Published by Arfaa Law Group
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.
Assumption of the Risk in Medical Malpractice Cases
On appeal, the defendant raised three primary issues. First, the defendant challenged the trial court’s decision to exclude evidence of informed consent. The defendant argued that this evidence was critical to support a defense of assumption of risk, asserting that the plaintiff had been made aware of potential complications, including bowel perforation, and voluntarily accepted those risks.
The court reviewed Maryland law, which generally disallows the use of assumption of risk as a defense in medical malpractice cases absent exceptional circumstances. The court noted that such a defense requires the plaintiff’s voluntary acceptance of a specific known risk. However, in the context of medical negligence, the superior knowledge and expertise of healthcare providers diminish the plaintiff’s ability to fully understand and accept risks, thus negating the essential elements of this defense.
In its ruling, the court affirmed that evidence of informed consent was irrelevant to the negligence claim, emphasizing that consent to a procedure does not absolve a physician of the duty to perform the procedure with appropriate care. Allowing such evidence, the court reasoned, could mislead the jury and unfairly shift focus from the defendant’s conduct to the plaintiff’s decision to undergo the procedure.
Second, the defendant challenged the inclusion of certain expert testimony as rebuttal evidence, claiming that it introduced previously undisclosed opinions. The appellate court found no abuse of discretion, holding that the testimony addressed issues raised by the defendant’s theory of the case and was properly admitted to rebut those claims.
Finally, the defendant’s allegations of juror misconduct were evaluated. The court upheld the trial court’s decision not to strike the juror, finding no evidence of bias or prejudicial impact on the trial’s outcome. The trial judge’s observations regarding the juror’s attentiveness and impartiality were given significant deference.
Contact a Trusted Baltimore Medical Malpractice Attorney
If you or a loved one has suffered harm due to medical negligence, it is important to understand your options, and you should confer with an attorney. At Arfaa Law Group, our dedicated Baltimore medical malpractice attorneys are committed to advocating for victims of medical negligence, and if we represent you, we will fight to help you seek the compensation you deserve. To discuss your case, call us at (410) 889-1850 or complete our online form to schedule a consultation.