Articles Posted in Hospital Negligence

by

Bringing a Maryland personal injury lawsuit against certain parties, such as police officers and emergency responders, may require proof of more than simple negligence.  If the defendants are entitled to statutory immunity, the plaintiff must demonstrate gross negligence in order to hold them liable in some cases.  In an August 16, 2019 Maryland wrongful death case, the Court of Appeals reviewed the record to determine whether the evidence was sufficient to establish gross negligence on the part of the defendants, who were city fire department paramedics.

The defendants in the case had responded to a 911 call for a reported chest pain emergency.  After assessing the decedent’s condition, they transported him to the hospital shortly thereafter.  While waiting in the emergency room, the decedent lost consciousness.  He was taken to another room and received treatment from the hospital staff, but unfortunately, never regained consciousness.  The plaintiffs filed a wrongful death suit against the defendants, alleging that they were negligent in providing medical assistance to the decedent.

The trial court determined that the Maryland Fire and Rescue Company Act granted the defendants civil immunity in the absence of any willful or grossly negligent act.  Accordingly, the issue at trial was whether the defendants acted in a grossly negligent manner.  The jury found that they had and awarded the plaintiffs approximately 3.7 million dollars in damages.  The matter was appealed twice and came before the Maryland Court of Appeals.

Continue reading

by

Under the Maryland Fire and Rescue Company Act, entities that provide emergency services may not be held liable for simple negligence in a civil lawsuit.  However, they may face civil liability if their actions are grossly negligent.  In an October 1, 2018 Maryland wrongful death case, the jury found two paramedics were grossly negligent in responding to the decedent’s emergency.  Despite the jury verdict, the judge entered a judgment in favor of the defendants, concluding that the evidence was insufficient.  The plaintiffs ultimately prevailed on their appeal.

In the case, the decedent had experienced chest pains and called 911.  The defendants were dispatched to the decedent’s home and transported him to the hospital by ambulance.  In the ambulance, the defendants checked the decedent’s initial vital signs and concluded that he was in stable condition.  The defendants alerted hospital staff that the reason for the decedent’s visit was heartburn.  As the decedent was waiting in the emergency room with the defendants, he continued to complain of chest pains and soon became unconscious.  He was immediately treated by hospital staff but, despite life-saving efforts, passed away.  It was later revealed that he had died of a heart attack.

The surviving family members brought suit against the paramedics and the city, alleging gross negligence due to their emergency response.  On appeal, the plaintiffs contended that the trial court erred by entering judgment for the defendants on the basis of insufficient evidence of gross negligence.  The question for the appeals court, therefore, was whether or not the evidence at trial permitted only one inference, which was that the defendants were not grossly negligent.

Continue reading

by

A successful Maryland medical malpractice lawsuit can help families recover compensation for the loss of a loved one.  In one such recent case, a Maryland jury awarded a total of ten millions dollars to the family members of a patient who had died after receiving medical treatment from the defendants.  Although the non-economic damages were reduced pursuant to Maryland law, the victim’s wife and his seven children succeeded on their medical malpractice wrongful death action.  The doctor and hospital defendants filed an appeal, which was considered by the Court of Special Appeals of Maryland in an opinion issued August 30, 2018.

In 2013, the victim in the case was taken to the hospital by ambulance, complaining of weakness in his arms and legs.  Blood tests revealed that he was suffering from acute rhabdomyolysis, a condition in which muscle fibers break down, releasing muscle proteins in the bloodstream.  During his hospital admittance, the victim experienced an elevated level of potassium in the blood, which his doctor identified as hyperkalemia.  The doctor ordered the hospital staff to administer several different medications to manage the issue.  Overnight, the victim began experiencing extreme abdominal pain and a drop in blood pressure.  He was transferred to the intensive care unit and later underwent extensive surgery, from which he never regained consciousness.

The victim’s family members filed suit against the doctor and the hospital, alleging medical malpractice and wrongful death.  Specifically, the plaintiffs argued that the doctor negligently administered a particular medication that damaged the victim’s intestines, ultimately causing his death.  After a trial, the jury found in favor of the plaintiffs.

Continue reading

by

The Court of Appeals of Maryland recently explained its position regarding evidence of superseding causes of injury by non-parties in a medical malpractice case decided on May 24, 2017.  The family of a deceased patient sued several doctors and hospitals that had treated the patient before his stroke.  Before trial, the plaintiffs had settled with or dismissed their claims against all of the defendants except one radiologist and his employer.  The plaintiffs alleged that the doctor was negligent when interpreting the patient’s radiological images, leading to the patient’s fatal stroke six days later.  After the trial, the jury found in favor of the defendants, and the plaintiffs appealed.

The key question for the Court of Appeals was whether the defendant could present evidence of negligence on the part of non-party doctors who had subsequently treated the patient as intervening and superseding causes of harm to the patient.  The plaintiffs argued that evidence of the non-parties’ negligence was irrelevant and immaterial to the issue of whether the defendant violated the standard of care in his treatment of the patient, and the evidence tended to mislead the jurors into believing the non-parties who had settled were the responsible parties, rather than the defendant.  The plaintiffs also contended that the trial court improperly applied the doctrine of intervening and superseding causes in the context of a medical negligence action involving acts of multiple concurrent tortfeasors.

The four elements required for a negligence action are duty, breach, causation, and damages.  Causation-in-fact may be found if it is more likely than not that the defendant’s conduct was a substantial factor in producing the plaintiff’s injuries.  However, the issue of superseding causation is not even relevant unless the antecedent negligence of a third person is a substantial factor in bringing about the injury and could not have been anticipated by the defendant.

Continue reading

by

It is not uncommon for an injured plaintiff to bring a medical malpractice claim against more than one defendant on differing theories of negligence.  In a March 21, 2017 opinion, the Court of Special Appeals of Maryland reviewed a negligence and wrongful death action brought by the surviving plaintiffs against a doctor, the hospital that employed the doctor, and the member companies of the hospital.  The circuit court subsequently granted summary judgment in favor of the member companies.  On appeal, the plaintiffs argued that its claims against the member companies should have been allowed to proceed under theories of general corporate negligence and apparent agency.

The decedent in the case had experienced severe chest pain and was examined by the defendant doctor at the hospital.  On the next day, the doctor discharged the decedent with instructions to take medications as needed and follow up with a cardiology referral for further investigation of his condition.  On the next morning, the decedent passed away.  An autopsy revealed that he died from hypertensive and atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, with significant blockages in several arteries in his heart.

The plaintiffs first argued that the member companies were liable because they breached their duty to provide emergency room protocols for the evaluation and treatment of emergency room patients with cardiac or cardiac-like symptoms.  However, the appeals court pointed out that such a legal duty would be upon the hospital to ensure the patient’s safety and well-being, rather than its parent corporations, i.e., the defendants.  Furthermore, a parent corporation is generally not liable for the acts of its subsidiaries, absent the piercing of the corporate veil to prevent fraud or to enforce equity.

Continue reading

by

In order to hold a defendant liable in a medical malpractice claim, the plaintiff must establish that the defendant owed them a duty of care. In the absence of a doctor-patient relationship, there are rare circumstances under which the law may impose a duty of care to a third party who never received treatment. The Court of Special Appeals of Maryland addressed this issue in Puppolo v. Holy Cross Hosp. of Silver Spring, Inc. (Md. Ct. Spec. App. Nov. 14, 2016), a recent case arising out of the medical treatment of the plaintiff’s mother.

In Puppolo, the plaintiff’s mother received treatment at the defendant’s hospital for an intracranial hemorrhage, involving a bedsore on her lower back. The bedsore became a serious health issue that required extensive treatment, and the plaintiff’s mother eventually passed away. The plaintiff sued the hospital, alleging claims of medical malpractice, battery, fraudulent concealment, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and wrongful death. The trial court dismissed the plaintiff’s personal claim for fraudulent concealment, and the plaintiff appealed.

In her complaint, the plaintiff alleged that the defendant intentionally concealed the existence of the bedsores and its failure to treat those bedsores, thus placing undue and unnecessary mental strain on the plaintiff. The necessary elements for fraudulent concealment are:  (1) the defendant owed a duty to the plaintiff to disclose a material fact; (2) the defendant failed to disclose that fact; (3) the defendant intended to defraud or deceive the plaintiff; (4) the plaintiff took action in justifiable reliance on the concealment; and (5) the plaintiff suffered damages as a result of the defendant’s concealment.

Continue reading

by

Automobile accident fatalities continue to be reported in high numbers across the country. According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, there are about 43,000 people killed in fatal car accidents each year in the United States. About 40% of these fatal crashes are alcohol related.

According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration report, Maryland was one of 32 states Continue reading

by

An Appellate Court in Florida has granted a ten day stay of an order that stopped Allstate from selling any new auto insurance policies in Florida. Last week, the Florida Insurance Commission prohibited Allstate from writing any new auto insurance policies because it failed to comply with a subpoena in its property insurance business.

Contaminated tissue lawsuit
01/24/2008 06:05:18 PM

An Illinios resident has filed a lawsuit that accuses a Georgia based company of providing contaminated donor tissue for Continue reading