Maryland Medical Malpractice Attorney Blog

You can find Miller & Zois on Facebook. Become a fan by click on the link.

No word yet in either Maryland and Illinois on various challenges to medical malpractice caps both states. The Illinois case was on the list of cases to be decided last week but was withdraw so no ruling will be made in 2009. The Maryland high court will likely not rule until 2010 either.

The Illinois ruling is sexier than Maryland because (1) it is a larger state, and (2) it goes to the core of the cap: is it a violation of the state's constitution. But it is huge deal to medical malpractice victims in Maryland.

Fun random why the Illinois cap is wrong: Rod Blagojevich signed it into law. Ispo facto.

When they feel strongly about their case, plaintiff and defense medical malpractice attorneys tend to shoot for the moon to get "the guy" to be their expert. But jurors in malpractice cases understand that doctors are generally pretty qualified. Relative degrees of qualification are less nuanced by a jury. But what they do appreciate is experts who are paid an obscene amount of money have a motivation to lie. Jurors also prefer a medical expert who is a good teacher that explains complex problems in a way they can understand. This is more important than a Harvard fellowship.

A related overreach many medical malpractice lawyers make when trying to get "the guy" is getting a subspecialist to render a malpractice opinion on generalist. For example, don't hold the general ortho to the world renowned foot and ankle guy. While there is clearly a floor that is the standard of care, jurors are going to be hesitant to hold every doctor to the standard of "the guy" in a subspecialty to a doctor who has a more general practice.

Maryland is not the only case with upcoming battles and decisions to make about its medical malpractice cap. Missouri Lawyers Weekly reports that a St. Louis judge reduced a $6.8 million medical malpractice verdict to $1.28 million in a case Plaintiff is expected to appeal. This was an awful case involving the death of a three year-old boy.

The Plaintiff's malpractice lawyer's angle in this case is interesting. Plaintiff claims that when Missouri imposed its new cap on malpractice pain and suffering damages, it repealed the old law. Therefore, cases arising under the old cap no longer have a cap and the court should award the boy's family the full $6.8 million.

This is a tough argument. In Maryland, there is a far more cogent argument that the legislature repeal the cap in cases where arbitration is waived in Semsker v. Lockshin, a case the Maryland Court of Appeals is considering now.

The New York Times offers the opinion in its "The Ethicist" column that it is perfectly okay for doctors to refuse to treat medical malpractice lawyers. Taking it a step further, the author actually encourages the practice.

The logic of this completely escapes me. Does this doctor believe that it is ethically wrong for a lawyer to handle a medical malpractice case? I'm a lawyer. Some lawyers focus their practice exclusively on legal malpractice cases. It would never even occur to me to have ill feelings towards a legal malpractice lawyer.

Maryland publishes disciplinary actions taken against health-care practitioners. I recently found out that one of the doctors treating one of our clients has was no longer licensed to practice medicine on this website. The American Medical Association frowns upon this type of public exposure and has done a good job of keeping the national database of malpractice payouts closed to the general public.

This database, complied by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, almost a half a million malpractice lawsuits whose judgments total nearly $70 billion. Shouldn't patients have access to this information in choosing a doctor?.