Baltimore Medical Malpractice Lawyer Blog

Maryland Court Discusses Sufficiency of Expert Opinions in Dental Malpractice Cases

Published on: August 28, 2021 | by Arfaa Law Group

In Maryland, dental malpractice claims, like other allegations of medical malpractice, must typically be proven via expert testimony. Thus, if a court deems a plaintiff’s expert testimony inadmissible, it will likely result in a ruling in favor of the defendant. If an expert report is sufficient under the evidentiary standards, however, it should not be deemed inadmissible, even if the expert did not review the plaintiff’s treating records prior to issuing the report, as explained in a recent ruling issued by a Maryland appellate court in a dental malpractice case. If you were hurt by incompetent dental care, it is smart to speak to a Maryland dental malpractice lawyer about your options for seeking compensation.

The Plaintiff’s Harm

It is reported that the defendant performed surgical removal of the plaintiff’s wisdom teeth. Following the procedure, the plaintiff experienced a permanent loss of feeling in her tongue. As such, she filed a dental malpractice lawsuit against the defendant, alleging he negligently severed her lingual nerves during the surgery. The defendant moved for summary judgment, and the court granted the motion, dismissing the plaintiff’s claims. The plaintiff then appealed.

Sufficiency of Expert Opinions in Dental Malpractice Cases

In granting the defendant’s motion for summary judgment, the trial court relied in part on the defendant’s assertion that the plaintiff’s expert opinion was unreliable because he did not review the medical records from her treating providers. The appellate court explained that juries could not infer medical negligence without testimony from experts, as issues relating to the standard of care and medical causation are beyond the understanding of the average layperson. Continue Reading ›

Court Discusses Pleading Requirements in Maryland Medical Malpractice Cases

Published on: August 23, 2021 | by Arfaa Law Group

Medical malpractice actions are generally complex, and Maryland law imposes greater evidentiary and pleading standards on plaintiffs pursuing negligence claims against medical providers. A plaintiff that fails to abide by the obligations imposed by the Maryland Health Care Malpractice Claims Act (HCMCA) runs the risk of having his or her claims dismissed, regardless of whether they are valid. In a recent Maryland ruling issued in a urology malpractice case, a court discussed the pleading requirements imposed on plaintiffs in medical malpractice cases. If you suffered harm due to incompetent medical care, it is advisable to meet with a skillful Maryland medical malpractice lawyer to discuss what you must prove to recover damages.

The Plaintiff’s Allegations

It is reported that the plaintiff underwent numerous urological surgeries and procedures in November 2014 to address calculi on his kidneys and kidney stones and to replace existing ureteral stents. Employees of the defendant healthcare provider performed the procedures. The plaintiff was scheduled to undergo a cystoscopy and removal of the stents at a later date, but the defendant never performed the surgeries.

Allegedly, as a result of the delay in performing the follow-up procedures, the plaintiff developed chronic urinary tract infections, pain, hematuria, and numerous large stones within his bladder and kidneys. He subsequently filed a lawsuit against the defendant, asserting medical malpractice claims. The defendant moved for dismissal, arguing that the plaintiff failed to comply with the pleading requirements imposed by the HCMCA. Continue Reading ›

Maryland Court Declines to Toll Statute of Limitations in Psychiatric Malpractice Case

Published on: August 16, 2021 | by Arfaa Law Group

People suffering from mental illnesses often require medication to manage their symptoms and enable them to lead typical lives. Thus, if a doctor fails to prescribe a patient necessary psychiatric medication and the patient suffers harm as a result, it may constitute medical malpractice. In Maryland, medical malpractice claims generally must be filed within three years of the date of the alleged injury. While the statute of limitations can be tolled for certain reasons, such as the plaintiff’s mental incapacity, the plaintiff bears the burden of proving it would be unjust to bar claims as untimely, as discussed in a recent Maryland psychiatric malpractice case. If you were hurt by a negligent mental health professional, it is in your best interest to speak to a Maryland psychiatric malpractice lawyer about your possible claims.

The Plaintiff’s Allegations

It is reported that the plaintiff was released from a medical center without necessary psychiatric medication. The defendant was the head liaison for the center. The plaintiff subsequently suffered severe withdrawal symptoms, which he argued led to erratic behavior and his subsequent arrest and incarceration. Thus, he filed a medical malpractice lawsuit against the defendant, alleging his negligent care caused the plaintiff to suffer irreparable harm. The defendant filed a motion to dismiss, but the court denied it. After discovery, he moved for dismissal via summary judgment, arguing the plaintiff’s claims were barred by the applicable statute of limitations.

Tolling the Statute of Limitations for Equitable Reasons

After reviewing the pleadings and discovery, the court granted the defendant’s motion and dismissed the plaintiff’s claims. In Maryland, the statute of limitations for the plaintiff’s claims was three years from the date of the occurrence. The court explained that the date of accrual of a claim arises occurs when the plaintiff has sufficient facts about the harm he suffered so that a reasonable inquiry will reveal his cause of action. The statute of limitations may be tolled, however, if factors other than the plaintiff’s conduct would make it unconscionable to enforce the limitations period. Continue Reading ›

Maryland Court Discusses Discovery Rule in a Dental Malpractice

Published on: August 6, 2021 | by Arfaa Law Group

While people typically think of malpractice cases arising in the context of treatment for conditions of the body, dentists can be liable for malpractice as well. Dental malpractice claims, like other claims against health care providers, must be filed within the statutory time frame; otherwise, the injured party may waive the right to recover damages. The statute of limitations can be extended, though, in cases in which a person does not discover the cause of his or her harm immediately after it occurs. In a recent Maryland opinion issued in a dental malpractice case, the court discussed when the discovery rule applies to extend the statutory period. If you suffered harm due to a negligent dentist, it is smart to meet with a Maryland dental malpractice lawyer as soon as possible to protect your right to seek compensation.

The Plaintiff’s Harm

It is reported that in May 2015, the plaintiff consulted with the defendant dental center about having his wisdom teeth removed. He believed that a certain surgeon would be performing the procedure under twilight anesthesia, but the defendant dentist extracted his teeth using only a local anesthetic. After the procedure, his tongue was numb. He called the defendant center the next day it was open and reported he could not feel his tongue and was advised it was a normal side effect.

Allegedly, he returned to the defendant center four days later and then a week after that and was advised that his tongue would get better with time. Ultimately, he saw a second dentist in November 2015. While the dentist was surprised that the plaintiff could not feel his tongue, he did not indicate it was due to something the defendant dentist did. In July 2018, the plaintiff underwent a medical examination, after which the doctor advised him his tongue numbness was caused by a transection during his wisdom tooth extraction. The plaintiff then filed a malpractice claim against the defendants, who moved for summary judgment on the grounds the claim was barred by the statute of limitations. The court granted the motion, and the plaintiff appealed. Continue Reading ›

Maryland Court Discusses the Standard for Transfer for Forum non Conveniens in Medical Malpractice Cases

Published on: July 26, 2021 | by Arfaa Law Group

People harmed by the incompetence of their doctors have the right to pursue compensation via medical malpractice claims. As plaintiffs are the parties that institute cases, they generally get to determine where the case will be filed and what court will preside over the matter. Defendants have the right to request that cases be transferred to other counties, though, via motions for transfer for forum non conveniens. The courts must evaluate numerous factors to determine if a transfer is appropriate, and if they fail to do so, any transfer may be overturned, as demonstrated in a recent opinion issued in a Maryland primary malpractice case. If you were injured by the errors of a primary care physician, it is in your best interest to speak to a Maryland medical malpractice lawyer to discuss your options.

History of the Case

It is alleged that the plaintiff visited the defendant primary care practice with complaints of pain, redness, and swelling in her left foot. She was seen by a nurse practitioner and diagnosed with gout. She visited the defendant medical express center with similar complaints two days later and was advised that she had cellulitis and a wound infection.

It is reported that three days later, the plaintiff went to the emergency department of a hospital due to a worsening of her symptoms. She was diagnosed with gas gangrene, and her foot was amputated. She subsequently filed a medical malpractice lawsuit against the defendants in Baltimore City. The defendants filed a motion for transfer to Baltimore County for forum non conveniens. The court granted the motion, and the plaintiff appealed. Continue Reading ›

Maryland Court Discusses the Impact of Improper Evidence in Medical Malpractice Cases

Published on: July 20, 2021 | by Arfaa Law Group

There are numerous claims a person harmed by incompetent medical care may pursue. For example, a person may assert a medical malpractice claim or failure to obtain a patient’s informed consent claim. While parties can pursue both claims in one action, they each have different elements that must be proven to recover damages. As such, it may be improper for a defendant to introduce evidence that a defendant obtained a plaintiff’s informed consent prior to a procedure in a matter in which she is solely asserting a medical malpractice claim. The ramifications of evidence relevant to other claims were the topic of a recent Maryland opinion in a surgical malpractice case in which the plaintiff argued the trial court erred in admitting improper evidence. If you suffered harm because of a negligently performed procedure, it is smart to meet with a Maryland surgical malpractice lawyer regarding your options for seeking damages.

The Plaintiff’s Claims

It is reported that the defendant performed a surgical repair of the plaintiff’s hernia. She was discharged with instructions and a prescription for pain medication. The evening after she was discharged, she experienced abdominal pain and was advised to fill her prescription. Five days later, she returned to the hospital with complaints of pain, nausea, vomiting, and constipation. She was transferred to the emergency department, where it was determined that she was suffering from a perforated colon.

Allegedly, she underwent an emergency procedure to repair the perforation, and the record noted she was suffering from a missed colotomy. She had to undergo several additional procedures to repair her harm. She subsequently filed a lawsuit against the defendant, asserting a medical malpractice claim. Prior to trial, she filed a motion asking the court to preclude the defendant from introducing evidence of informed consent and that the harm suffered was a known risk of the procedure. The court denied the motion as premature, but during the trial, such evidence was introduced. The jury issued a defense verdict, and the plaintiff appealed, arguing the admission of informed consent evidence was improper. Continue Reading ›

Maryland Court Discusses Apparent Agency in Medical Malpractice Cases

Published on: July 13, 2021 | by Arfaa Law Group

People who suffer traumatic injuries in car accidents are often transported to hospitals for medical treatment. If the care they receive while hospitalized is inadequate, though, it may compound their harm and cause new trauma. While hospitals can be held accountable for the harm caused by their employees, it is more difficult to establish liability for losses brought about by physicians who are independent contractors. Recently, a Maryland appellate court discussed what a plaintiff must prove to demonstrate a hospital is responsible for harm caused by a contractor in a medical malpractice case. If you were hurt by a careless doctor, it is advisable to speak with a Maryland medical malpractice lawyer to discuss your options for seeking damages.

The History of the Case

It is reported that the plaintiff was involved in a car accident that caused critical injuries to his left arm and his legs. First responders arrived at the scene and transported the plaintiff to the defendant hospital’s trauma center, which was located within the same building as the hospital. After he was admitted, the plaintiff was treated by the defendant doctor, who was an independent contractor within his role as an on-call orthopedic surgeon for the center.

Allegedly, when the plaintiff arrived, he was disoriented and confused and was unable to sign the consent form, which stated that the treating physicians were not employees or agents of the hospital. Another party signed on his behalf, however. While he was in the trauma center, the plaintiff’s legs were amputated. He subsequently filed a malpractice claim against the defendants, alleging that if the defendant doctor complied with the standard of care, his right leg could have been saved and that the defendant hospital was vicariously liable for the defendant doctor’s negligence. The trial court ultimately issued a judgment notwithstanding the verdict in favor of the hospital, and the plaintiff appealed. Continue Reading ›

Maryland Court Discusses the Right to Recover Wrongful Death Damages in Cases Involving the Late Diagnosis of a Terminal Illness

Published on: July 6, 2021 | by Arfaa Law Group

Stage IV metastatic breast cancer is a devastating disease for which, tragically, there is no cure. As such, many people lose their lives to metastatic breast cancer each year. While stage IV breast cancer is not curable, it is treatable, and some people are able to live for several years after they are diagnosed. If they are robbed of the opportunity to undergo treatment due to medical negligence, though, their family members cannot recover wrongful death damages after their passing, as demonstrated in a recent Maryland opinion delivered in an oncology malpractice case. If you lost a loved one due to the incompetence of an oncologist, it is smart to meet with a knowledgeable Maryland medical malpractice attorney to evaluate your potential claims.

The Decedent’s Harm

It is reported that in 2006, the decedent was diagnosed with stage III cancer in her left breast. She underwent a mastectomy, radiation, and chemotherapy. For the next three years, her CT scans were normal. In April 2013, however, she underwent a CT scan that indicated new and possibly cancerous lesions that were not present in previous studies. The radiologist forwarded the report from the 2013 CT scan to the defendant, the decedent’s treating oncologist, who did not prescribe any follow-up tests or advise any of her providers.

Allegedly, in February 2016, the decedent was diagnosed with Stage IV cancer after she injured her shoulder. She died a year and a half later. The plaintiff, her husband, then instituted a wrongful death lawsuit against the defendant, arguing that if the decedent had been diagnosed in 2013, she would have lived an additional two and a half years. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendant, stating the plaintiff failed to present a viable wrongful death claim. The plaintiff appealed. Continue Reading ›

Court Discusses Contributory Negligence in the Context of Medical Malpractice

Published on: June 28, 2021 | by Arfaa Law Group

When healthcare providers face liability for incompetent medical care, it is uncommon for them to admit fault. In some cases, they may go as far as to blame the plaintiffs for the injuries they sustained, arguing their carelessness caused or contributed to their harm. In Maryland and many other jurisdictions, contributory negligence is a valid defense. In a recent opinion issued in the federal court for the District of Columbia, the court explained what a defendant must show to establish a plaintiff’s contributory negligence in a medical malpractice case. If you were injured by a reckless physician, it is smart to meet with a trusted Maryland medical malpractice lawyer to discuss your potential claims.

The Plaintiff’s Injuries

It is reported that the plaintiff was a college student who played field hockey for her school. She suffered a concussion during a game, after which she visited the team trainer, who made an appointment for her to be seen by the defendant, the team physician. The defendant examined the plaintiff but did not believe she sustained a concussion and advised her to sit out for two games but did not offer any other treatment.

Allegedly, several months later, the plaintiff was treated with a neurologist who determined that, contrary to the defendant’s assertions, the plaintiff suffered a concussion and now had post-concussive syndrome. Thus, the plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the university and the defendant alleging, among other things, medical negligence claims. Following discovery, the parties moved for summary judgment. The defendants argued that the plaintiff was contributorily negligent and therefore should be denied the recovery of damages as a matter of law. Continue Reading ›

Maryland Court Discusses Federal Jurisdiction Over Medical Malpractice Claims

Published on: June 22, 2021 | by Arfaa Law Group

It is not uncommon for injuries caused by medical malpractice to occur simultaneously with other harm. In such cases, the injured party may be able to pursue numerous causes of action in a single lawsuit. Depending on where the matter is filed, though, the dismissal of one claim may result in the court’s refusal to preside over the remaining claims. This was demonstrated in a recent Maryland case in which the court declined to exercise jurisdiction over state medical malpractice claims after dismissing federal claims. If you suffered harm because of negligent medical care, it is advisable to speak to a seasoned Maryland medical malpractice lawyer about your options for seeking compensation.

The Plaintiff’s Harm

It is reported that the plaintiff was living in a federally owned facility when he fell down the stairs. He immediately began to experience pain and swelling in his right foot and ankle and visited the medical unit of the facility. He was provided a muscle rub and an ace bandage and advised to call the medical unit if his symptoms worsened. He was not advised to follow up and did not undergo any x-rays. His symptoms became more severe, and numerous days later, he was taken to the hospital, where it was determined that he suffered a fracture.

The plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the defendant in the Maryland district court, alleging violation of his Eighth Amendment rights against the wanton and unnecessary infliction of pain. He filed a supplemental complaint as well, alleging medical malpractice claims against the defendant and arguing that the court had supplemental jurisdiction over such claims. The defendant moved to dismiss the plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment claims on the grounds he had not alleged sufficient facts that, if proven to be true, would allow him to recover compensation. The court granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss, then began to analyze the plaintiff’s medical malpractice claim. Continue Reading ›