Maryland Medical Malpractice Attorney Blog

Many are concerned about frivolous medical malpractice lawsuits. Little if any attention is given to frivolous malpractice lawsuit defenses.

Everyone realizes that doctors are human beings and sometimes the very best doctors make mistakes, as do the best lawyers, accountants, plumbers and waitresses. But it is incredible how few malpractice lawsuits are conceded on negligence. There is almost invariably some defense, no matter how ridiculous.

One of our Maryland malpractice lawyers faced one of these classic throw all logic to the win defenses in a deposition yesterday: the “it is a known risk excuses everything defense.”

During our client’s laparoscopic cholecystectomy (gallbladder surgery), the Defendant doctors cut the client’s hepatic duct. This was a known risk which, according to the expert, means the doctor did not commit malpractice. No matter what.

The hope of the defendant’s malpractice lawyer is to confuse the jury. At first glance, it makes sense. Why would you hold a doctor accountable for a known risk? But the question in any malpractice lawsuit is not whether the injury suffered was a known risk but whether a prudent doctor would have avoided the injury with reasonable care.

The AP reports that President Obama's says he's willing to start from scratch on health care — and is willing to consider medical malpractice caps sought by most Republicans. I don't think the President really supports malpractice reform. My fear is that, at this point, he would sacrifice too much - including small puppies I think at this point - to enact anything resembling real health care reform.

• This from the Deseret News summarizing a new study from BYU: "Because doctors spend less time on the job when their perceived risk of being sued for malpractice rises, those lost hours mean some 7 million people nationwide must find someone else to treat them." Does this sentence even make any sense? To the extent that I get what they are trying to say, who funded this project? Did the researchers look at the question of whether there is causation or mere association? Is the Deseret News capable of asking anything other than fluff questions or laying out the other side of the issue? Does anyone want a doctor who works less because they fear medical malpractice? Are those 7 million people who need to find other doctors finding better doctors? I continue to believe that most doctors are good doctors who really could not care less about any of this.


• Breast cancer misdiagnosis case in New York is going to the jury.


• Protect Consumer Justice notes the trend of decreased medical malpractice lawsuit filings regardless of whether there is a cap on damages


• Ervin Cohen & Jessup gets a $16.5 million verdict in a malpractice case which rendered their client a paraplegic. The claim against the hospital was settled so I wonder how collectable the verdict is against the neurosurgeon.


• The Chicago Personal Injury Lawyer Blog reports that the Illinois the Illinois Supreme Court will issue its much awaited opinion in Lebron v. Gottlieb Memorial Hospital tomorrow, a case challenging the constitutionality of damage caps in medical malpractice lawsuits pursuant to the Illinois Medical Malpractice Act of 2005. This is the second the two big cap cases medical malpractice lawyers have been anticipating in 2010, the first being the tough loss in the Semsker case in Maryland.