Published by Arfaa Law Group
Patients place significant trust in medical professionals to explain the benefits and risks of treatment so they can make informed decisions about their care. When that communication breaks down, even routine procedures can give rise to confusion and uncertainty. People injured due to a doctor’s failure to obtain informed consent have the right to pursue legal claims, but if they fail to follow procedural guidelines, their claim may be dismissed. A recent Maryland decision illustrates how the sufficiency of a plaintiff’s pleadings can shape the outcome long before a case reaches trial, especially when informed consent is at issue. If you sustained losses due to medical errors, you should speak to a Baltimore medical malpractice attorney to understand your rights.
Facts and Procedural History
Allegedly, the plaintiff sought dermatological care from the defendant physician at a local skin surgery practice for a small bump on the plaintiff’s nose. During that appointment, the defendant elected to inject Kenalog into the area, a decision intended to reduce the bump’s size.
It is alleged that within days of the procedure, the plaintiff observed that the bump grew larger rather than smaller. The plaintiff later challenged the adequacy of the information provided before the injection and questioned whether the risks associated with Kenalog had been properly explained.
Reportedly, the plaintiff filed a lawsuit asserting a single claim for lack of informed consent against both the defendant physician and the medical practice. The defendants moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim. It is reported that both sides requested a hearing on the motion in the bodies of their filings, but neither included the request in the title as required by Maryland Rule 2-311(f). The court granted the motion without holding a hearing, and the plaintiff appealed.
Pleading Requirements in Maryland Informed Consent Cases
On appeal, the court first considered whether the circuit court erred by ruling on a dispositive motion without holding a hearing. Although the parties’ requests did not comply precisely with the rule’s titling requirement, the court found that their written requests were sufficiently clear to trigger the hearing obligation. The court emphasized that procedural formality should not override substance when both parties unmistakably request oral argument.
The court then examined whether the lack of a hearing prejudiced the plaintiff. Reviewing the dismissal de novo, the court assessed the complaint’s allegations in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Under Maryland law, a viable informed consent claim must allege the existence of a material risk, the provider’s duty to disclose that risk, a failure to disclose it, and a causal link between that nondisclosure and the patient’s injury.
The complaint asserted that Kenalog carried a material risk of atrophy, that the defendant was aware of this risk, and that it was not properly disclosed. The court observed, however, that the complaint did not allege that atrophy actually occurred or that any harm suffered by the plaintiff stemmed from the nondisclosure of that specific risk. Without allegations connecting the alleged injury to the claimed failure of disclosure, the complaint did not satisfy the essential elements of the tort.
Because dismissal would have been warranted even if the circuit court had held a hearing, the appellate court concluded that the plaintiff suffered no prejudice from the procedural misstep. The court therefore affirmed the dismissal.
Consult a Dedicated Baltimore Medical Malpractice Attorney
If you experienced unexpected complications following a medical procedure and believe the risks were not adequately explained, the dedicated Baltimore medical malpractice attorneys at Arfaa Law Group are ready to help you understand your options. Call our office at (410) 889-1850 or use our online form to arrange a consultation. We proudly represent individuals throughout Baltimore and the surrounding Maryland communities.