Maryland Plaintiff Pursues Medical Malpractice Claim Arising from Hip-Replacement Surgery

The timing of a Maryland medical malpractice case is important.  If filed too late, the defendants may invoke the statute of limitations to prevent the action from proceeding.  In a July 20, 2017 case, the Court of Special Appeals of Maryland decided whether the lower court correctly dismissed the plaintiff’s case as barred by the statute of limitations. stethoscope

The defendant had performed hip-replacement surgeries on the plaintiff in 2005 and 2010.  Although the plaintiff experienced significantly worse pain after the 2010 procedure, the defendant never informed her that her symptoms were anything other than normal results of a successful surgery.  The plaintiff consulted another orthopedic surgeon on December 6, 2010, who informed her that she would need a corrective surgery.  On January 7, 2011, the plaintiff opened a letter from her insurance company, advising that there had been a recall of certain prosthetic hip components, and it was likely that she had received one of the recalled components when the defendant performed her right hip replacement in April 2010.  The plaintiff filed her malpractice claims against the defendant on January 2, 2014.

In Maryland, the statute of limitations requires professional liability claims against health care providers to be filed within the earlier of:  (1) five years from the time the injury was inflicted; or (2) three years from the date the injury was discovered.  The key issue in the case was when the plaintiff became aware of facts that would have caused a reasonable patient to investigate a potential malpractice claim against the defendant.  That issue was complicated by the fact that, in the field of medicine, an unsuccessful result alone does not necessarily establish negligence on the part of the health care provider.  Instead, to establish a claim of medical injury, a plaintiff must prove not only a bad result but also a breach of the standard of care that was a proximate cause of the bad result.

The defendant in the case had argued that the plaintiff was on notice that something was wrong with her hip on December 6, 2010, when she reviewed her x-rays with the second doctor.  The plaintiff contended that she did not suspect malpractice on the part of the defendant until after she read the recall notice in January 2011.  In reviewing the matter, the appeals court explained that the evidence must be considered in the light most favorable to the plaintiff on a summary judgment motion.  Accordingly, the court observed that the plaintiff’s second doctor did not indicate on December 6 that malpractice by the defendant was a likely, or even a possible, cause of her problem.  Even though the plaintiff needed revision surgery, the defendant had warned her of that risk before the original surgery.  Under these circumstances, the court found that a reasonable person could have reasonably inferred that her injuries were caused by bony growth and were not the fault of the defendant.  As a result, the court reversed the summary judgment order, allowing the plaintiff to proceed with her malpractice case.

If you believe you have been a victim of faulty medical care, don’t wait to discuss your legal options with a qualified attorney.  The Maryland medical malpractice lawyers at Foran & Foran, P.A. also offer trusted guidance to people pursuing personal injury actions arising out of premises liability, car crashes, and other accidents.  Contact us today to make an appointment by phone at (301) 441-2022 or online.

More Blog Posts:

Court Considers Whether Injury Claim Falls Under Maryland Health Care Act, Maryland Personal Injury Blog, published June 2, 2017

Maryland Court Reviews Evidence of Causation in Medical Malpractice Appeal, Maryland Personal Injury Blog, published October 11,