Maryland Medical Malpractice Attorney Blog

Opening statements began Wednesday in a dental malpractice case in New Jersey. Successful dental malpractice cases in Maryland are rare for a single reason: there are few dental malpractice cases where the damages rise to the level of making a malpractice claim economically viable from the standpoint of a Maryland malpractice lawyer.

This New Jersey case is a rare, tragic exception because the alleged dental malpractice resulted in the death of the patient.

You can find the article on the case here.

Yes, there are still medical malpractice lawsuits in Texas. It just requires an incredibly serious case. A Dallas County jury last week decided such a case, awarding $17.5 million to a former maintenance man for a North Dallas apartment complex who lost his arms and legs from a staph infection. Obviously, this is just an awful case.

This case involved a staph infection called methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA), a strain of staph that's resistant to the broad-spectrum antibiotics that are used to treat infections. In this case, the doctor gave the patient eight antibiotics but failed to give the one drug that would have treated for MRSA. The Plaintiff went into septic shock, causing infection and gangrene, necessitating the removal of both arms below his elbows and both legs below his knees.

The post medical malpractice cap award is approximately $7.5 million.

A 12 person jury in Vermont jury began deliberations Thursday in a case that accuses a Burlington eye doctor of pressuring a patient into unnecessary cataract surgery. In closing statements last night, the medical malpractice lawyer for the plaintiff made a not very common argument in a malpractice case: that the eye doctor intentionally misinterpreted test results in order to perform surgeries. Most malpractice cases are against good, well intentioned doctors who made a mistake. In this case, there is some foundation for the allegations: the doctor's license was suspended by in 2003 following reports that he had engaged in unprofessional conduct with scores of patients by performing - you guesssed it - unnecessary cataract surgeries.. The state's Medical Practice Board in 2008 concluded that he had engaged in unprofessional conduct with 10 patients.

In a Maryland malpractice case, only 6 jurors deliberate to determine the case. In Vermont and some other states, that number is 12. That makes a huge different in the dynamics of the jury deciding a medical malpractice case.

You can find an article on this case against this 72 year-old eye doctor here.

PS from February 24, 2009: A Chittenden County jury found no negligence in this lawsuit against the eye doctor. The message, as always, there is no slam dunk medical malpractice case although I wonder if this case was not more about the lack of proof regarding Plaintiff's injuries. Here is an article on the verdict.

In Atlanta, a trial judge found that Georgia cap on noneconomic damages in medical malpractices cases violates the Georgia Constitution.

I'm no Georgia Constitutional scholar but the same people that believe we must strictly interprete constitutions oppose this decision with ever picking up a copy of the Georgial Constitution. The lesson as always: the Constitution is great unless I really disagree with it.

The Baltimore Sun published an editorial from its editorial board on Tuesday entitled "Attack of the Trial Lawyers" arguing against changes to Maryland medical malpractice cap on noneconomic damages.

I disagree with the substance of this editorial, but the Baltimore Sun is entitled to offer the opinions of its editors. My problem with the editorial is the title "Attack of the Trial Lawyers." This title underscores that this is not just an independent analysis based on its view of the facts. Instead, the Baltimore Sun dives into the politics of putting non substantive, inflamatory labels on its argument. And that is a shame.

The family of a Nevada woman who tragically died of rectal and colon cancer at age 27 was awarded $2.5 million for a doctor's failure to diagnose cancer. The family's medical malpractice lawyer argued that if the woman had been correctly diagnosed at her initial visit, she would have had a 97 percent chance of survival. Instead, the delay reduced her chances to about 50 percent.

The tragedy is that in Maryland under the facts this malpractice lawyer alleged, the lawsuit against the defendant doctor would be dismissed before the case even went to trial. Maryland law requires a 51% loss of chance. We had to reject a cancer failure to diagnose case today for this very reason. It is an awful unjust law that the Maryland legislature should change.

American Medical Association (AMA), several state medical associations, and individual doctors have filed a class-action lawsuit against Aetna Health, Inc. and CIGNA Corporation claiming the insurance companies used rigged data to under-reimburse doctors.

Doctors have to come up with a cogent theory on whether lawsuits are a good thing or a bad thing. Because they risk falling into the trap of opposing all lawsuits in which they are not a plaintiff.

The Lansdale Reporter offered the following editorial this morning:

It’s indeed unfortunate that Lansdale Hospital became the 39th hospital to lose maternity services since the medical malpractice crisis began in 1999.

This closing will jeopardize the health of expectant mothers when there is an obstetrical emergency. Brandywine Hospital in Coatesville is the 40th hospital to discontinue maternity services. Reportedly the obstetricians could not afford the high malpractice insurance premiums and moved to other states.

Real tort reform is long overdue in Pennsylvania. Someone has to represent these expectant mothers whose lives are being put in jeopardy unnecessarily.

The article goes on to break down the economics of the decision, explaining in clear concise terms why the closing of the OB/GYN practice was related to medical malpractice insurance. It also offers real life examples of how women and unborn children are harmed by these closings because they have no other options.

No, wait. The article does none of this. I quoted the entire editorial.

It is harder to tell online but I think this is a editorial board editorial. In support, they offer one word: "reportedly." Shouldn't a newspaper be required to offer a few facts to support its conclusion? How about just one single fact?

My firm handles medical malpractice cases in Maryland: I'm against medical malpractice tort reform. I'm convinced I would be against tort reform even if I was not a lawyer. But I do understand that people smarter support tort reform. So you have to respect another view on the tort reform question. But this is not an argument. This is just an opinion given without any meaningful consideration.

To find this editorial, click here and arrow down to the end of the editorial because it is an the end of a series of random rants.

Hospital administrators screw up and only purchase limited medical malpractice coverage. The hospital gets hit with a huge medical malpractice verdict. Who is to blame? Certainly not the hospital administrators who decided to go cheap on the coverage. They blithely shift the blame to medical malpractice lawyers and the cost of malpractice insurance.

I’m accustomed to the doctors and hospitals bundling up every mistake they make a placing it on the doorstep of Maryland medical malpractice lawyers. It is a common occurrence in the Baltimore-Washington area. So I’m conditioned to be okay with that. But couldn’t the reporter in this Scranton Times article have at least interviewed one person who might question this obvious shifting of the blame?