Maryland Medical Malpractice Law

Maryland Court Rejects Malpractice Award Based on Patient’s Suicide

Published on: August 7, 2018 | by Arfaa Law Group

If you believe that you have been a victim of a medical professional’s mistake, you need a seasoned Baltimore medical malpractice attorney who will fight to get you the best possible result. Determining whether you have a viable medical malpractice claim is not easy, but having a skilled attorney on your side can make a huge difference in your case.Last month, Maryland’s highest court tossed a $2.3 million jury verdict in a lawsuit accusing a psychiatrist and a hospital of improperly discharging a mental health patient who committed suicide on the following day, reasoning that a doctor who discharges an involuntarily admitted patient in good faith is immune from civil liability.

The Maryland Mental Health Law provides criteria for the involuntary admission of an individual to a mental health facility and a process for evaluating whether the individual meets those criteria. Hospitals, as well as their employees, have civil and criminal immunity when they follow the process in good faith. The process starts with the initiation application for involuntary admission and concludes upon a hearing officer’s decision whether to admit or release that person. If the doctor followed statutory criteria and made the decision to release an individual in good faith, that decision cannot form the basis of a jury verdict for medical malpractice.

Maryland’s Top Court to Decide Whether Physicians Should be Held to “Reasonable Person” Standard

Published on: June 28, 2018 | by Arfaa Law Group

When you seek medical attention of any kind, you expect to receive competent care. If you or someone close to you has been injured due to a medical professional’s negligence, you may be able to recover compensation through a medical malpractice claim. At Arfaa Law Group, our skilled Baltimore medical malpractice attorneys understand this area of law and can help you explore your legal rights and options.

Medical malpractice laws are always changing, and it is imperative for your attorney to be aware of legal developments that may affect your case. Consider the following. A pending decision by Maryland’s highest court could change the standard that jurors will be instructed to use in assessing these cases.

For over a century, negligence in Maryland medical malpractice cases has been guided by the “reasonably competent” physician standard of care – a standard of which juries and judges are informed through expert testimony. However, in the case of Armacost v. Davis, a Baltimore County Court judge permitted jurors to also consider what a layperson would deem reasonable under the circumstances.

How Effective is the 20 Percent Rule in Maryland Malpractice Cases?

Published on: April 11, 2018 | by Arfaa Law Group

If you or a member of your family has been harmed by a medical professional’s negligence, you need to reach out to a seasoned Baltimore medical malpractice attorney who can help. At Arfaa Law Group, not only do we understand how to navigate complex medical malpractice cases, but also we understand the procedural rules that must be followed in these cases. With years of experience, we can help your family and you pursue the compensation you need to move on with your life after a medical injury.

Medical malpractice litigation generally requires using expert witnesses. These witnesses are necessary to help the jury understand medical issues that may be at issue in a malpractice trial. In Maryland, expert testimony may be admitted if the court decides that the testimony will help the trier of fact (either the judge or the jury) understand the evidence or determine a fact at issue in the case.

Under Maryland law, an expert in a malpractice claim opining on the “standard of care” cannot devote in excess of 20 percent of their professional activities to courtroom testimony. Put simply, you cannot call as a witness on the standard of care anyone who spends more than one day a week out of five working as an expert witness. The idea behind this rule is to discourage the use of “professional experts” or so-called “hired gun” doctors who simply travel to testify as opposed to seeing patients. While the principle makes sense, the 20% requirement may seem arbitrary to some.

Deceased Patient’s Family Wins Maryland Medical Malpractice Case

Published on: November 7, 2017 | by Arfaa Law Group

Cancer is the dreaded ‘c’ word that no patient wants to hear. If caught early enough, patients can often beat cancer and resume their normal lives. If it is not diagnosed in a timely manner, however, the consequences can be devastating. If you or someone close to you was harmed due to a physician’s failure to diagnose cancer, it is imperative to reach out to a skilled Baltimore misdiagnosis attorney who can assess the merits of your case.

A Baltimore jury recently awarded a hefty damages sum to the family of a man who died of colon cancer after his primary care physician failed to follow up on an unexplained case of anemia, which the family claims could have led to an earlier cancer diagnosis. The 55-year-old patient died from colon cancer 15 months after it was finally diagnosed.

The case at hand would be considered a ‘failure to diagnose’ case. A failure to diagnose is when a doctor misses the connection between a patient’s symptoms and their medical condition. The result is that no diagnosis is made, and the patient takes no course of treatment. A physician’s failure to diagnose can lead to further injuries and even death to a patient. According to a report released by the Institute of Medicine, most Americans will get a late or wrong diagnosis at least once in their lives.

Maryland Court Allows Evidence of Non-Party in Negligence Case

Published on: October 12, 2017 | by Arfaa Law Group

If you or someone close to you has been hurt because of a medical professional’s carelessness, error, or wrongdoing, our diligent Baltimore health care malpractice attorneys can help. At Arfaa Law Group, we understand the nuances of this area of the law and can put our knowledge to use in your case. We are here to answer your questions and address your concerns at every step of the way.

Medical malpractice cases in Maryland and across the United States are about establishing fault on the part of a medical professional. In litigation, there are many tactics that the plaintiff and defense can use to build their case. The Court of Appeals of Maryland, Maryland’s highest court, recently had to decide if evidence regarding the negligence of several non-parties should have been admitted at trial. The court ultimately held that the negligence of the non-parties was properly admitted because it was essential to give the defendant physician a fair trial. Put another way, the defendant, who was generally denying malpractice in a claim, could present evidence of a non-party’s negligence and causation as an affirmative defense.

In the case at hand, a man died as a result of a fatal stroke that he suffered in 2010. The man’s estate and widow filed a medical malpractice claim against the defendant radiologist and three subsequent treating physicians, claiming that their negligence led to the man suffering the stroke. However, before the trial, each of the other named defendants settled the case outside court. Thus, the case was only against one remaining defendant.

Summary Judgment in a Maryland Medical Malpractice Case

Published on: September 25, 2017 | by Arfaa Law Group

If you or someone close to you has been harmed by a physician’s negligence in a hospital setting, we can help. At Arfaa Law Group, our Baltimore hospital negligence attorneys understand how to navigate these types of claims and can put our knowledge to use in your case. You can rest assured that we will scrutinize the facts of your case and come up with a strategy to effectively respond to any motions for summary judgment that you may face in the process.

Under Maryland law, a party is entitled to summary judgment only when there is “no genuine issue as to any material fact, and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Put another way, the proponent of summary judgment must make a prima facie showing of their entitlement to summary judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating the absence of any material issues of fact in the case. Essentially, summary judgment is appropriate when the moving party establishes that the opposing party cannot win, even if all credibility conflicts are resolved in the opposing party’s favor. For instance, if a jurisdiction requires the plaintiff in a medical malpractice claim to produce an expert witness to establish the case, summary judgment may be proper if a plaintiff cannot produce a qualified expert.

This is actually what happened in the case of Hannon, et al. v. Mercy Medical Center, in which the Court of Special Appeals of Maryland affirmed the trial court granting summary judgment to the defendants in a Maryland medical malpractice case, prior to the scheduled trial, holding that the plaintiff failed to secure a medical expert to testify on their behalf during trial. This was sufficient reason for the trial court to grant the defendant’s motion for summary judgment.

Reasonable Physician Test Applies in Maryland Medical Malpractice Cases

Published on: September 12, 2017 | by Arfaa Law Group

If you have been injured due to a surgeon’s negligence, it is important to reach out to a seasoned Baltimore surgical malpractice attorney who can evaluate the facts of your case. At Arfaa Law Group, we understand how important is it to keep ourselves informed about medical malpractice law so that we can come up with an effective legal strategy in your case. With years of experience, you can rest assured that we know how to navigate these types of cases.

In a recent decision, the Court of Special Appeals of Maryland, Maryland’s intermediate appellate court, held that the trial court erred by giving jury instructions on negligence that led jurors to assess the physician’s conduct in a medical malpractice case from a reasonable person standpoint. Jurors in medical malpractice cases must assess not how a reasonable person would have treated the patient but instead what a reasonable medical professional in the same specialty should have done under the same or similar circumstances.

After years of neck and shoulder pain, the plaintiff in this case sought help from the defendant neurosurgeon. At that time, they discussed both surgical and nonsurgical treatments. The plaintiff agreed to the surgeon’s recommendation of a four-level anterior cervical discectomy and fusion surgery. The plaintiff’s recovery went well, but there were subsequent complications. The plaintiff ultimately filed a claim against the surgeon for malpractice and failure to obtain informed consent.