American Board of Trial Advocates
Best Attorneys
Multi Million Dollar
Million Dollar
Maryland Association for Justice
Super Lawyers
Awards 2015
The American
Super Lawyers
Top 50 Woman - Maryland
SuperLawyers
Top 100 - Maryland
Best Lawyers

Published on: | by

Medical malpractice cases involving hospital-acquired conditions often raise the question of whether negligence can be inferred from the outcome alone. While doctrines such as res ipsa loquitur may allow plaintiffs to rely on circumstantial evidence, courts apply these principles cautiously in complex medical contexts. A recent Maryland opinion highlights the challenges plaintiffs face when attempting to establish liability without strong expert support. If you believe negligent medical care caused serious harm, consulting with a Baltimore medical malpractice attorney can help you understand your legal options.

Facts and Procedural History

Allegedly, the decedent was admitted to a hospital with serious underlying medical conditions and remained hospitalized for several months, during which he developed a severe pressure ulcer.

It is alleged that the plaintiff filed suit asserting that medical providers failed to implement appropriate preventative measures, including repositioning and wound care, and also asserted a claim for lack of informed consent. Continue Reading ›

Published on: | by

Medical malpractice claims involving multiple providers can quickly become procedurally complex, particularly when federal employees are involved. In such cases, questions of immunity, jurisdiction, and pre-suit requirements may determine whether a claim proceeds at all, regardless of its underlying merits. A recent Maryland decision illustrates how the intersection of the Federal Tort Claims Act and the Westfall Act can significantly alter the course of litigation and even bar claims entirely. If you are pursuing a medical malpractice claim in Maryland, it is essential to consult with a Baltimore medical malpractice attorney who understands how to navigate these procedural barriers and preserve your right to recovery.

Case Setting

Allegedly, the decedent, a 90-year-old patient, was admitted to a hospital with respiratory illness and remained under the care of multiple healthcare providers before dying approximately two weeks later.

It is alleged that during her hospitalization, the decedent received negligent medical care in several respects, including failure to screen for infection properly, failure to recognize aspiration risks, improper management of a feeding tube, misuse of medications, failure to follow advance directives, and inadequate monitoring following transfer to a lower level of care. Continue Reading ›

Published on: | by

When multiple incidents contribute to a patient’s injuries, courts must carefully determine whether a prior settlement bars recovery in a subsequent medical malpractice action. The one satisfaction rule prevents double recovery, but its application requires a detailed analysis of the injuries involved and the scope of any prior release. A recent Maryland decision clarifies these principles and demonstrates the importance of distinguishing between separate causes of harm. If you are dealing with overlapping injury claims in Maryland, it is important to consult with a Baltimore medical malpractice attorney who can protect your right to full compensation.

History of the Case

Allegedly, the plaintiff sought emergency treatment for worsening back pain and neurological symptoms, where healthcare providers failed to diagnose a serious spinal condition requiring urgent intervention properly.

It is alleged that following this encounter, the plaintiff’s condition deteriorated significantly, leading to surgery and long-term complications, including loss of mobility and bodily function. The plaintiff subsequently filed a medical malpractice action against the providers involved. Continue Reading ›

Published on: | by

Medical malpractice litigation requires more than proof of negligent care. It demands strict adherence to procedural rules, particularly those governing discovery and expert testimony. Courts rely heavily on these rules to ensure fairness and efficiency, and failure to comply can result in dismissal regardless of the merits of the underlying claim. A recent Maryland decision illustrates how discovery violations, especially those involving expert witnesses, can be fatal to a plaintiff’s case. If you are pursuing a medical malpractice claim in Maryland, it is essential to consult with a Baltimore medical malpractice attorney who can ensure your case is properly developed and protected at every stage.

Facts and Procedural History

Allegedly, the plaintiff filed a medical malpractice action after her spouse received treatment during two hospital admissions, claiming that medical providers failed to prevent and properly treat pressure ulcers and related complications.

It is alleged that before initiating litigation, the plaintiff requested medical records and received a limited set, which she provided to a retained expert. Based on these materials, the expert concluded that the defendants deviated from the applicable standard of care in several respects, including failure to implement preventative measures. Continue Reading ›

Published on: | by

Claims arising from medical care provided in correctional facilities frequently straddle the line between medical malpractice and constitutional law. Courts must determine not only whether care was appropriate, but whether alleged deficiencies rise to the demanding level of deliberate indifference under the Eighth Amendment. A recent decision from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland examined these issues in the context of cataract surgery provided to an incarcerated individual who objected to the use of artificial lenses. If you believe you were harmed by inadequate medical treatment while incarcerated in Maryland, it is important to consult with a Baltimore medical malpractice attorney who can evaluate whether your claims are viable under state or federal law.

Facts and Procedural History

Allegedly, the plaintiff, who was incarcerated at a Maryland correctional institution, suffered from progressively worsening vision due to cataracts and sought medical treatment through prison health services. He was evaluated by outside specialists and informed that cataract surgery would involve the removal of the natural lens and the implantation of an artificial lens.

It is alleged that, after returning to the correctional facility, the plaintiff informed medical staff that he objected to having any artificial material implanted in his body and consented only to the removal of the cataracts. Despite these objections, cataract extraction surgeries were later performed on both eyes, and artificial intraocular lenses were implanted during the procedures. Continue Reading ›

Published on: | by

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. Continue Reading ›

Published on: | by

In medical malpractice litigation, defendants sometimes attempt to avoid liability by arguing that a patient’s own conduct contributed to the injury. Maryland law permits contributory negligence defenses in limited circumstances, but courts strictly confine when and how such arguments may be presented to a jury. A recent decision from a Maryland court examined whether a surgeon could rely on a patient’s delay in seeking treatment, before any physician-patient relationship existed, as a basis for contributory negligence. If you or a family member suffered harm following surgical treatment in Maryland, it is wise to speak with a Baltimore medical malpractice attorney about your potential claims.

History of the Case

Allegedly, the plaintiff experienced severe abdominal pain and presented to a hospital emergency room, where initial triage was performed, but no physician evaluation occurred before the plaintiff left after a lengthy wait. The pain subsided temporarily, and the plaintiff returned home without a diagnosis or treatment plan.

It is alleged that the plaintiff continued to experience worsening symptoms over the next several days and ultimately returned to the hospital, where diagnostic imaging revealed an inflamed gallbladder and possible gallstones. The defendant surgeon was consulted, recommended surgical intervention, and obtained consent to perform a laparoscopic gallbladder removal. Continue Reading ›

Published on: | by

 Medical malpractice litigation often turns on expert testimony, particularly when a defendant attempts to shift blame to a non-party physician. Courts carefully police these efforts because juries cannot be asked to evaluate complex medical standards without proper evidentiary support. In a recent decision, Maryland’s highest court addressed whether a defendant may argue that a non-party medical provider caused a patient’s injuries without presenting expert testimony to establish that provider’s negligence. If you or a loved one suffered harm due to questionable medical care in Maryland, it is advisable to speak with an experienced Baltimore medical malpractice attorney about how you can protect your rights.

Case Setting

Allegedly, the plaintiff was diagnosed with kidney cancer and an enlarged lymph node, and a surgeon removed the cancerous kidney but left the lymph node in place due to its proximity to a major blood vessel. After surgery, the plaintiff received oncology care and chemotherapy, which appeared to reduce the size of the lymph node, leading providers to believe the cancer was in remission.

It is alleged that, over several years, imaging studies were performed without contrast dye, and radiologists interpreting those studies repeatedly reported no abnormal lymph node enlargement while noting that the scans were suboptimal. During this period, the plaintiff’s treating oncologist relied on those reports and continued monitoring rather than pursuing further intervention. Continue Reading ›

Published on: | by

Medical malpractice litigation often turns not only on the merits of the claim but also on the ability of the parties to properly develop expert testimony addressing standard of care, causation, and damages. In surgical malpractice cases involving permanent airway or neurological injury, expert discovery is especially critical because the claims typically involve complex anatomy, operative decision-making, and long-term medical consequences. A recent Maryland court ruling shows how courts evaluate requests to modify discovery deadlines in a high-stakes medical negligence case and the importance of allowing sufficient time for expert preparation. If you were harmed by negligent surgical care in Maryland, you should consider consulting with a Baltimore medical malpractice attorney to understand your rights.

Case Setting

Allegedly, the plaintiff sought medical consultation with the defendant surgeon regarding thyroid nodules that were causing difficulty swallowing. Although the nodules were benign and relatively small, the defendant recommended a total thyroidectomy and did not advise the plaintiff of less invasive or nonsurgical treatment options.

It is alleged that the defendant surgeon performed a total thyroidectomy at a Maryland medical center approximately one month later. Following the procedure, the plaintiff experienced respiratory distress accompanied by stridor, indicating a possible upper airway obstruction. Several hours after surgery, the defendant ordered reintubation to address worsening respiratory symptoms, and the anesthesia team performed the procedure without complication. Continue Reading ›

Published on: | by

Medical malpractice litigation in Maryland often hinges on whether a plaintiff has satisfied the statutory prefiling requirements designed to screen claims before they proceed to court. One recurring dispute involves the Certificate of Qualified Expert and whether the expert’s specialty sufficiently aligns with the care at issue. A recent decision from a Maryland court demonstrates how courts must focus on the substance of the medical conduct alleged, rather than rigidly categorizing provider specialties, when evaluating these certificates. If you or a loved one suffered harm due to substandard medical treatment in Maryland, speaking with a knowledgeable Baltimore medical malpractice attorney can help you understand how this decision may affect your potential claim.

Facts and Procedural History

Allegedly, the plaintiff was admitted to the defendant hospital after presenting with altered consciousness and remained hospitalized for approximately two weeks under the care of multiple physicians and nurses employed by or acting as agents of the defendant. During this admission, the plaintiff, who was noted to have significant mobility limitations, did not receive timely preventative measures for pressure injuries, and a specialized bed was not ordered until several days into the hospitalization.

It is alleged that the plaintiff developed a sacral pressure ulcer during the hospital stay, which later required surgical debridement and resulted in prolonged pain, functional limitations, and additional medical treatment after discharge. Medical records contained conflicting documentation regarding whether the ulcer was present upon admission or developed during hospitalization, prompting the plaintiff to assert alternative theories of negligence under both scenarios. Continue Reading ›

Contact Information
2002 Clipper Park Rd #300
Baltimore, MD 21211
Phone: (410) 889-1850Fax: (410) 235-3297

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Please do not include any confidential or sensitive information in a contact form, text message, or voicemail. The contact form sends information by non-encrypted email, which is not secure. Submitting a contact form, sending a text message, making a phone call, or leaving a voicemail does not create an attorney-client relationship.

Copyright © 2026, Arfaa Law Group
JUSTIA Law Firm Blog Design