Articles Posted in Medical Negligence

In a Maryland medical malpractice case, the jury instructions are generally important for members of the jury to understand and apply the law to the evidence presented at trial. Sometimes, the instructions provided to the jury may be grounds for appeal.  In January 25, 2019 opinion, the Court of Appeals of Maryland considered whether it was improper for the trial court to give instructions on both the standard of care for general negligence and the higher standard of care for a physician in a medical malpractice case.

The plaintiff in the case had sought medical treatment from the defendant after he experienced numbness in his fingers and intermittent neck and shoulder pain.  The defendant recommended surgery to remove damaged discs from the plaintiff’s spine and fused vertebrae in his neck.  After the defendant had performed the surgery, the plaintiff developed an infection at the location of the operation.  The plaintiff was hospitalized as a result of the infection, and remained hampered by a severely limited range of motion.

The plaintiff sued the defendant for medical negligence and failure to obtain informed consent.  At trial, the court gave the jury a general instruction on negligence using the reasonable person standard, i.e., that negligence is failing to use the caution, attention, or skill of a reasonable person would use under similar circumstances.  The court also gave an instruction that specifically addressed the negligence of a health care provider, which read: a health care provider is negligent if he does not use that degree of care and skill which a reasonably competent health care provider engaged in a similar practice and acting in similar circumstances would use.  The jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff on the first count for medical negligence.

Continue reading

The Maryland Health Care Malpractice Claims Statute may apply to claims alleging negligent dental care as well as medical care.  In a February 8, 2019 Maryland medical malpractice action, the plaintiff sued her oral surgeon for dental malpractice and lack of consent.  The case went to trial before a jury.  At the close of the plaintiff’s case, the court granted the defendant’s motion for judgment, which prevented the issues from going to the jury.  The plaintiff ultimately succeeded on appeal in having the judgment reversed on her malpractice claim.

The defendant in the case removed the plaintiff’s wisdom teeth.  After the surgery, the plaintiff noticed that she could no longer taste food on the left side of her tongue and had lost sensation in that area.  She was evaluated by a neurologist, who diagnosed her with a serious injury to her left lingual nerve.  The plaintiff subsequently filed a lawsuit against the defendant.

At trial, the plaintiff’s expert witness testified that nerve damage such as hers may be caused by sectioning the tooth, a procedure that requires cutting a small bone between the roots of the tooth.  He explained that if the surgeon cuts too deep, he may hit a lingual nerve.  The plaintiff’s dental records, however, did not state whether or not the defendant sectioned her tooth.  The defendant then testified that he may or may not have sectioned the tooth.  The trial court later granted a judgment for the defendant on the malpractice claim, reasoning that the plaintiff’s expert did not specifically provide an opinion as to how the nerve was injured.

Continue reading

The procedural requirements of a Maryland medical malpractice action are an important part of pursuing a lawsuit after negligent health care.  In some cases, failing to meet the filing deadlines can have an adverse outcome, including dismissal of the plaintiff’s claims.  In a January 18, 2019 appeal, the court was asked to determine whether the plaintiff’s medical malpractice claims were banned by the statute of limitations.

The plaintiff in the case had suffered a leg injury in a jet ski accident and was transferred to the defendant’s hospital for surgery in July of 2010.  Following the surgery, the plaintiff was tested for staph bacteria, and the results came back negative.  A few days later, evidence of a staph infection appeared.  The plaintiff was then discharged to an acute rehabilitation center in Virginia.  After a week at the rehabilitation center, the plaintiff was transferred back to the defendant’s hospital due to the worsening infection.  Over the next few years, the plaintiff was treated multiple times for staph infections and ultimately, underwent a total knee replacement in 2013.

In June of 2013, the plaintiff filed suit against the defendants, and the case was transferred to the U.S. District Court.  The plaintiff had a certificate of qualified expert from a doctor who was prepared to testify that the defendants deviated from the standard of care.  However, finding that the doctor was not qualified to testify as to one of the issues, the court dismissed the claim.

Continue reading

Developing an appropriate trial strategy in a Maryland medical malpractice case takes legal knowledge and experience.  It may also have a significant impact on the outcome of the case.  A December 31, 2018 medical malpractice case illustrates the importance of following court orders and procedures during a trial.

In the case, the plaintiff’s actions during trial prompted the judge to admonish her while the jury was seated in the courtroom.  The plaintiff’s counsel requested a mistrial, arguing that the exchange had unfairly influenced the jury against the plaintiff.  The trial court denied the motion, and the issue was appealed to the Court of Special Appeals of Maryland.

The plaintiff in the case was the estate of a patient who had died while receiving medical care at the defendant’s hospital.  The personal representative of the estate, who was the daughter of the patient, filed the action alleging that the defendant was negligent in providing medical treatment to her mother.  Prior to trial, the defendant filed a motion to prevent admission of photographs of the patient’s skin wounds to the jury.  The judge granted the motion, finding that the photographs could not be authenticated.

Continue reading

In a Maryland medical malpractice lawsuit, testimony from expert witnesses can be crucial to explain scientific issues to a jury and establish or refute an element of negligence.  In a December 7, 2018 opinion, the Court of Special Appeals of Maryland considered whether the testimony of the defendants’ expert witness was properly allowed into a jury trial in a medical malpractice action.  Ultimately, after hearing the testimony, as well as testimony from other experts, the jury found that the defendants were not negligent in providing medical care to the plaintiff.  The plaintiff subsequently filed an appeal, challenging the admissibility of the expert’s testimony.

The plaintiff in the case had undergone a surgical removal of her right lung.  A month later, she woke up with swelling and pain in her left leg and went to the emergency room.  The ER doctor examined the plaintiff and completed a CT scan, which confirmed extensive blood clots in both of the plaintiff’s legs.  As the plaintiff’s condition worsened, the hospital doctors concluded that her situation was too complex to handle without a vascular surgeon.  Because there was no vascular surgeon on-call at the hospital at that time, arrangements were made for her to see a vascular surgeon in Baltimore.

While the plaintiff was waiting for an ambulance, the hospital’s own vascular surgeon became available on-call.  Although he reviewed the plaintiff’s medical tests, he was not asked to examine the plaintiff and had no involvement in her treatment.  When the plaintiff finally arrived at the Baltimore hospital, her left leg could not be saved and was ultimately amputated.  The plaintiff filed a malpractice suit against the ER doctors and hospital, alleging that they did not do enough to treat her as she was waiting to be transported to Baltimore.

Continue reading

Unlike general personal injury and negligence cases, Maryland medical malpractice actions are typically subject to the Health Care Malpractice Claims Act (Act), which has a few different procedural requirements.  In an August 2, 2018 case, the Court of Special Appeals of Maryland discussed the supplemental certificate of a qualified expert, which must be filed within 15 days after the deadline for discovery.  The plaintiff in the case had failed to file a supplemental certificate within the timeframe provided by the Act.  This ultimately led to the dismissal of her medical malpractice claim against the defendants.

The plaintiff had underwent gastrectomy surgery, which was performed by the defendant, a medical physician.  A few weeks after the surgery, the plaintiff was diagnosed with a hernia at the site of the gastrectomy.  During a procedure to repair the plaintiff’s condition, the defendant lacerated her aorta, causing her to lose 50 percent of her blood.  She experienced severe pain and went through several periods of rehabilitation.

The plaintiff filed a medical malpractice complaint against the doctor and hospital in November of 2015.  Pursuant to a scheduling order issued by the circuit court, discovery ended in January of 2017.  Pursuant to the Act, therefore, the plaintiff was required to submit a supplemental certificate of a qualified expert within 15 days.  When she failed to both file the certificate and ask for an extension, the defendants moved to dismiss her claim.  The plaintiff responded by opposing the motion and moving for a brief extension of time to file the required certificate.  The plaintiff explained that, because her attorney practiced primarily out of state and was unfamiliar with the statutory requirements, she had good cause to receive an extension of time.  The plaintiff also presented her supplemental certificate of an expert.  Nevertheless, finding that the plaintiff did not have good cause for an extension, the circuit court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss.

Continue reading

In Maryland, malpractice actions against health care providers may be subject to Maryland’s Health Care Malpractice Claim Act (Act).  The Act provides procedures and requirements that govern Maryland medical malpractice lawsuits, some of which differ from other areas of personal injury law.  In a September 19, 2018 malpractice case, the defendant appealed the jury’s verdict and award of $250,000 in damages in favor of the plaintiffs.  One of the arguments presented by the defendant was that the plaintiffs failed to present a medical expert with sufficient qualifications, as required under the Act.

The defendant in the case was an OB/GYN practice that had provided prenatal care to the plaintiffs during a high-risk pregnancy.  After recurring complications, the plaintiffs’ baby was born prematurely, at twenty-four weeks.  Sadly, she died just two days after her birth.  The plaintiffs filed suit against the that provided prenatal care to the plaintiffs and their infant, alleging medical malpractice and wrongful death claims.  After a trial, the jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiffs on their wrongful death claim.  The defendant appealed the matter to the Court of Special Appeals of Maryland.

The plaintiff in a Maryland medical malpractice must prove the following: (1) a duty requiring adherence to a standard of care; (2) a breach of the standard of care; (3) causation of the plaintiffs’ injury as a result of the breach; and (4) damages.  In virtually all medical malpractice claims, a plaintiff’s proof that the defendant breached the standard of care must be offered through the testimony of an expert witness.

Continue reading

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.

Coping with a serious medical condition can be difficult and time-consuming.  It may be crucial, however, to seek advice from a Maryland personal injury lawyer if you suspect medical malpractice.  In an August 14, 2018 case, the Court of Special Appeals of Maryland considered whether the plaintiff timely brought a medical malpractice action against a hospital that treated her.  The appeal was filed after the lower court granted summary judgment in favor of the hospital.

In 2008, the plaintiff in the case began experiencing symptoms she believed to be caused by a fungal infection found in semi-arid areas of the Southwest.  The plaintiff moved from Arizona to Maryland, where she sought treatment at a local hospital.  Her doctor opined that her symptoms were not due to a fungal infection, but were almost certainly the effects of lung cancer, which he asserted could only be treated with a partial lung lobotomy.

After removing part of her lung in 2009, lab analysts at the hospital determined that the plaintiff did not, in fact, have lung cancer.  Instead, the fungal infection suspected by the plaintiff was the cause of the symptoms she experienced and the lesion on her lungs.  Over four years later, the plaintiff filed a medical negligence claim against the hospital and lab.  The circuit court, however, found that the plaintiff failed to file her medical malpractice claim within three years of the statutory deadline.

Continue reading

The procedures for bringing a Maryland medical malpractice action can be complicated in some cases.  In a June 28, 2018 decision, the Court of Special Appeals of Maryland considered whether the plaintiff could pursue a claim against his  doctor and hospital after the circuit court dismissed his case for failing to comply with requirements of the Maryland Health Care Malpractice Claims Act (Act).  The primary issue for the appeals court was whether the lower court’s dismissal was improper.

The plaintiff in the case underwent heart surgery and, following medical complications, was admitted to the intensive care unit.  In the ICU, he developed pressure ulcers, which required additional treatment.  He filed a claim against the defendants, alleging negligence in failing to implement procedures to prevent the ulcers and failing to treat them.

To initiate a claim under the Act, a plaintiff must first file his claim with the Health Care Alternative Dispute Resolution Office and, within ninety days, submit a certificate of a qualified expert attesting to the alleged negligence.  The plaintiff can then waive arbitration and file suit in circuit court.  The certificate must meet specific requirements, one of which is to identify the allegedly negligent physician by name.  If the certificate is not filed or it is insufficient, the claim will be dismissed, unless a 90 day extension is granted for the plaintiff to submit a valid certificate.

Continue reading