Published by Arfaa Law Group
In medical malpractice litigation, timing is everything, and so is consistency. In a recent Maryland medical malpractice case, the court rejected two early attempts to dismiss a patient’s medical negligence claims: a statute of limitations defense and a judicial estoppel argument. The ruling emphasizes that when factual disputes exist about when a plaintiff discovered her injury or whether her prior litigation statements contradict current claims, those questions must be answered through discovery, not resolved at the pleading stage. If you believe a healthcare provider’s incompetence caused you harm, it is wise to talk to a Baltimore medical malpractice attorney about your rights.
Factual Background and Procedural History
It is reported that the plaintiff underwent an MRI in July 2020 to evaluate her temporomandibular joints. The imaging was interpreted by a radiologist employed by a medical group, later named as a third-party defendant. Allegedly, the radiologist failed to identify a suspicious mass in the plaintiff’s right parotid gland. It is alleged that had the mass been detected and properly reported, earlier follow-up testing and treatment could have prevented the plaintiff’s cancer from progressing to an incurable stage.
It is reported that the plaintiff initially filed a malpractice suit against several providers and institutions. Later, she filed a separate action naming the radiologist and his employer directly. That case was consolidated with the original litigation, and the newly added defendants moved to dismiss her claims. They asserted that the action was time-barred under Maryland’s three-year statute of limitations for malpractice and that the plaintiff’s statements in the earlier case precluded her claims under the doctrine of judicial estoppel.
Procedural Defenses in Maryland Medical Malpractice Cases
It is reported that the trial court denied the motion to dismiss, allowing the plaintiff’s claims to proceed. On the statute of limitations issue, the court applied Maryland’s discovery rule, which delays the start of the limitations period until the plaintiff knows or should know of the injury and its cause. The court found that the plaintiff’s complaint plausibly alleged that she did not learn of the radiologist’s omission until long after the MRI had been performed. Because the timing of discovery was a factual question, the issue could not be resolved without further development of the record.
Regarding judicial estoppel, the court explained that the doctrine prevents a party from adopting inconsistent positions in separate legal proceedings. However, the court found that the plaintiff’s prior statements in the original malpractice case did not clearly contradict her current claims against the radiologist. The court emphasized that judicial estoppel is an equitable remedy used sparingly, and that any tension between the two sets of allegations would be more appropriately addressed during discovery or summary judgment. The court declined to resolve either issue as a matter of law and ordered the case to proceed.
Talk to a Dedicated Baltimore Medical Malpractice Attorney
When a delayed diagnosis leads to serious or terminal illness, patients deserve a full opportunity to seek accountability. But early procedural defenses, like the statute of limitations or judicial estoppel, can threaten to shut the courthouse doors prematurely. At Arfaa Law Group, our experienced Baltimore medical malpractice attorneys know how to navigate these complex procedural challenges while building strong claims for justice. If you or a loved one was harmed by a delayed or missed cancer diagnosis, contact us at (410) 889-1850 or fill out our online form to schedule a free consultation.