In Maryland, defendants in medical malpractice claims will often try to divert blame to avoid liability. For example, they may attempt to assert that the plaintiff assumed the risk of the harm they ultimately suffered. The assumption of the risk defense only applies in limited circumstances, however, as discussed in a recent Maryland ruling in which the court rejected the defendant’s argument that said defense is valid in medical negligence claims. If you believe you have been harmed by medical negligence, it is important to understand your options, and you should talk to a Baltimore medical malpractice attorney promptly.
History of the Case
It is reported that the plaintiff underwent an elective outpatient colonoscopy performed by the defendant, during which a perforation of the plaintiff’s colon allegedly occurred. The plaintiff filed a medical malpractice lawsuit against the defendant, contending that this injury resulted from the defendant’s failure to adhere to the accepted standard of care. Specifically, the plaintiff alleged that the defendant did not employ an appropriate and careful technique, leading to serious complications, including severe pain, multiple surgeries, and permanent symptoms of Short Bowel Syndrome.
Reportedly, the plaintiff filed a motion in limine before trial to exclude any evidence related to informed consent, arguing that such evidence was irrelevant and could confuse the jury. The trial court granted the motion, barring the introduction of evidence that the defendant informed the plaintiff of potential complications associated with the procedure. The trial court also faced objections regarding the testimony of the plaintiff’s expert witness and motions to strike a juror for alleged bias and misconduct. Ultimately, the jury found in favor of the plaintiff, awarding damages for both medical expenses and non-economic harm. The defendant appealed. Continue Reading ›