Published by Arfaa Law Group
Medical malpractice claims brought against the federal government under the Federal Tort Claims Act require plaintiffs to satisfy demanding procedural and evidentiary standards, particularly when expert testimony forms the backbone of the case. Federal courts serve a critical gatekeeping role in determining which expert opinions may be presented to a factfinder and which claims may proceed to trial. In a recent decision from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, the court carefully analyzed expert admissibility and summary judgment issues arising from alleged negligent medical care at a federal military hospital. If you were injured while receiving care at a federal facility in Maryland, it is prudent to consult with a Baltimore medical malpractice attorney to discuss whether the government may be held accountable for substandard treatment.
Facts and Procedural History
Allegedly, the plaintiff, a military retiree, sought treatment at a federal medical center for longstanding plantar wart clusters on his right foot. A medical resident performed a cryotherapy procedure using liquid nitrogen, while an attending physician was assigned to the clinic but was not present during the procedure.
It is alleged that the plaintiff experienced severe and escalating pain shortly after the treatment, along with significant blistering on the sole of his foot. The following day, the plaintiff sought care at a civilian emergency room due to the intensity of the pain, but the blister was not drained at that time.
Reportedly, the plaintiff then returned to the federal medical facility, where additional providers evaluated the blister and decided not to drain it, documenting that the blistering appeared consistent with the expected results of cryotherapy. Over the next several days, the blister enlarged, and the plaintiff ultimately obtained treatment from a private podiatrist who drained the blister.
It is reported that the plaintiff continued to experience chronic pain and functional limitations following these events and later asserted that he suffered permanent nerve damage. After exhausting administrative remedies, the plaintiff filed suit against the United States, asserting multiple medical malpractice claims based on improper application of liquid nitrogen, failure to request supervision, failure to supervise a resident, and failure to properly treat the post-procedure blister. The government filed two motions: one to preclude plaintiff’s expert testimony and one for summary judgment.
Admissibility of Expert Testimony in Medical Malpractice Cases
The district court addressed two primary issues: whether portions of the plaintiff’s expert testimony were admissible under Federal Rule of Evidence 702 and whether the government was entitled to summary judgment on some or all of the asserted claims. The court applied the standards articulated in Daubert and its progeny, emphasizing that expert opinions must be grounded in reliable methodology and supported by sufficient facts rather than speculation.
With respect to expert admissibility, the court excluded testimony suggesting that the plaintiff suffered from compartment syndrome or a compartment syndrome-like response. The court found that this opinion lacked scientific reliability, noting that the proposed condition was not a recognized medical diagnosis, was unsupported by relevant literature relied upon by the expert, and was inconsistent with the timing and clinical presentation reflected in the medical records.
However, the court declined to exclude expert testimony addressing the standard of care for draining a painful blister and causation related to chronic foot pain. The court determined that the expert sufficiently articulated when blister drainage is required under accepted medical practice and employed a differential diagnosis to link the untreated blister to the plaintiff’s ongoing symptoms.
Turning to summary judgment, the court held that the government was entitled to judgment as a matter of law on several claims because the plaintiff failed to identify admissible expert testimony establishing the applicable standard of care, breach, and causation. Specifically, claims alleging negligent application of liquid nitrogen, failure of a resident to request supervision, and failure of attending physicians to supervise were dismissed due to insufficient expert proof. By contrast, the court found that the claim based on failure to drain or otherwise properly treat the blister could proceed, as the plaintiff presented competent expert testimony on the standard of care and causation for that theory of negligence.
Talk to an Experienced Baltimore Medical Malpractice Attorney at Arfaa Law Group
If you suffered harm as a result of substandard care you received in a federal medical facility, it is smart to talk to an attorney about your potential claims. The experienced Baltimore medical malpractice attorneys at Arfaa Law Group can help you explore your options for seeking justice. We assist clients in medical malpractice claims throughout Baltimore and across Maryland. You can contact us through our online form or by calling (410) 889-1850 to arrange a consultation.