for just compensation. If you or a loved one has experienced serious harm due to a delayed diagnosis, contact us at (410) 889-1850 or fill out our online form to schedule a free consultation.