People harmed by recklessly performed procedures have a right to pursue claims against the providers responsible for their harm. Under Maryland law, though, they must institute any claims within the statute of limitations. In a recent case, a Maryland court discussed the statute of limitations in medical malpractice cases, ultimately ruling that the plaintiff failed to show the statute should be tolled in his case. If you suffered losses due to the ineptitude of your healthcare provider, you may be able to recover damages in a civil lawsuit, and you should speak to a Baltimore medical malpractice attorney.
Setting of the Case
It is reported that the plaintiff, acting pro se, claimed that his treating physician failed to meet the standard of care during a procedure and subsequent care in October 2015, which resulted in injury to his bile ducts. The plaintiff alleged that a corrective surgery performed on November 20, 2015, exposed the medical malpractice by the defendants, including the physician. Subsequently, the plaintiff sought compensatory and punitive damages from the defendants. In November 2023, however, the court dismissed the plaintiff’s claims as untimely.
It is alleged that the court held that the claims were time-barred under Maryland law because the plaintiff was aware of the alleged medical negligence no later than November 2015, yet initiated the action more than five years later. The court also ruled that Maryland law did not toll the statute of limitations because the plaintiff failed to provide specific factual allegations demonstrating how the defendants’ alleged fraud kept him ignorant of his cause of action and why there was a delay in discovering the alleged fraud despite his diligence. The plaintiff subsequently sought reconsideration of the court’s decision.
Grounds for Tolling the Statute of Limitations in Medical Malpractice Cases
On appeal, the plaintiff argued that the court’s ruling should be reversed, as the decision constituted a clear error of law and reconsideration was necessary to prevent manifest injustice. The court reviewed the case and reiterated that reconsideration of a judgment is an extraordinary remedy used sparingly.
In doing so, it highlighted three grounds for relief under Rule 59(e): an intervening change in controlling law, new evidence not available at trial, or to correct clear error of law or prevent manifest injustice. The court noted that clear error or manifest injustice occurs when there is a misunderstanding of a party’s argument or a decision outside the adversarial issues presented.
Here, the plaintiff argued that the court misunderstood his complaint and the cause of action, particularly what prevented him from becoming aware of his cause of action. However, he did not cite any new controlling law or evidence unavailable previously. Thus, the court found that the plaintiff failed to demonstrate that it committed a clear error of law or that relief was necessary to prevent manifest injustice. It emphasized that Rule 59(e) cannot be used to relitigate old matters. Since the plaintiff’s motion essentially sought to revisit issues already decided, the court denied the motion for reconsideration.
Consult an Assertive Maryland Medical Malpractice Lawyer
If you suffered harm because of your healthcare provider’s carelessness, you might be entitled to compensation, and it’s advisable to consult with an attorney to discuss potential claims. The assertive Baltimore medical malpractice attorneys at Arfaa Law Group can evaluate your injuries and assist you in seeking the highest possible compensation. To arrange a consultation, contact us via our online form or by calling (410) 889-1850.