Baltimore Medical Malpractice Lawyer Blog

Veterans will often seek medical care from federally funded veterans’ organizations. If the care they receive is negligent and subsequently causes them to suffer injuries, they may be able to pursue claims against the federal government. They must comply with any applicable procedural processes, however, or it could negatively impact their claims, as discussed in a recent medical malpractice case. If you sustained harm due to incompetent medical care, you may be owed damages, and you should meet with a Baltimore medical malpractice lawyer. 

Case Setting

It is reported that the plaintiff, alleging injury due to the federal government’s veteran’s organization’s neglect of his doctor’s recommendations, filed a suit against the United States and the veteran’s organization. He claimed to suffer from Complex Regional Pain Syndrome, for which a non-veteran’s organization doctor had devised a treatment plan that included centralized care at a specialized facility. Despite recommendations from this doctor and the plaintiff’s physical therapists, the veteran’s organization allegedly did not respond, leading to a deterioration in the plaintiff’s condition.

It is alleged that the plaintiff supported his claims with exhibits showing physical symptoms, including a lower temperature in his injured leg, a sore on his injured foot, and atrophication of the injured leg. Previously, the plaintiff had filed a lawsuit in March 2018 for $5 million, which was dismissed due to the Federal Tort Claims Act’s statute of limitations. An appeal upheld this dismissal. In June 2023, the plaintiff initiated the current lawsuit, seeking $50 million in damages for future medical care and complications from delayed treatment. The defendants moved to dismiss the case. Continue Reading ›

People seeking medical treatment have the right to competent care, regardless of where it occurs. If the care they receive is inadequate, they may be able to pursue claims against their providers. They must ensure that they allege the appropriate claims and follow any required procedures, however, otherwise their claims may be subject to dismissal, as demonstrated in a recent Maryland case. If you suffered losses due to substandard medical care, it is advisable to speak to a Baltimore medical malpractice lawyer regarding your claims.

Facts of the Case and Procedural History

It is alleged that the plaintiff, who was housed at a federal institution in Maryland, was attacked by another inmate, resulting in a foot wound and a broken leg. Nurse Holly Hoover evaluated and treated the wound but did not prescribe pain medication or order X-rays. The plaintiff continued to suffer significant pain. The defendant orthopedic surgeon, affiliated with the defendant health center, evaluated the plaintiff in February 2020 and diagnosed issues related to past injuries and surgeries. He recommended and performed surgery in December 2020, to remove abnormal bone growth but could not remove surgical hardware due to incompatible tools.

Reportedly, post-surgery, the plaintiff developed an infection, which he attributed to improper wound care by the medical staff at the correctional institution. The defendant internal medicine physician, saw the plaintiff once in April 2021 and prescribed Lyrica for pain management, but did not refer him for physical therapy. Subsequently, the plaintiff filed the Complaint, asserting claims of deliberate indifference to his medical needs under the Eighth Amendment and discrimination under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The defendants moved for summary judgment. Continue Reading ›

People who suffer harm due to medical care provided by federally funded healthcare providers will typically pursue medical malpractice claims against them under the Federal Tort Claims Act. If they do, it is critical for them to abide by any procedural requirements. It is important to note, though, that there is a distinction between statutory jurisdictional requirements and agency-specific procedural regulations, as discussed in a recent Maryland medical malpractice case in which the court affirmed that only statutory provisions dictated the jurisdictional bounds for Federal Tort Claims Act claims. If you were harmed by incompetent medical care at a federal facility, it is wise to speak to a Baltimore medical malpractice attorney about your rights.

Setting of the Case

It is reported that the plaintiffs, the decedent’s estate, spouse, and five children, filed a lawsuit under the Federal Tort Claims Act following the death of the decedent after medical treatment at a military medical center. Each plaintiff sought 25,000,000 in damages, except for one plaintiff who did not specify damages. The plaintiffs initially submitted administrative claims to the military, alleging negligence and seeking damages for wrongful death and survival, which the military subsequently denied.

People injured by incompetent medical care will often pursue claims against the physicians and entities responsible for their harm. If they do, they must ensure they set forth the proper allegations and follow any procedural rules to avoid dismissal of their actions, as illustrated in a recent Maryland medical malpractice case in which the court dismissed the pro se plaintiff’s lawsuit. If you were injured by medical negligence, it is smart to confer with a Baltimore medical malpractice lawyer to discuss your options.

Factual and Procedural Background

It is alleged that the plaintiff, who was in custody of the federal government at a facility in Maryland, filed a civil suit asserting claims under the Federal Tort Claims Act. The defendants named in the suit included the United States, along with several individual defendants holding official and personal capacities, including physicians and others on the medical and administrative staff at the federal facility.

Reportedly, the plaintiff alleged medical negligence claims and other causes of action stemming from the management of the COVID-19 pandemic at the facility and inadequate medical treatment for his conditions, including asthma. After initial procedural maneuvers, including a dismissal of claims for injunctive relief and subsequent motions, the defendants filed a second motion to dismiss or for summary judgment. Continue Reading ›

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 ›