Published by Arfaa Law Group
Medical malpractice cases require jurors to determine whether a provider acted with the care and skill expected of a reasonably competent provider in a similar practice and under similar circumstances. In a recent Maryland case, the court considered whether general negligence instructions improperly influenced a jury that found a neurosurgeon liable for negligent treatment. The court upheld the verdict and explained how ordinary negligence principles relate to the professional standard governing health care providers. If negligent surgery or delayed treatment caused you harm, you should talk to a Baltimore medical malpractice attorney who can assess your potential claim.
Facts of the Case
Allegedly, a patient visited a neurosurgeon after developing numbness in two fingers and experiencing intermittent neck and shoulder pain. The surgeon recommended an operation. During the procedure, the surgeon removed damaged spinal discs and fused vertebrae in the patient’s neck.
Reportedly, an infection developed at the surgical site. The patient returned to the hospital and consulted several physicians, including the surgeon, before being hospitalized because of the infection. Years later, he continued to experience neck pain and a severely restricted range of motion.
It is alleged that the patient filed medical negligence and informed consent claims against the surgeon and hospital in the Circuit Court for Baltimore County. His neurosurgery expert testified that the operation, although technically performed proficiently, was medically unnecessary and inappropriate given the patient’s history. The expert stated that conservative care likely would have relieved the symptoms and that the postoperative infection should have been detected and treated sooner.
Reportedly, the defense testified that surgery was appropriate and that the infection existed only a short time before diagnosis. The jury found the surgeon negligent and concluded that the negligence caused the patient’s injuries. It rejected the informed consent claim and awarded $329,000 for medical expenses and noneconomic damages.
General Negligence Instructions Did Not Require a New Trial
The surgeon appealed, arguing that the trial court confused the jury by giving general instructions about negligence and foreseeability before explaining the professional standard of care. The intermediate appellate court reversed the verdict, but Maryland’s highest court reinstated it.
The court explained that medical malpractice is a form of negligence. A patient must establish a duty defined by the applicable professional standard of care, a breach of that duty, causation, and damages. Expert testimony ordinarily helps the jury determine what a reasonably competent provider with similar training would have done under comparable circumstances.
The court concluded that the general negligence instructions and the medical malpractice instruction accurately stated the law when considered together. Although clearer transitions would have been preferable, the evidence, arguments, and full set of instructions repeatedly focused the jury on the conduct expected of a reasonably competent neurosurgeon. The surgeon therefore did not establish that the wording probably confused the jury or affected the verdict.
The court also upheld an instruction encouraging continued deliberations after the jury suggested it might be deadlocked. The trial judge told jurors to reconsider their views without surrendering honestly held beliefs and advised them to deliberate for only one additional hour. Given the trial context and prior scheduling concerns, the instruction was not impermissibly coercive.
Consult a Baltimore Medical Malpractice Attorney About Negligent Surgery
If you suffered harm due to a negligently performed surgery, it is wise to talk to an attorney as soon as possible. The Baltimore medical malpractice attorneys of Arfaa Law Group represent patients and families in medical malpractice claims and can advise you of your rights and help you to seek any damages you may be owed. Call (410) 889-1850 or contact the firm online to discuss a potential claim.