Articles Posted in Medical Malpractice

While most of the harm doctors cause their patients is unintentional, in some instances, the failings of a physician will be so egregious that they will be deemed deliberate. Generally, claims that a doctor was deliberately indifferent to a patient’s medical needs only arise in the context of treatment rendered to an incarcerated individual. There are key differences between deliberate indifference and medical malpractice claims, as discussed in a recent Maryland case, and it is critical that anyone harmed by inadequate medical care in prison understand the distinctions before pursuing claims against the parties responsible for their harm. If you were hurt because of the negligent or intentional acts of a doctor, it is wise to talk to a Maryland medical malpractice attorney about what claims you might be able to pursue.

Facts of the Case

It is reported that the plaintiff, acting as the personal representative of the estate of a deceased inmate, filed a complaint against the defendants, alleging that they were deliberately indifferent to the inmate’s serious medical needs while in custody at a Maryland detention center, resulting in his death. The defendant moved to dismiss the plaintiff’s case, alleging she failed to state a claim for which relief could be granted. The trial court determined that although the complaint included sufficient claims of medical negligence against the defendants, it did not provide grounds for a constitutional violation against them. As a result, the district court dismissed the plaintiff’s complaint. The plaintiff appealed.

Deliberate Indifference Versus Medical Malpractice Claims

On appeal, the court reversed the trial court ruling. In its opinion, the court explained that to establish deliberate indifference, the plaintiff must show both an objective and subjective element. In other words, they must demonstrate that the decedent was exposed to a substantial risk of harm, which is the objective test, and that the prison officials knew about and disregarded this risk, which is the subject test. Continue Reading ›

Generally, a party injured by incompetent medical care has the right to pursue medical malpractice claims in the jurisdiction of their choosing. They cannot, however, dictate what state’s laws apply. Instead, as demonstrated in a recent opinion, when more than one state has an interest in the resolution of the matter, the courts will conduct a choice of law analysis. If you were injured due to negligent medical treatment, it is in your best interest to speak to a Maryland medical malpractice lawyer about your potential claims.

Case Background

It is reported that the plaintiff had long-term disability benefits, which were terminated in January 2020. He appealed the decision, and a “peer review” by the defendant doctor was conducted. After submitting a rebuttal to the report by defendant doctor, the plaintiff’s appeal was denied. However, after undergoing an Independent Medical Examination, the termination of his benefits was reversed.

It is alleged that the plaintiff brought a lawsuit following the termination of his disability benefits. The complaint alleged one count of medical malpractice against the defendant doctor. The doctor subsequently filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings to dismiss the count against him. The magistrate recommended that the court grant the defendant doctor’s motion and the court adopted his recommendation. The plaintiff appealed. Continue Reading ›

People that suffer adverse consequences due to inadequate medical care will often seek compensation via medical malpractice claims. In order for their claims to proceed, they must file them within the applicable statute of limitations. There are circumstances that allow for the tolling of the statute of limitations, however. For example, as demonstrated in a recent medical malpractice case, the discovery rule applied to toll the statute of limitations when the plaintiff’s doctor misled her regarding her symptoms. If you were hurt by an improperly performed procedure, it is advisable to confer with a Maryland medical malpractice lawyer promptly.

The Plaintiff’s Claims

It is reported that in 2008, the plaintiff sought treatment from the defendant due to headaches. The defendant recommended a surgical procedure, advising that it would relieve the pain but cause numbness behind each ear. The plaintiff underwent the procedure but was left with severe, disabling pain.

It is alleged, however, that the doctor assured the person that her condition was not unusual and that some people require a second surgery. The plaintiff decided against a further procedure. She was unaware of any wrongdoing until she searched online for articles about the doctor and discovered that other people had filed lawsuits for medical malpractice for similar surgery. She subsequently filed a lawsuit against the defendant in 2016, asserting medical malpractice, lack of informed consent, and negligence claims. The defendant moved to dismiss the plaintiff’s claims on the grounds that they were prohibited by the statute of limitations. Continue Reading ›

In Maryland, people injured by the negligence of healthcare providers have the right to pursue medical malpractice claims. They must do so within the time proscribed by the statute of limitations, however, otherwise, their claim may be dismissed. As discussed in a recent Maryland ruling, the statutory period generally begins to run when the plaintiff knows or has reason to know of their claim. If you were injured by improperly rendered medical care, it is smart to speak to a Maryland medical malpractice lawyer promptly to avoid waiving your right to recover damages.

The Facts of the Case

It is reported that the defendant performed hip replacement surgery on the plaintiff in April 2010. The plaintiff experienced pain and complications immediately after the procedure. She continued to treat with a different orthopedic surgeon, who, in December 2010, opined, recommended revision surgery. In January 2014, the plaintiff filed a medical malpractice lawsuit against the defendant, alleging he negligently performed the hip replacement surgery.

Allegedly, the defendant moved for summary judgment asserting that, as a matter of law, the plaintiff had inquiry notice of her claims against him in December 2010, and therefore, her claims were barred by the statute of limitations. The court found in favor of the defendant and granted his motion. The plaintiff appealed. Continue Reading ›

Expert testimony is essential in Maryland medical malpractice cases as it helps the jury to understand complex medical issues and determine whether the defendant breached the standard of care, causing harm to the plaintiff. Thus, if a plaintiff is precluded from offering expert testimony, it may be devastating to their claims. Not all medical professionals are qualified to testify as an expert, however. Rather, as demonstrated in a recent Maryland case, only providers that practice in the same specialty as the defendant or a related specialty will be permitted to testify on issues such as the standard of care and the defendant’s failure to uphold the standard. If you were hurt by the carelessness of a physician, you might be owed compensation, and it is smart to speak to a Maryland medical malpractice lawyer as soon as possible.

The Facts of the Case

It is reported that the plaintiff visited the defendant to obtain a chemical peel on the skin of her face. She subsequently suffered intense pain, chemical burns, and scarring. As such, she filed a lawsuit against the defendant, asserting claims of medical malpractice, failure to obtain informed consent, and other claims. The case proceeded to trial before a jury; during the trial, the court ruled that the plaintiff’s medical expert could not express an opinion about the standard of care for the chemical peel application because he was not board certified in a related specialty, as required by the Maryland Health Care Malpractice Claims Act. The plaintiff filed a motion for a new trial, which was denied by the court. The plaintiff and defendant both appealed.

Expert Testimony in Maryland Medical Malpractice Cases

On appeal, the court addressed the issue of whether the trial court erred in precluding the plaintiff’s medical expert from testifying. The court ultimately ruled that the trial court’s reasoning was sound and therefore affirmed the ruling. Maryland law provides that a healthcare provider may not be held liable for medical negligence unless it is established that the care given is not in accordance with the standards of practice among members of the same profession with similar training and experience in the same or similar communities at the time of the alleged act giving rise to the cause of action. Continue Reading ›

There are arguably benefits to pursuing claims in federal court; the process is more streamlined, cases generally move quicker, and parties must exchange disclosures, so they understand the issues early on. Only certain cases can proceed in federal court, though, and generally, those cases do not include medical malpractice claims. This was illuminated recently when a federal court dismissed a plaintiff’s medical malpractice claims, not due to lack of merit but because it lacked jurisdiction over his claims. If you were harmed by a careless physician, you have the right to seek redress, and you should meet with a Maryland medical malpractice lawyer to discuss the best manner to proceed.

Factual and Procedural Background of the Case

It is alleged that the plaintiff filed a lawsuit in federal court against the defendant, arguing that the doctors it employed failed to provide him with proper medical care or prescribe him with antibiotics, despite the fact that he was suffering from an infection. He also asserted that he was unjustly asked to leave the premises. In addition to filing his pro secomplaint, he filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis. The court ultimately decided to grant his in forma pauperis application but dismissed his claims without prejudice.

Medical Malpractice Claims Pursued in Federal Courts

The federal courts have limited subject matter jurisdiction, as set forth in the federal rules. In other words, pursuant to the applicable statutes, federal jurisdiction can only be exercised over matters that present federal questions or where the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000 and the parties are of diverse citizenship. In other words, no defendant and plaintiff can reside in the same jurisdiction. Continue Reading ›