Published by Arfaa Law Group
In the realm of medical malpractice, the standard of care often serves as the linchpin between professional judgment and actionable negligence. This was illustrated in a recent Maryland decision in which the court considered whether a physician’s response to a patient’s abnormal EKG and reported chest pain met the legal standard required under Maryland law. The ensuing lawsuit, focused on both the adequacy of the care provided and the legal sufficiency of the jury instructions issued at trial, highlights how Maryland courts balance expert testimony, procedural precision, and legal standards in determining medical negligence. If you or a loved one suffered harm due to medical malpractice and you have questions about your options, it is wise to consult a skilled Baltimore medical malpractice attorney.
Case Setting
It is reported that the decedent, a middle-aged man with a notable family history of heart disease, began experiencing chest pain on February 10, 2020. The symptoms eased temporarily with the consumption of hot tea, prompting the patient to wait until February 13, 2020, to consult his primary care physician, the defendant. It is alleged that during that consultation, the defendant conducted an electrocardiogram (EKG), which returned abnormal results. The plaintiff asserted that the defendant diagnosed gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) and esophageal spasms, while allegedly failing to emphasize the abnormality of the EKG or the need for immediate medical attention. The defendant provided referrals to a cardiologist and a gastroenterologist and advised follow-up in a month.
Allegedly, the defendant testified that he did urge the patient to go to the emergency room, but this instruction was not documented in the medical record. On February 15, 2020, two days after the appointment, the decedent was found dead at home. A private autopsy conducted by a forensic pathologist retained by the plaintiff concluded that the cause of death was a cardiac arrhythmia stemming from a thrombus in a coronary artery in the context of significant atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease.
It is reported that in March 2022, the plaintiff initiated a medical malpractice action asserting wrongful death and survival claims. The matter proceeded to a jury trial in 2024, during which both parties presented conflicting expert testimony on the standard of care and the cause of death. The plaintiff’s experts maintained that immediate hospital evaluation was warranted given the decedent’s symptoms and abnormal EKG, while defense experts countered that no such urgent referral was necessary. One of the plaintiff’s experts testified that proper documentation was also a critical component of the standard of care, though another plaintiff expert conceded that there is no codified standard of care requiring specific documentation. The jury found that the defendant did not breach the standard of care, the plaintiff appealed, challenging the jury instructions provided by the trial court.
The Standard of Care in Maryland Medical Malpractice Cases
The central issue on appeal was whether two non-pattern jury instructions proposed by the defendant improperly modified the standard of care and burden of proof in a medical malpractice action. The first instruction articulated the standard of care as requiring the plaintiff to show that the provider’s conduct, in light of similarly situated professionals, was causally linked to the alleged damages. The second required expert testimony to establish that causation was more medically probable than not.
The court reviewed the trial court’s decision to include these non-pattern instructions under an abuse of discretion standard. It evaluated whether the instructions misstated the law or created a prejudicial redundancy that could mislead the jury. The court reiterated that to prevail in a medical negligence claim, a plaintiff must establish duty, breach, causation, and damages, consistent with Maryland precedent.
The court held that the non-pattern instructions neither misrepresented the legal standard nor improperly emphasized causation over breach. It concluded that although the instructions were arguably redundant, repetition alone does not constitute reversible error absent a showing of confusion or prejudice. Notably, the jury answered only the first interrogatory on the verdict sheet, finding no breach of the standard of care, and thus never reached the issue of causation. The appellate court found no merit in the claim that the instructions misled the jury or imposed a higher burden of proof. Accordingly, the judgment in favor of the defendant was affirmed.
Consult a Skilled Baltimore Medical Malpractice Attorney
When a physician’s failure to act or to properly document clinical findings leads to catastrophic outcomes, families are often left with both emotional and legal burdens. At Arfaa Law Group, our experienced Baltimore medical malpractice attorneys work tirelessly on behalf of clients facing the consequences of delayed or inadequate medical care. If your family has suffered due to a healthcare provider’s inaction or misdiagnosis, contact us at (410) 889-1850 or fill out our online form to schedule a free consultation.