Articles Posted in Medical Malpractice

Expert testimony is essential in many Maryland accident cases. A Maryland appeals court recently issued a decision in part on whether a court was wrong in excluding expert testimony, despite not having reviewed the patient’s relevant medical records. In that case, the plaintiff filed a malpractice claim against a doctor and his practice, claiming that she suffered a permanent loss of feeling in her tongue after the doctor allegedly severed lingual nerves in her jaw while he was taking out her wisdom teeth. She claims the doctor failed to take proper precautions when extracting her teeth, including failing to obtain a CT scan of the plaintiff’s mouth and nerves because she had impacted teeth, by failing to administer steroids immediately after the nerve injury, and by failing to immediately refer the patient to a nerve surgeon specialist.

The judge dismissed the case, in part because he excluded the expert testimony presented by the plaintiff. The plaintiff had two expert witnesses in the case: Dr. Kramer and Dr. Kotikian. The judge found that the opinion of Dr. Kramer was inadmissible in part because he had not reviewed the notes and records from the plaintiff’s treatment. The judge also found the opinion of Dr. Kotikian was inadmissible because he found that inferences of negligence can only be drawn when the alleged injury would not have occurred in the absence of medical negligence. The judge also found the plaintiff was contributorily negligent because she failed to attend follow-up appointments. The plaintiff appealed the decision.

Continue reading ›

A Maryland car accident can have significant consequences on a victim’s financial, medical, and psychological standing. Under Maryland’s “at-fault” model of recovery, the “at-fault” party is responsible for compensating the victim for property damage, medical expenses, lost wages, pain and suffering and other economic damages. However, in many cases, the at-fault party refuses to take responsibility for the accident. In those situations, the injury victim’s insurance company is responsible for any property damage. The injured party’s insurance company will attempt to collect from the at-fault party’s insurance company. However, like every aspect of a car accident, unexpected issues often arise, and collecting damages can be a challenging experience.

One of the most frustrating aspects of an accident occurs when insurance coverage does not cover the extent of a person’s losses. This tends to occur after particularly catastrophic accidents. In these cases, the injury victim or their loved ones may go after the at-fault party directly. It is imperative to retain an attorney to assist through this process. An attorney can ensure that their clients recover the damages they deserve.

This is especially important with the rising costs of healthcare in the country. The New York Times recently reported on a tragic case that highlights the impact medical bills can have on a family’s livelihood. In that case, a family with seemingly good health insurance lost their premature daughter after contracting an infection while in the neonatal intensive care unit. A few months after their daughter’s death, they received various medical bills and debt collection notices from insurance companies. The insurance company inadvertently paid the hospital for care and turned to the family to cover their losses. Experts explained that these instances speak to the unpredictability of the American healthcare billing process. In many cases, patients and their loved ones do not understand what their medical costs are until they receive a bill.

Maryland medical malpractice lawsuits have certain requirements that are not necessary for other personal injury claims. Most importantly, before filing a Maryland medical malpractice claim, a claimant must file a certificate of a qualified expert.

Recently, the Court of Appeals of Maryland decided a case concerning non-party negligence in a Maryland medical malpractice case. Maryland state law allows those injured by a doctor or other health care professional’s negligence to file a medical malpractice suit against the negligent party to recover for their injuries. Sometimes, when defending against that claim, the defendant will attempt to argue that they were not negligent, but that someone else—a non-party in the case—was negligent, and they caused the injuries.

The recent case provides such an example. According to the court’s written opinion, the plaintiff was found to have a renal tumor in his kidney and an adjacent enlarged lymph node. His urologist removed the cancerous kidney, but did not remove the lymph node because it was thought that it could not be removed safely. The plaintiff’s oncologist also did not think the lymph node could be removed, even though it was likely cancerous. The oncologist treated the plaintiff with a chemotherapy drug instead for several years, and the lymph node shrunk (confirming it was cancerous). During this treatment, a radiologist interpreted various scans of the plaintiff’s lymph node, but never noted any issue of enlargement. However, the original radiologist and another radiologist did note that the scans of the lymph node were not always performed with the best technology, meaning sometimes they were difficult to interpret.

Tragically, it turns out that the lymph node—still cancerous—had increased in size over the years. At this point, it was definitely too big to remove, and the plaintiff underwent cancer treatment. The plaintiff filed suit against the radiologists, alleging that they failed to alert his oncologist of the lymph node’s growth. Had they done so, the plaintiff argues, the oncologist could have removed it safely before it grew too large.

Most people know that when someone is injured in a Maryland accident of any kind, state law allows them to file a lawsuit against the negligent party. These personal injury suits can arise from car accidents, defective products, slip and fall accidents, or even dog bites. One type of claim is called a medical malpractice lawsuit, which arises from negligence on the part of a medical professional. For instance, if a surgery goes poorly because the surgeon was reckless, or if a medical professional fails to follow safety protocol when administering medication, they may be held liable in a medical malpractice lawsuit. These claims, however, can sometimes be more procedurally complicated, which can create barriers for plaintiffs if they do not follow procedural requirements carefully.

For example, take a recent state appellate case concerning the procedural requirements for filing a medical malpractice suit. According to the court’s written opinion, the plaintiff was the personal representative of the deceased’s estate. The deceased was in treatment at a hospital and receiving seven medications when she was transferred to a residential treatment facility. The hospital provided the treatment facility with the prescriptions for the medications, but not the medications themselves. The facility did not administer any of the drugs, and four days after the transfer, the patient died—allegedly from “a severe withdrawal syndrome.” The plaintiff brought suit against the hospital and the facility, alleging that they were negligent and either knew or should have known that suddenly failing to administer the medications was likely to cause severe withdrawal symptoms, including heart arrhythmias and seizures that could lead to her death.

In response, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the plaintiff’s complaint for failing to comply with the requirements of a medical malpractice action. Many states have specific procedural requirements that a plaintiff must meet to file a medical malpractice suit. The defendants argued that the plaintiff did not meet these requirements, but the plaintiff in response argued that they did not need to meet these requirements because they were filing a claim for ordinary negligence, not medical malpractice. The trial judge denied the motion to dismiss, agreeing with the plaintiff that the complaint could be for ordinary negligence. On appeal, however, the appellate court reversed. The court found that a medical malpractice suit is one that arises from an act directly related to medical care or services, and that required the use of professional judgment or skill. In this case, the plaintiff’s claims clearly arose from such acts—the failure to render medical care or services. Because the court found that the claim was a medical malpractice one, and not an ordinary negligence one, the plaintiff was required to conform to other procedural requirements. The motion to dismiss was thus granted, since the plaintiff failed to do so.

When someone is injured or hurting in some way and needs surgery to fix it, it is important that they can trust their doctor to perform the surgery safely and skillfully. For the most part, surgeries in Maryland go off without a hitch. However, doctors are people just like everyone else, and sometimes they may be careless and make mistakes while performing the surgery, which can lead to serious injuries or even death. In these cases, Maryland state law allows the individuals injured, or their family if the victim dies or is otherwise incapacitated, to file a medical malpractice suit against the negligent doctor.

Like other personal injury cases, medical malpractice suits require the plaintiff to prove four main elements. First, that the defendant doctor or medical professional being sued owed the plaintiff a duty of care. In many cases, this is easily established because doctors generally owe their patients a duty of care. Second, that the defendant breached that duty of care, which typically is more difficult to prove and requires expert testimony. Third, that the breach was the proximate cause of the victim’s injuries. Lastly, that real damage occurred as a result, usually proved through medical bills and expert testimony. Failure to prove even just one of these four elements will typically result in the plaintiff’s suit being dismissed, leaving the plaintiff unable to recover for the harm they suffered.

A recent state appellate case provides an example of when a suit may be dismissed. The plaintiff suffered from temporomandibular joint syndrome, commonly referred to as TMJ, and visited the defendant oral surgeon. After several treatments did not work, the defendant performed intraoral surgery on the plaintiff. Part of the operation required using an oscillating saw, which could in some cases overheat and burn patients. Immediately after the surgery, the defendant noticed that the plaintiff’s face and lips were bruised and swollen, but assumed it was the normal swelling that occurs after surgery. However, when the plaintiff’s condition did not improve, it was discovered that she was suffering from second to third-degree burns.