Baltimore Medical Malpractice Lawyer Blog

Expert testimony is a key component of Maryland medical malpractice cases. Pursuant to Maryland law, only certain people are qualified to provide expert reports in claims alleging medical negligence, however. As discussed in a recent Maryland ruling, this may include nurses in cases involving skilled nursing care. If you sustained losses due to inadequate medical care, you should speak to a Baltimore medical malpractice lawyer about what evidence you will need to present a winning case.

Factual and Procedural History of the Case

It is alleged that the plaintiff filed a complaint against the defendant, alleging negligence in the care provided to her late husband. The plaintiff claimed that the decedent developed pressure ulcers during his stay at the facility, which were allegedly neglected, leading to infection and his eventual death. Supported by a Certificate of Qualified Expert (CQE) from a registered nurse that highlighted systemic deficiencies in the defendant’s preventive measures and regulatory compliance, the plaintiff asserted that the defendant failed to meet the accepted standard of care.

Reportedly, the defendant moved to dismiss the complaint, contending that the CQE provided by the nurse did not comply with Maryland statutes and rules. Specifically, the defendant argued that, according to Maryland law, registered nurses are not qualified to provide expert testimony on proximate causation, as it falls outside the scope of their practice, which is limited to nursing diagnoses. The court granted the defendant’s motion, and the plaintiff appealed. Continue Reading ›

In most Maryland medical malpractice cases, the plaintiff will need to produce expert testimony to establish the defendant’s fault. Such testimony must be based on reliable methods and scientific understanding, however, and if it is not, it may be excluded. This was demonstrated in a recent Maryland medical malpractice case in which the court found that concerns about the plaintiff’s experts’ reliability warranted exclusion. If you need assistance seeking compensation for harm caused by negligent doctors, it is wise to meet with a Baltimore medical malpractice lawyer promptly.

Case Setting

It is reported that the plaintiff, who was in labor. arrived at a hospital where the defendant was the attending physician. During delivery, the plaintiff experienced shoulder dystocia, a condition where the passage of the fetal shoulder is obstructed. The defendant employed various methods to resolve the issue, and the infant’s body was delivered approximately one minute after the head. The infant was diagnosed with a right brachial plexus injury, resulting in weak arm movement. Subsequently, the plaintiff filed a medical malpractice lawsuit against the defendant.

Allegedly, during discovery, the plaintiff identified two doctors as expert witnesses. The first doctor employed a differential diagnosis approach, concluding that the infant’s injury occurred due to the defendant moving the head during delivery. The second doctor attributed the infant’s injury to excessive traction applied by the defendant. Continue Reading ›

To prevail in a Maryland medical malpractice case, the plaintiff must prove that the defendant violated the applicable standard of care. To do so, they must, among other things, provide expert testimony establishing the standard of care and the ways in which the defendant deviated from it. Doctors are not universally required to opine on the standard of care, as demonstrated in a recent Maryland case. If you were harmed by incompetent medical treatment and have questions about your rights, it is sensible to consult a Baltimore medical malpractice lawyer to determine your options.

Case Facts and Procedure

It is alleged that the plaintiff presented to the emergency room with symptoms of reduced blood flow in the lower right leg. The emergency medicine doctor, noting the plaintiff’s abnormal ankle-brachial index scores, advised her to consult a vascular surgeon within three to five days and to return if symptoms worsened. Two days later, the plaintiff returned with exacerbated symptoms and was eventually admitted to the hospital.

Reportedly, despite the recommendation for a consultation, the vascular surgeon did not see the plaintiff immediately, and she ultimately underwent an amputation below the knee. The plaintiff and her husband sued the emergency room physician and the vascular surgeon, alleging medical negligence and lack of informed consent. At trial, the court granted judgment in favor of the emergency medicine physician on the informed consent claim, and the jury returned a defense verdict on all counts. The plaintiff appealed. Continue Reading ›

The law protects victims of medical negligence in that it allows them to pursue and recover damages for their losses. In accordance with the law, though, they must also comply with procedural requirements, including providing appropriate notice, and must set forth their claims with sufficient specificity in order to avoid dismissal, as discussed in a recent medical malpractice opinion. If you need assistance seeking compensation for harm caused by negligent doctors, it is wise to meet with a Baltimore medical malpractice lawyer promptly.

History of the Case

It is alleged that the plaintiff filed a handwritten medical malpractice complaint against the defendant pharmacy, alleging that he received the wrong medication from the defendant, resulting in adverse reactions. The plaintiff’s complaint lacked specific details regarding the cause of action but sought $3,000,000 in damages.

Reportedly, the defendant removed the case to federal court based on diversity jurisdiction and promptly moved to dismiss the complaint under Rule 12(b)(6), contending that the plaintiff’s claims effectively constituted medical malpractice, subject to the prevailing law. Further, the defendant argued that the plaintiff failed to comply with the mandatory 90-day notice requirement before filing suit. Continue Reading ›

Medical malpractice claims are often legally complex and require expert testimony on numerous medical issues and standards. In Maryland, they are procedurally complex as well, and if parties fail to abide by the applicable procedural rules, their claims may be dismissed. This was confirmed in a recent ruling issued in a Maryland case, in which the court found that the plaintiff’s claim was properly dismissed for being filed outside of the statute of limitations. If you suffered injuries due to the negligence of your healthcare provider, it is in your best interest to talk to a Baltimore medical malpractice lawyer as soon as possible to protect your right to pursue damages.

Case Setting

It is reported that the decedent, a long-term resident of a nursing home owned by the defendant, had a G-Tube for nutrition and hydration. In January 2018, the G-Tube became dislodged, prompting an assessment by a nurse. Although an appointment with a gastroenterologist was scheduled, the defendant later canceled it. In April 2018, the decedent was again evaluated by a provider employed by the defendant due to G-Tube issues, but no further actions were taken.

Allegedly, in May 2018, the plaintiff was taken to a gastroenterology clinic, where an immediate hospital examination was recommended. She was subsequently admitted to the hospital, and her condition worsened, leading to her death in June 2018. In August 2020, the plaintiff filed a complaint alleging medical negligence against the defendant. Continue Reading ›

When people visit the emergency department of a hospital, they anticipate that any conditions causing their symptoms will be accurately diagnosed. Unfortunately, this is not always the case, and a missed diagnosis can lead to years of complications and may be grounds for pursuing a medical malpractice claim. Recently, a Maryland court discussed when a claim arising out of a missed diagnosis begins to accrue in a matter in which the defendant argued the plaintiff’s claims were untimely. If you were injured by a missed diagnosis, it is wise to consult a Baltimore medical malpractice lawyer about your options.

Factual and Procedural History of the Case

It is alleged that the plaintiff was involved in a severe car accident in January 2017. He was transported to the defendant’s hospital, where he was diagnosed with a fracture of the right femur. He had fractures of the second and third metatarsals as well, but they were not detected at that time. Numerous doctors took over his orthopedic care, none of whom detected the toe fractures until April 2017. Despite continued pain and difficulty bearing weight on his right foot, subsequent assessments failed to identify the metatarsal fractures as the underlying issue until February 2018. By January 2019, further imaging confirmed malunions of the metatarsal fractures, leading to discussions about potential surgical interventions.

It is reported that the plaintiff filed a complaint against the defendant, alleging negligence in failing to inform him of his metatarsal fractures, not communicating this information to subsequent providers, and not providing appropriate treatment. The defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing that the claims were time-barred, as they accrued more than three years before the second complaint. The plaintiff contested this, arguing that his claims didn’t accrue until January 2019 when a CT scan revealed malunions. The court granted summary judgment, prompting the plaintiff’s appeal. Continue Reading ›

The federal government owns and operates several medical facilities in Maryland. Doctors who work for the federal government are held to the same standard of care as other practitioners. As such, they can generally be held liable for medical malpractice if they deviate from the standard and subsequently cause their patients harm. There are exceptions to the general rule, however, as demonstrated in a recent Maryland opinion in which the court affirmed the dismissal of the plaintiff’s claim as it found it occurred as a result of his military service. If you suffered harm at a federal facility, it is wise to meet with a Baltimore medical malpractice lawyer to evaluate your rights.

History of the Case

It is reported that the plaintiff underwent spinal surgery at a government hospital. The procedure was performed by military doctors, as he was a member of the military. Tragically, the plaintiff suffered life-altering complications, including a spinal injury, decubitus ulcers, and deep venous thrombosis, that caused permanent harm and required extensive treatment. The defendant subsequently commenced a medical malpractice claim against the federal government, pursuant to the Federal Tort Claims Act.

Allegedly, despite being on inactive status in the Air National Guard at the time of the surgery, the plaintiff had not been discharged from the military, nor was he on leave substantially similar to discharged or veteran status. The court found this status sufficient to bring the plaintiff’s injuries under the purview of the Feres doctrine. As such, the court dismissed the plaintiff’s claims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The plaintiff appealed. Continue Reading ›

Doctors regularly perform surgical procedures on patients for a variety of health conditions. If a patient subsequently suffers harm following what should be a routine procedure, it is likely due to medical errors on behalf of their surgeon. As such, they may be able to recover damages in a medical malpractice claim. Maryland law requires that in order to prove liability for medical malpractice, a plaintiff must demonstrate both the defendant’s negligence and harm resulting from such carelessness. If they do, however, any verdict in their favor should be upheld, as demonstrated in a recent ruling issued by a Maryland court in a medical malpractice case. If you suffered harm during a surgical procedure, it is important to understand your rights, and you should speak to a Baltimore medical malpractice lawyer regarding what claims you may be able to pursue.

Factual and Procedural History of the Case

It is alleged that the plaintiff commenced a medical malpractice claim against the defendant doctor and defendant medical center, alleging that she suffered injuries during what should have been a routine procedure to remove fibroids from her uterus. The case proceeded to trial; after the plaintiff presented her case, the defendant moved for judgment as a matter of law. The court denied the motion, and the jury found in favor of the plaintiff. The defendants then filed a renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law, which the court denied. The defendants appealed, contending that the plaintiff failed to present adequate evidence to support the jury’s conclusion that they were responsible for her injuries.

Proof of Causation in Medical Malpractice Cases

On appeal, the court affirmed the trial court ruling. In doing so, the court examined the case through the lens of Rule 50(b), which requires a determination of whether, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prevailing party—in this case, the plaintiff—a reasonable jury could have reached the same conclusion. Continue Reading ›