Published by Arfaa Law Group
Medical professionals have a duty to act promptly when diagnostic imaging reveals potentially life-threatening conditions. In cases involving delay in diagnosis, the success of a medical malpractice claim often hinges on expert testimony linking that delay to a patient’s injury or death. A recent decision from a Maryland court illustrates the high bar plaintiffs must meet to establish causation through expert evidence. If you lost a loved one due to a delay in diagnosis or treatment, you should speak to a knowledgeable Baltimore medical malpractice attorney about your rights.
Factual Allegations and Procedural History
It is alleged that the decedent, a 66-year-old woman with Stage IV uterine cancer, died from sepsis at a Maryland hospital in October 2020. According to the estate, the decedent’s death was caused by medical negligence on the part of a radiologist who misread abdominal x-rays during her third visit to the hospital in less than 48 hours. It is reported that during that third visit, the decedent underwent several abdominal x-rays to confirm the placement of a nasogastric tube. The defendant radiologist interpreted one x-ray as showing proper tube placement without other findings. Later, the radiologist reviewed a subsequent image and noted free air under the diaphragm, indicating possible bowel perforation. An addendum was then added to the earlier x-ray to reflect the same.
It is further reported that after this updated interpretation, a “stat” CT scan revealed a colonic perforation. Surgery was initiated, but by that time, the decedent had gone into septic shock. Although the surgeons repaired the perforation, the decedent’s condition deteriorated and she died the next day. The estate filed suit alleging that the radiologist’s failure to recognize the perforation earlier and initiate surgery before septic shock developed caused the decedent’s death.
Allegedly, the estate relied on expert testimony from a board-certified emergency physician to establish causation. The defendants moved to exclude this expert’s testimony and subsequently for summary judgment. The trial court granted both motions, finding that the expert was unqualified to opine on causation and that her opinion lacked a reliable foundation under Maryland Rule 5-702 and the Rochkind-Daubert framework. The estate appealed.
Expert Qualifications and Causation Under Daubert
The court reviewed the exclusion of the expert testimony under the abuse of discretion standard, focusing on whether the trial court properly applied Maryland Rule 5-702 and the Daubert factors as adopted in Rochkind v. Stevenson. The estate’s expert, an emergency medicine physician, opined that the 90-minute delay in recognizing the bowel perforation allowed fecal matter to accumulate in the decedent’s abdomen, increasing the severity of her sepsis and reducing her chance of survival.
The court acknowledged that the expert was qualified in emergency medicine and had experience treating patients with suspected bowel perforation. However, it determined that the expert lacked the necessary qualifications to testify that an earlier interpretation of the x-ray would have prevented the decedent’s death. The court noted that the expert admitted she was not a surgeon and could not say with certainty whether surgery would have been performed earlier had the x-ray been correctly interpreted. She also conceded that multiple variables could have influenced the decedent’s outcome, including ischemia caused by her advanced cancer.
Moreover, the court found that the expert’s opinion relied on general medical knowledge and a study that did not directly address timing of surgical intervention in similar clinical circumstances. The court concluded that the expert had unjustifiably extrapolated from the data and had not accounted for alternative causes of sepsis, including the cancer-related ischemia discovered during surgery. Because the expert’s causation theory lacked sufficient factual and methodological support, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in excluding her testimony.
In the absence of admissible expert testimony on causation, the trial court’s grant of summary judgment was affirmed.
Contact a Skilled Baltimore Medical Malpractice Lawyer
In cases involving diagnostic delays or misread imaging, a successful malpractice claim requires not just proof of error, but solid expert testimony that links that error to the patient’s harm. Courts apply rigorous standards to ensure expert opinions are grounded in both medical knowledge and reliable methodology. If you or a loved one was harmed by a medical provider’s failure to recognize or act on critical findings, the capable Baltimore medical malpractice attorneys at Arfaa Law Group can evaluate your case. Call (410) 889-1850 or use our online form to schedule a confidential consultation.