Maryland healthcare providers are expected to provide patients with competent care, which includes informing them of the risks associated with prescribed treatments. While state courts typically oversee medical malpractice cases, federal courts may exercise jurisdiction over these state law claims in certain situations, such as when they are filed along with federal question claims. If claims granting a court subject matter jurisdiction are dismissed, though, it may subsequently result in the dismissal of state law medical malpractice claims as well, as shown in a recent Maryland case. If you were injured due to inadequate medical care or lack of informed consent, speaking with a Maryland medical malpractice attorney can help clarify your legal options.
Factual and Procedural Background
It is alleged that the plaintiff, an inmate in a Maryland state correctional facility, filed a federal lawsuit asserting medical malpractice and lack of informed consent against healthcare providers at Jessup Correctional Institution. The plaintiff reportedly claimed that his medical team failed to inform him of the seizure risks associated with Tramadol, a medication prescribed to manage his chronic pain due to Charcot-Marie-Tooth disease (CMT).
It is reported that Tramadol, which was initially discontinued due to seizure risk, was reinstated by the institution’s Pain Committee following a review that determined its pain management benefits outweighed the risks. Despite this, the plaintiff allegedly suffered a seizure that required hospitalization and led to a diagnosis necessitating lifelong anti-seizure medication. The plaintiff filed his case in federal court, alleging that the lack of informed consent for Tramadol constituted negligence under Maryland state law. The defendants moved to dismiss the state law claims, arguing that the federal court lacked jurisdiction or that the claims were insufficient under Maryland’s legal standards.
Federal Court Jurisdiction Over State Medical Malpractice Claims
The federal court first addressed the issue of jurisdiction, determining whether it had the authority to adjudicate the plaintiff’s Maryland medical malpractice claims. Under federal law, courts may exercise jurisdiction over state claims if the parties involved are from different states (diversity jurisdiction) or if the state claims are part of a case involving federal questions that create a “common nucleus of operative fact.”
Here, because the court found that the plaintiff did not set forth any viable federal claims, it declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims for medical malpractice and lack of informed consent. As such, the court dismissed the plaintiff’s state law claims without prejudice, while noting that the plaintiff was free to pursue such claims at the state level.
Consult with a Skilled Baltimore Medical Malpractice Lawyer
If you believe you suffered harm due to inadequate medical care or lack of informed consent, it is essential to understand your legal rights, particularly if your case may involve both federal and state claims. The experienced Baltimore medical malpractice attorneys at Arfaa Law Group can guide you through the complexities of your case and help you pursue fair compensation. To schedule a consultation, contact us at (410) 889-1850 or reach out through our online form.