Published by Arfaa Law Group
While medical malpractice cases often stand alone, it is not uncommon for a plaintiff to pursue medical negligence and product liability claims in the same action. As discussed in a recent Maryland ruling in which the plaintiff sought damages following a hip replacement, such actions are generally permissible as long as the plaintiff complies with procedural and jurisdictional rules. If you suffered harm due to an improperly performed procedure, it is advisable to talk to a Baltimore medical malpractice attorney about your possible claims.
Factual and Procedural Setting
It is reported that the plaintiff underwent a total hip replacement procedure at a Maryland hospital. During the procedure, a medical device manufactured by one of the defendants was implanted. Approximately two and a half years later, the device reportedly failed, necessitating a revision surgery. Allegedly, the replacement device also failed within days, leading to additional complications and injuries, including permanent disability.
Reportedly, the plaintiff initially filed a medical negligence lawsuit in state court against non-diverse defendants, including his healthcare providers. As the case proceeded, the plaintiff added claims against diverse parties, including the manufacturers and distributors of the medical device, alleging product defects. The case involved causes of action for medical negligence, informed consent, strict liability, breach of warranty, and violations of consumer protection laws.
It is alleged that the diverse defendants removed the case to federal court, citing diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. They argued that the claims against the non-diverse healthcare defendants were fraudulently misjoined with the product liability claims. The plaintiff moved to remand the case to state court, contending that the claims shared a common nexus of facts and legal questions, making federal jurisdiction improper.
Joinder of Claims in Medical Malpractice Cases
The District Court undertook a detailed analysis to resolve the motion to remand. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a), the court emphasized that removal jurisdiction is narrowly construed, with any doubts resolved in favor of remand. The court examined the doctrines of fraudulent joinder and fraudulent misjoinder to determine whether the claims could be severed for jurisdictional purposes.
Fraudulent joinder occurs when a defendant asserts that a non-diverse party is joined solely to defeat diversity jurisdiction and that no viable claim exists against that party. In this case, the defendants relied on fraudulent misjoinder, a related but distinct concept. Fraudulent misjoinder argues that unrelated claims against non-diverse and diverse defendants are improperly joined, warranting severance of claims to preserve federal jurisdiction.
The court noted that fraudulent misjoinder is a controversial and less widely accepted doctrine. However, even applying this standard, the court found that the plaintiff’s claims against the healthcare providers and the product manufacturers arose from the same underlying incident: the failed hip replacement and its consequences. Both sets of claims shared factual and legal questions, including causation and the adequacy of warnings about the device. The court concluded that severing these claims would undermine judicial efficiency and fairness.
Speak to a Skilled Baltimore Medical Negligence and Product Liability Lawyer
If you suffered harm due to negligent healthcare, it is in your best interest to speak to an attorney about what claims you may be able to pursue. At Arfaa Law Group, our skilled Baltimore medical malpractice attorneys are proficient at handling complex claims involving multiple parties, and if we represent you, we will fight to help you seek a just outcome. Call us at (410) 889-1850 or fill out our online form to schedule a consultation.