Published by Arfaa Law Group
Medical malpractice litigation often involves multiple defendants whose interests may appear aligned during trial but diverge behind the scenes. When undisclosed agreements alter those relationships, they can undermine the fairness of the proceedings and the integrity of the jury’s evaluation. A recent Maryland decision highlights the risks posed by secret settlement arrangements between plaintiffs and co-defendants, particularly in complex medical negligence cases involving hospitals and physicians. If you were harmed by medical negligence, you should speak with a Baltimore medical malpractice attorney to understand what measures to take to protect your interests.
Facts and Procedural History
Allegedly, the plaintiff filed a medical negligence action against the defendant hospital and a co-defendant physician following a birth injury that occurred during obstetrical care. The plaintiff asserted that the hospital was directly negligent through its nursing staff and vicariously liable for the physician’s conduct. The case proceeded to a jury trial lasting nearly two weeks.
It is reported that shortly after the jury was selected but before opening statements, the plaintiff disclosed the existence of an agreement with the co-defendant physician but refused to reveal its terms. The defendant hospital argued that the agreement constituted a Mary Carter agreement, requiring disclosure to both the court and the jury. The trial court declined to compel immediate disclosure and allowed the trial to proceed.
Reportedly, after the close of evidence but before final arguments, the terms of the agreement were finally disclosed to the court and opposing counsel, though not immediately to the jury. The court determined that the agreement qualified as a Mary Carter agreement and ultimately permitted its introduction into evidence along with a statement explaining its timing. The defendant hospital moved for a mistrial, arguing that the delayed disclosure prejudiced its defense, but the trial court denied the motion.
It is alleged that the jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff, finding the hospital both directly and vicariously liable and awarding substantial damages. The trial court entered judgment, and the defendant hospital appealed, challenging both the failure to dismiss the physician and the denial of a mistrial.
The Impact of Agreements in Medical Malpractice Cases
On appeal, the court examined two primary issues: whether the physician should have been dismissed following the agreement and whether the delayed disclosure warranted a mistrial. The court applied a mixed standard of review to legal and factual determinations and assessed the denial of a mistrial under an abuse-of-discretion standard.
First, the court addressed whether the agreement required dismissal of the physician. It concluded that Maryland law does not mandate dismissal of a defendant who enters into a Mary Carter agreement. Instead, the appropriate remedy is disclosure of the agreement so the jury can evaluate the parties’ credibility and motivations. Because the physician remained a named defendant and the claims included both direct and vicarious liability against the hospital, the trial court did not err in refusing dismissal.
The court then turned to the more significant issue of whether the delayed disclosure of the agreement compromised the fairness of the trial. It emphasized that Mary Carter agreements create a risk of misleading the jury by presenting parties as adversaries when their interests are aligned. The court found that this risk materialized because the physician testified without the jury knowing he had no financial exposure and had agreed not to actively defend the case.
The court determined that the late disclosure deprived the defendant hospital of meaningful opportunities to cross-examine the physician regarding his motivations and to adjust its trial strategy. In particular, the hospital lost the ability to pursue an “empty chair” defense by shifting blame entirely to the physician. The jury evaluated key testimony without critical context, which resulted in substantial prejudice.
Although the court agreed that the trial judge properly classified the agreement and allowed its admission, it held that the timing of the disclosure was too late to cure the harm. The court concluded that the failure to grant a mistrial constituted reversible error and remanded the case for a new hearing on that issue.
Speak with a Skilled Baltimore Medical Malpractice Attorney at Arfaa Law Group
If you or a loved one has been harmed by negligent medical care, it is critical to understand your options, and you should speak with an attorney as soon as possible. The skilled Baltimore medical malpractice attorneys at Arfaa Law Group understand how strategic agreements and trial errors can affect your rights, and we are prepared to advocate aggressively on your behalf. You can contact Arfaa Law Group at (410) 889-1850 or reach out online to schedule a consultation and discuss your legal options.