Baltimore Medical Malpractice Lawyer Blog

Court Discusses Admissibility of Expert Testimony in Maryland Medical Malpractice Cases

Published on: September 14, 2020 | by Arfaa Law Group

In any Maryland medical malpractice case, it is critical for the plaintiff to retain a knowledgeable expert to explain the standard of care that the defendant was expected to uphold and the manner in which the defendant breached the standard. If a party fails to obtain competent expert testimony, it can gravely impact their case. The standards for admitting expert testimony were recently discussed in a Maryland orthopedic malpractice case in which the court denied the defendant’s motion seeking to exclude the plaintiff’s expert from testifying. The jury issued a verdict in favor of the plaintiff. If you suffered harm due to the acts of a careless doctor, it is prudent to speak to a trusted Maryland medical malpractice attorney to determine what claims you might be able to pursue.

History of the Case

It is reported that the plaintiff underwent a right hip total arthroplasty, which was performed by the defendant. The procedure involved the installation of a prosthetic femoral head. The defendant believed he installed the prosthetic correctly, but did not conduct any ex-rays during or after the surgery. The plaintiff subsequently developed swelling and bleeding at the surgical site. X-ray studies then revealed that the stem of the prosthetic perforated the plaintiff’s bone and entered the muscles of his thigh.

Allegedly, the plaintiff then underwent a second procedure to correctly place the prosthetic femoral head. He ultimately filed a medical malpractice claim against the defendant. The plaintiff retained an expert, but prior to trial, the defendant filed a motion to preclude the plaintiff’s expert due to the fact that his opinion lacked a sufficient factual basis. The court denied the motion, and following a trial, the jury issued a verdict in favor of the plaintiff. The defendant then appealed. Continue Reading ›

Maryland Court Dismisses Medical Malpractice Claim as Untimely

Published on: September 4, 2020 | by Arfaa Law Group

It is broadly understood that a party harmed by medical negligence must pursue claims against the health care provider that caused the alleged harm within the applicable statute of limitations. While normally the statute begins to run when the injury occurs, sometimes it will not accrue until the injury is discovered. As discussed in a recent Maryland case, though, in many instances, there can be a dispute over when a party knew or should have known that a doctor’s incompetence caused a patient’s harm. If you were hurt by negligent medical care, it is smart to confer with a skilled Maryland medical malpractice attorney to assess whether you may be able to pursue a claim for damages.

Factual History

It is alleged that in May 2000, the plaintiff underwent a surgery that was performed by the defendant, during which the defendant placed a surgical clip on the plaintiff’s right ureter. In 2014 she began to experience abdominal pain and was admitted to the hospital. She was diagnosed with hydronephrosis in 2006. Then, in 2017, the plaintiff filed a medical malpractice lawsuit asserting claims against the defendant, alleging that he negligently placed the clip, which caused her to develop hydronephrosis and other health issues. The defendant moved for summary judgment, arguing that the plaintiff’s claims were barred by the statute of limitations. The trial court granted the motion, and the plaintiff appealed.

Maryland Deadlines for Filing Medical Malpractice Claims

On appeal, the plaintiff argued that her claims were not untimely because although the clip was placed in 2000, her injury did not occur until 2014. The appellate court explained that the statute of limitations is meant to encourage prompt resolution of claims and avoid extended delays and the loss of evidence. Thus, actions arising from the negligence of health care providers must be pursued within three years of the date when the injury was discovered or within five years of when the injury was committed. Continue Reading ›

Maryland Court Rules Expert Testimony is Needed to Prove Medical Negligence of a Non-Party Doctor

Published on: August 27, 2020 | by Arfaa Law Group

In Maryland, a party alleging a doctor committed medical malpractice generally must produce proof of the allegedly tortious acts by way of an expert report. In some instances, though, when the act committed by a doctor is so obviously egregious, expert testimony is not required. Recently, a Maryland court addressed the unique issue of whether an expert opinion is needed to establish medical malpractice of a physician that is not named as a party when the defendant doctor alleges that the non-party physician is liable for the plaintiff’s harm. If you were hurt by the negligent acts of your care provider, it is important to understand what evidence you must produce to prove liability. Therefore, you should consult a knowledgeable Maryland medical malpractice attorney to discuss your case as soon as possible.

Factual History

Allegedly, the plaintiff was diagnosed with renal cancer in 2011. While a cancerous tumor was removed from his kidney by the defendant urologist, a nearby lymph node that also was cancerous was not removed. The plaintiff then was treated by the defendant oncologist from 2011 through 2015, who also did not remove the cancerous node but provided chemotherapy, which shrunk the node. The plaintiff’s CT scans were regularly reviewed by the two defendant radiologists throughout the course of his treatment. The defendant radiologists did not report any lymphadenopathy but noted the scans lacked contrast, which made them difficult to evaluate.

It is reported that the plaintiff was ultimately advised that the node was cancerous and could not be removed. He filed a medical malpractice lawsuit against the defendants, but prior to trial dismissed the claims as to the defendant urologist and oncologist. At trial, the defendant radiologists argued that the defendant urologist and oncologist were ultimately to blame for the plaintiff’s harm, but did not provide any expert testimony supporting their assertions. The jury ultimately determined that the dismissed defendants were liable, after which the plaintiff moved for a new trial. His motion was denied, and he appealed. The court of appeals reversed the trial court ruling, after which the defendants appealed. Continue Reading ›

The Statute of Limitations Under the Federal Tort Claim Act Explained

Published on: August 20, 2020 | by Arfaa Law Group

Generally, when people are harmed by incompetent medical care, the cause of their damages is readily apparent. In some instances, though, it may take months or years for the source of a person’s injury to be revealed. As such, the law often allows some leeway in when a plaintiff’s statute of limitations for pursuing a medical malpractice claim begins to run. Recently, a United States District Court discussed the statute of limitations for malpractice claims against a government-owned medical facility. In this instance, the plaintiff alleged it took him years to uncover that a doctor caused his damages. If you were harmed by the careless acts of an incompetent physician, it is prudent to speak to a seasoned Maryland medical malpractice attorney as soon as possible to avoid waiving the right to recover damages.

Facts Regarding the Plaintiff’s Treatment

Reportedly, the plaintiff underwent an electric nerve test on his left ankle in January 2014. The test was performed at a medical center run by the Veterans Administration. He stated that the electrical stimulation that was administered during the test was excessive and caused him to be thrown to the floor. Following the test, the plaintiff suffered a swollen ankle, amnesia, anxiety, and fatigue. He continued to suffer ankle and foot pain but did not determine that the improperly administered test was the cause of his injuries until more than three years later.

It is alleged that the plaintiff then filed an administrative notice of his claim with the Veterans Administration. At that point, it was more than a year after the two-year statute of limitations under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) had expired. The defendant ultimately filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings, arguing that the plaintiff’s claims were untimely. Continue Reading ›

Maryland Court Discusses Procedural Requirements for Pursuing Malpractice Claims

Published on: August 14, 2020 | by Arfaa Law Group

Under Maryland law, a plaintiff alleging harm due to medical malpractice must comply with the procedural requirements for recovering damages from the purportedly negligent provider, regardless of whether the plaintiff is also asserting claims under other legal theories. The repercussions of failing to abide by the procedural duties set forth under the law were recently demonstrated in an ophthalmology malpractice case in which the defendant’s claims were dismissed. If you sustained injuries or impaired vision due to the negligent acts of an eye doctor, you should confer with a dedicated Maryland medical malpractice attorney to assess what measures you must take to pursue damages for your harm.

Factual History

It is reported that the plaintiff was incarcerated at a correctional facility in Maryland when he was attacked by several inmates. During the assault, he was struck in the left eye, which became swollen and filled with blood. He was transported to a nearby hospital, after which he was transferred to a second hospital that had a shock trauma facility, due to the condition of his left eye. He was originally diagnosed with traumatic optic neuropathy and prescribed eye drops that dilated his pupils. Months later, he requested and received a follow-up, during which it was suggested that he visit an ophthalmologist as soon as possible.

Allegedly, the defendant ophthalmologist then examined the plaintiff and advised him he had glaucoma in both eyes as well as trauma. He underwent numerous additional examinations with the defendant over the next year. Eventually, he was examined by another practitioner who determined he was suffering from keratoconus, which led to his partial vision loss, and that he had been misdiagnosed by the defendant. The plaintiff subsequently filed a lawsuit against the defendant and her employers, setting forth numerous claims including medical malpractice. The defendants filed a motion for summary judgment, which the court granted in part, dismissing the malpractice claims. Continue Reading ›

Maryland Court Discusses Grounds for Lack of Informed Consent Claims

Published on: August 6, 2020 | by Arfaa Law Group

Physicians have a duty to provide patients with competent medical care, which includes advising a patient of his or her individual health risks as well as the risks and benefits of any potential tests or treatment. As shown in a recent Maryland case, if a doctor fails to properly inform a patient of available diagnostic tests and treatment options, and the patient’s health is adversely impacted as a result, it may be grounds for a lack of informed consent claim. If you were harmed by your doctor’s failure to advise you of your testing and treatment options, you should speak to an experienced Maryland medical malpractice attorney to discuss what claims you may be able to pursue.

Facts of the Case

It is reported that the plaintiff presented to the defendant urologist in 2014 with complaints of urine in his blood. The defendant did not conduct any diagnostic tests to assess the plaintiff’s symptoms. Approximately a year later, the plaintiff was diagnosed with bladder cancer and kidney cancer. He then filed a medical malpractice lawsuit against the defendant setting forth claims of medical negligence and lack of informed consent, due to the defendant’s failure to advise the plaintiff of available tests or recommend that he undergo diagnostic testing.

Allegedly, prior to trial, the defendant filed numerous motions in limine asking the court to preclude the plaintiff from introducing evidence at trial, including a motion arguing that the plaintiff should not be able to present his lack of informed consent claim, arguing that the failure to recommend tests is not grounds for an informed consent claim. Continue Reading ›

Maryland Court Dismisses Medical Malpractice Claim Due to Inadequate Allegations of Negligence

Published on: July 28, 2020 | by Arfaa Law Group

There are many actions that can cause significant harm to hospital patients that do not clearly constitute medical malpractice. Thus, in any medical malpractice case, it is critical for the plaintiff to allege facts that demonstrate that the defendant breached the standard of care that applies to parties in the defendant’s profession; otherwise, the plaintiff’s claims may be dismissed. This was shown in a recent Maryland case, in which the court dismissed a plaintiff’s claims due to the plaintiff’s failure to set forth any facts that demonstrated that the defendant engaged in malpractice. If you sustained damages due to negligent treatment by a healthcare provider, it is critical to retain a skilled Maryland medical malpractice attorney to assist you in gathering the evidence needed to help you recover damages.

The Plaintiff’s Alleged Harm

Reportedly, the plaintiff’s child was born at the defendant medical center in 1978. The plaintiff alleged that his child was switched at birth due to the gross negligence of the defendant and that the switch was subsequently hidden by silence and deception. Thus, in 2019 the plaintiff filed a pro se complaint alleging a medical malpractice claim against the defendant, and the case was moved to federal court. The plaintiff filed a motion to default, and the defendant filed a motion to dismiss the plaintiff’s complaint, and in the alternative, a motion to require the plaintiff to file a more definite statement. After reviewing the pleadings, the court granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss.

Allegations Sufficient to Withstand a Motion to Dismiss

Pursuant to the federal rules of civil procedure, a plaintiff’s complaint must set forth facts that are adequate to state a claim for relief that is plausible on its face, in order for the complaint to survive a motion to dismiss. In other words, the plaintiff’s complaint must contain allegations that are sufficient to provide the defendant with fair notice of the claims against it and the grounds for which the plaintiff alleges he or she is entitled to relief. Continue Reading ›

Maryland Court Discusses Immunity For Hospitals Following Emergency Mental Health Evaluations

Published on: July 20, 2020 | by Arfaa Law Group

Physicians take an oath affirming that they will not harm the people they treat. Thus, a physician can be held liable for engaging in behavior that is harmful to their patients. Additionally, Maryland law allows physicians to be held accountable for failing to involuntarily admit a patient to prevent the patient from harming others or engaging in self-harm, but only under limited circumstances. The criteria for imposing liability on an emergency facility or healthcare provider for failing to admit a person involuntarily were recently discussed in a case in which a mother alleged a hospital breached the standard care after her son died following his release from the hospital. If you were harmed or lost a loved one due to negligent medical care, it is prudent to speak to a dedicated Maryland medical malpractice attorney regarding what claims you might be able to pursue.

The Patient’s Treatment

It is alleged that the decedent, who was the plaintiff’s son, was arrested for stealing nasal spray, after which he became erratic and threatened to commit suicide. Due to his behavior, the police transported the decedent to the defendant hospital for evaluation. During the evaluation, the decedent advised he had previously been prescribed anti-psychotic medications, and that he had a history of attempting suicide. Ultimately, the defendant physician that evaluated the decedent determined that the decedent was depressed, but was not an acute suicide risk. As such, he was released into police custody. Approximately one week later, while still in police custody, the decedent died by suicide.

Reportedly, the plaintiff filed a medical malpractice lawsuit against the defendant hospital and the defendant physician, alleging they negligently breached the standard of care in multiple ways in the treatment of the decedent. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that they were immune from liability under Maryland law. Continue Reading ›

Maryland Court Affirms Order Barring Expert Testimony as Untimely in Medical Malpractice Case

Published on: July 13, 2020 | by Arfaa Law Group

Generally, a plaintiff alleging a healthcare provider should be held liable for medical malpractice under Maryland law must provide a report from a medical expert to prove the healthcare provider’s liability. The plaintiff must not only produce an expert report on the issue of causation but must also produce the report within the time frame set forth by the court; otherwise, it could adversely affect the plaintiff’s right to recover damages. This was demonstrated in a recent Maryland medical malpractice case in which the court granted judgment in favor of the defendant due to the plaintiff’s failure to produce a timely expert report. If you suffered harm because of incompetently rendered medical treatment, it is advisable to retain a capable Maryland medical malpractice attorney to assist you in producing the evidence needed to prove liability.

Facts and Procedural History

It is reported that the plaintiff began receiving chiropractic services at the defendant healthcare center following a car accident. The chiropractic treatments ultimately damaged a spinal cord stimulator that had previously been implanted in the plaintiff’s neck. Thus, the plaintiff filed a medical malpractice claim against the defendant. Pursuant to the scheduling order issued by the court, the plaintiff designated an expert witness in February 2018.

Allegedly, after the plaintiff’s expert was deposed in May 2018, however, it was revealed the expert could not opine on the issue of causation. The plaintiff, therefore, amended her expert witness designation to add a second expert. The defendant filed a motion to strike the designation of the second expert as untimely, and the court granted the motion, barring the plaintiff’s second expert from testifying at trial. As such, during the trial, the plaintiff did not present expert testimony on the issue of causation, and the court granted judgment in favor of the defendant. The plaintiff then appealed the trial court’s decision to preclude the testimony of her second expert. Continue Reading ›

Court Discusses Loss of Chance Doctrine in Maryland Medical Malpractice Claims

Published on: July 7, 2020 | by Arfaa Law Group

In Maryland medical malpractice cases, a plaintiff must show that the defendant’s negligence caused the plaintiff’s harm. In cases in which the plaintiff alleges the defendant’s negligence caused the wrongful death due of a loved one, however, the defendant may be able to argue that the loss of chance doctrine operates to bar the recovery of compensation. The loss of chance doctrine is not always applicable, however, as discussed in a recent Maryland medical malpractice case in which the court explained the doctrine’s parameters. If you lost a loved one due to negligent medical care, it is in your best interest to speak to a skillful Maryland medical malpractice attorney to examine what damages you may be able to recover.

Facts of the Case

It is reported that the plaintiff’s decedent presented to the defendant doctor in February 2013, with complaints of pain in his tongue. The defendant performed a scrape biopsy, which did not indicate cancerous cells were present, but the pathologist noted that the sample was clinically suspicious and may not represent the entire lesion. No further actions were taken at that time, however. In May 2014, the plaintiff’s decedent visited the defendant a second time, and the defendant recommended an excisional biopsy, which was performed in June. The second biopsy revealed that the plaintiff’s decedent was suffering from invasive squamous cell cancer. The plaintiff’s decedent underwent aggressive treatment but ultimately passed away due to the cancer.

It is alleged that the plaintiff failed a medical malpractice lawsuit against the defendant, alleging that the defendant’s failure to diagnose the plaintiff’s decedent in February 2013 caused the decedent’s harm. Specifically, the lawsuit set forth survival and wrongful death claims. At trial, the defendant filed a motion for judgment at the close of the plaintiff’s case, arguing that the loss of chance doctrine barred the plaintiff’s claims. The trial court granted the defendant’s motion, and the plaintiff appealed. Continue Reading ›