Published by Arfaa Law Group
Medical malpractice claims arising from care provided in correctional settings often involve more than questions of negligence, as they may also implicate constitutional protections and systemic failures in medical delivery. When incarcerated individuals depend on consistent treatment for serious conditions, even short lapses in care can lead to devastating outcomes. A recent Maryland decision demonstrates how failures to provide essential medication and monitoring in a custodial setting may support both malpractice and constitutional claims, particularly where institutional practices contribute to inadequate care. If you or a loved one has suffered injury due to negligent medical care in a correctional facility, you should speak with a Baltimore medical malpractice attorney to explore your potential claims.
History of the Case
Allegedly, the plaintiff, acting on behalf of the decedent, filed suit against medical providers and county entities, asserting that the decedent suffered severe complications due to inadequate medical care while incarcerated. The decedent had a known heart condition requiring strict adherence to a daily anticoagulant regimen to prevent blood clot formation.
It is reported that upon entering custody, the decedent disclosed his condition and medication requirements to medical personnel. Despite this, there were delays in initiating treatment, inconsistent dosing, and failures to provide necessary monitoring. The decedent experienced interruptions in receiving medication, including multiple days without required doses during a transfer between detention facilities.
Reportedly, after his release, the decedent developed serious medical complications, including blood clots that required hospitalization and surgical intervention. These injuries formed the basis of claims alleging medical malpractice and deliberate indifference to serious medical needs.
It is alleged that the defendants moved for summary judgment, and the trial court dismissed several claims, including medical malpractice claims, concluding that the plaintiff failed to establish proximate causation and that the evidence was insufficient to proceed. The plaintiff appealed these rulings.
Evidence Sufficient to Sustain a Medical Malpractice Claim
The court carefully evaluated whether the plaintiff presented sufficient evidence to proceed to trial on the medical malpractice claims. In doing so, it emphasized that malpractice claims require proof of the applicable standard of care, a breach of that standard, causation, and resulting damages. The central dispute focused on whether the alleged failures in treatment caused the decedent’s injuries.
The court found that the trial court improperly excluded critical evidence and expert testimony that addressed both breach and causation. The plaintiff’s experts offered opinions that missed doses, inconsistent administration of medication, and lack of proper monitoring significantly increased the risk of clot formation and contributed to the decedent’s injuries. The appellate court concluded that these opinions were grounded in medical expertise and should have been considered by a jury.
Importantly, the court rejected the lower court’s determination that the expert testimony was speculative. It explained that medical experts are not required to pinpoint the exact moment an injury occurred but may instead rely on reasonable medical probabilities and the overall course of treatment. The experts’ reliance on the decedent’s medical history, known risks of inadequate anticoagulation, and documented lapses in care provided a sufficient basis to create a genuine dispute of material fact.
The court also addressed the role of institutional practices in evaluating malpractice liability. Evidence suggested that the contracted medical provider maintained practices that resulted in delays in administering medication and lacked adequate staffing during critical periods. These systemic issues, combined with individual treatment failures, supported the conclusion that a jury could find that the standard of care was breached.
Additionally, the court clarified that questions involving credibility, competing expert opinions, and the weight of evidence must be resolved by a jury rather than at the summary judgment stage. By excluding evidence and making determinations about credibility, the trial court improperly invaded the province of the jury.
As a result, the court reversed the dismissal of the medical malpractice claims and remanded the case for further proceedings, allowing the plaintiff to present the evidence to a jury for determination.
Meet with a Knowledgeable Baltimore Medical Malpractice Lawyer
If you or a loved one were injured by a reckless healthcare provider, it is essential to understand your rights, and you should talk to an attorney as soon as possible. The knowledgeable Baltimore medical malpractice lawyers of Arfaa Law Group can assess your case and aid you in seeking any damages you may be owed. You can reach Arfaa Law Group at (410) 889-1850 or through our online form to set up a confidential and free conference.