Medical malpractice plaintiffs in Maryland must meet strict evidentiary and procedural requirements to prevail at trial. One of the most critical requirements is the presentation of expert testimony to establish the standard of care, a breach of that standard, and causation. If the expert does not testify at trial and…
In Maryland, plaintiffs pursuing claims of medical malpractice must do more than allege poor outcomes; they must articulate a clear breach of the applicable standard of care and comply with statutory procedural requirements. Without these foundational elements, courts will dismiss the claim at the pleading stage, regardless of the severity…
When people seek emergency medical care following traumatic events, they rightfully expect competent, compassionate, and timely treatment. When care falls short of these expectations, the consequences can be severe, and it may constitute grounds for pursuing medical malpractice claims. It can be challenging to demonstrate liability in claims against healthcare…
Courts are generally reluctant to allow appeals of partial judgments while a case is still pending unless there is a compelling justification for doing so. A recent opinion issued in a Maryland medical malpractice case demonstrates the high bar litigants must meet to demonstrate that they should be permitted to…
Medical professionals have a duty to act promptly when diagnostic imaging reveals potentially life-threatening conditions. In cases involving delay in diagnosis, the success of a medical malpractice claim often hinges on expert testimony linking that delay to a patient’s injury or death. A recent decision from a Maryland court illustrates…
People who receive treatment at government-operated medical facilities are entitled to care that meets the same professional standards required of private providers. When doctors disregard known health risks or fail to consult a patient’s history before administering medications, the consequences can be severe. A recent opinion explores these issues in…
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…
When does a patient truly know they’ve been harmed, and who’s responsible for it? That question, often blurred by time, symptoms, and shifting medical advice, is at the heart of many medical malpractice cases. In a recent medical malpractice decision, the court confronted the delicate intersection of legal deadlines and…
In high-stakes medical malpractice litigation, the rules of evidence are more than procedural technicalities; they can be the difference between a fair trial and a mistrial. A recent decision from a Maryland court emphasizes the strict limitations on presenting evidence of liability insurance to a jury. When plaintiff’s counsel improperly…
In medical malpractice litigation, timing is everything, and so is consistency. In a recent Maryland medical malpractice case, the court rejected two early attempts to dismiss a patient’s medical negligence claims: a statute of limitations defense and a judicial estoppel argument. The ruling emphasizes that when factual disputes exist about when…