Maryland Personal Injury Blog

Court Orders New Trial for Breast Cancer Patient in Maryland Medical Malpractice Suit

January 3, 2020 | by Foran & Foran, P.A.

In a July 25, 2019 opinion, the Court of Special Appeals of Maryland revisited a medical negligence case for the second time on appeal. The plaintiff had filed a Maryland medical malpractice lawsuit against her doctors, alleging that they failed to timely biopsy and diagnose a mass on her right breast. The plaintiff claimed that that as a result of their negligence, she underwent a bilateral mastectomy instead of a less-invasive lumpectomy and suffered painful and permanent injuries.

After a trial, the jury awarded the plaintiff past medical expenses in the amount of $35,000 and $150,000 in non-economic damages. The defendants appealed, arguing the trial court had erred by allowing the plaintiff to testify about her distress regarding her fear of death. In the first appeal, the court agreed, finding that the plaintiff’s chance of survival was at least 88 percent and that the testimony would have an obvious effect on the jury. The judgment was reversed, and the case was remanded for a new trial.

The trial court, however, ordered that the new trial be limited to non-economic damages only. The defendants then filed a motion to preclude the plaintiff’s expert from testifying as to whether the plaintiff needed a mastectomy on her right breast due to the alleged delay in diagnosis, and as to the plaintiff’s left breast mastectomy, since it was not medically necessary. After the motion was granted, the defendants moved for summary judgment based on the plaintiff’s lack of any causation expert, which was also granted. The plaintiff then filed the current appeal.

Maryland Plaintiff Sues Police Officer for Personal Injuries After Car Crash

January 2, 2020 | by Foran & Foran, P.A.

In a typical Maryland car accident case, plaintiffs may recover damages if they establish that the negligence of the other driver caused their injuries. In collisions involving government or police officer vehicles, however, the issue of immunity may arise, as in a July 22, 2019 case. The question before the Court of Special Appeals of Maryland was whether a police officer could claim partial immunity under a statute that provided immunity for operators of emergency vehicles.

The plaintiff in the case had suffered injuries as a result of a car accident involving a police officer. The accident occurred as the police officer, responding to a call for an assault in progress, drove towards the location to serve as backup for another officer. The officer and other witnesses testified that she had activated her vehicle’s emergency lights and siren before approaching an intersection. As she proceeded through the intersection, the plaintiff’s car collided with the front end of the police officer’s car. The plaintiff subsequently filed suit to recover damages stemming from the accident.

The police officer claimed immunity under a statute for emergency service responders. Under the Maryland law, the operator of an emergency vehicle is granted partial immunity when the vehicle is involved in an accident that occurs in the performance of emergency service. After the trial court concluded that the police officer was entitled to such immunity, the plaintiff’s claims were dismissed. She then pursued an appeal with the higher court.

Maryland Court Orders New Trial for Pedestrian Injured After Driver Lost Control of Car

January 1, 2020 | by Foran & Foran, P.A.

Car accident cases involving pedestrians can result in serious and life-long injuries. Many injury victims choose to pursue a Maryland personal injury claim to recover for their damages, as the plaintiff did in a July 16, 2019 case. The case arose out of an automobile accident on a snowy winter day.

The defendant in the case was driving her car slowly through the snow. As she approached a sharp, downhill turn, however, she lost control of the vehicle and left the roadway. Her vehicle reportedly hit the plaintiff, who was clearing snow in his neighbor’s driveway. The plaintiff suffered injuries as a result of the collision and filed a negligence suit against the driver for damages.

After a trial, the jury returned a verdict finding that the defendant was not negligent. The plaintiff brought an appeal, arguing that the trial court erred in its instructions to the jury. Specifically, the plaintiff argued that the jury should have been instructed to consider a statute under the Maryland Transportation Code providing that the driver of a vehicle shall exercise due care to avoid colliding with any pedestrian and shall, if necessary, warn any pedestrian by sounding the horn of the vehicle.

Plaintiff’s Assumption of Risk of Injury Leads to Dismissal of Maryland Negligence Claim

December 31, 2019 | by Foran & Foran, P.A.

As a general rule, people may be held liable for damages arising from an injury caused by their negligence. The injured party may pursue a legal action against the negligent party by bringing a Maryland personal injury claim. In rare cases, however, the defendant may be relieved of their legal responsibility for the plaintiff’s injury, if the plaintiff exposed themselves to the risk of harm. The issue of assumption of risk was explored in detail in a July 11, 2019 case before the Court of Special Appeals of Maryland.

The plaintiff in the case operated a restaurant inside a business plaza owned by the defendants. To reach the back door of her restaurant, the plaintiff had to enter through the loading dock behind the building and walk through a common hallway shared by other businesses. On the day of her injury, the plaintiff was holding a twelve-pack of soda in each hand and had her handbag on her shoulder as she entered the common hallway to reach her restaurant. She observed sheets on the floor and deliverymen moving mattresses on the right side of the hallway. Reportedly, the plaintiff proceeded walking on the right side of the hallway when her foot caught on the sheeting and she fell, breaking her knee.

The plaintiff filed a personal injury lawsuit against the defendants, alleging negligence. The defendants the moved for summary judgment, arguing that the plaintiff assumed the risk of walking over the sheet as a matter of law. The plaintiff asserted that she had no knowledge that the sheet, although irregular and lumpy, was dangerous or hazardous. The lower court granted the motion, and the plaintiff appealed.

Maryland Court Examines Non-Party Negligence Defense in Medical Malpractice Case

December 30, 2019 | by Foran & Foran, P.A.

To succeed in a Maryland medical malpractice action, the plaintiff must show that the treatment he received from his doctor fell below professional standards, and as a result, caused the plaintiff’s injury. In some situations, the defendants may argue that the negligence of non-parties contributed to the plaintiff’s injuries, as in a June 26, 2019 case before the Court of Special Appeals of Maryland. However, the defense of non-party negligence must be properly supported by evidence before it can be presented to a jury.

In the case, a cancer patient brought a medical malpractice action for the defendants’ failure to remove a cancerous lymph node before it became inoperable. The plaintiff had received medical care from multiple doctors before the diagnosis and during the course of his treatment, but eventually pursued his claims against two radiologists and their employer.

The case went to trial. During the closing argument, the defendants argued that the plaintiff’s injuries resulted from the conduct of three non-party physicians, and not from any negligence on the part of the defendants themselves. The jury ultimately found that the defendants were not negligent. The plaintiff appealed, asserting that the trial court had erred by allowing the issue of non-party negligence to go to the jury without expert testimony of same.

Maryland Plaintiff Recovers Damages for Lost Earning Capacity in Lead Exposure Case

December 29, 2019 | by Foran & Foran, P.A.

To win a judgment in a Maryland personal injury action, the plaintiff must present proof of actual damages. A plaintiff cannot recover damages that are speculative, remote, or uncertain. Damages for lost earning capacity compensate the plaintiff for their reduced ability to earn money in the future, due to the injury caused by the defendant. Damages due to lost earning capacity can be difficult to establish in some cases, however, because they primarily rely on future probabilities.

In a June 24, 2019 lead-based paint case, the plaintiff succeeded in establishing his damages, including lost earning capacity, due to the defendants’ reported negligence. Ultimately, the jury awarded him a total of almost two million dollars, which was reduced to the maximum limit of Maryland’s damages cap.

The defendant appealed the judgment, and the case came before the Court of Appeals of Maryland. On appeal, the defendant asserted that the plaintiff’s experts lacked a sufficient factual basis for their testimony regarding the plaintiff’s lost earning capacity. The defendant argued that without utilizing a standardized, reliable methodology for analyzing data, the experts’ opinions were too speculative to support the award.

Jury Awards Maryland Plaintiff $130,000 Judgment Against Police Officer for Broken Arm

December 28, 2019 | by Foran & Foran, P.A.

Selecting the individual members of a jury for trial takes careful consideration in a Maryland personal injury case. In a June 3, 2019 opinion, the Court of Special Appeals of Maryland examined whether the trial court erred by declining to ask prospective jury members a question about the effect of recent media coverage. The appeal arose out of an action filed by the plaintiff against a Baltimore City policy officer. The plaintiff alleged that he suffered personal injuries as a result of the officer’s excessive use of force. Following the trial, the jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff and awarded him $130,000 in damages.

In April of 2015, Freddie Gray’s death sparked widespread protests in Baltimore. As a result of the civil unrest, a city-wide curfew was in effect. The plaintiff was out past curfew following the street demonstrations. The defendant saw the plaintiff run down a street and board a bus. Believing that the plaintiff had a gun, the defendant stopped the bus. The defendant removed the plaintiff from the bus. However, the plaintiff ultimately suffered a broken arm. The plaintiff subsequently filed a lawsuit against the officer.

Counsel for the defendant submitted questions for the court to ask potential jurors during the selection. The question at issue on appeal was whether anyone had obtained information from newspaper articles or other media sources regarding the Baltimore police department that would cause them to have a negative impression of the defendant. Although the court denied the request, several prospective jurors referenced the medical coverage of the Freddie Gray case. However, those jurors did not serve on the jury.

Surviving Family Members Litigate Damages in Fatal Maryland Car Accident Case

December 27, 2019 | by Foran & Foran, P.A.

Insurance coverage and damage amounts are often contested issues between car accident victims and their motor vehicle insurers. As illustrated in a June 6, 2019 Maryland wrongful death case, the procedural aspects of a claim may be crucial for the surviving family members to recover the full amount of damages sought.

The case arose out of a car accident involving the plaintiff, which resulted in the death of the other driver. At the time of the accident, the plaintiff was driving a car owned by another individual. A year after the accident, no survival or wrongful death claims had been filed by the driver’s survivors. The plaintiff, the plaintiff’s insurance company, and the car owner’s insurance company subsequently filed a Complaint for Interpleader, in which they conceded liability for the other driver’s death to his survivors.

A hearing was held on the matter, at which counsel for the survivors informed the trial court that he wished to work with the potential beneficiaries to resolve the apportionment of the policy proceeds without further litigation. The trial court then signed two proposed orders provided by the plaintiffs, which allowed each insurer to deposit an amount totaling $600,000 into an account for apportionment among the beneficiaries after they negotiated their respective interests.

Maryland Appeals Court Allows Plaintiff to Bring Lawsuit Against Auto Insurer

December 26, 2019 | by Foran & Foran, P.A.

In some cases, a driver who caused a car accident may not have enough insurance coverage to fully compensate for the resulting injuries. An injured person, however, may seek payment from their own insurance company for the remaining damages if they have coverage. In a June 4, 2019 Maryland car accident case, the plaintiff filed suit against her insurer after it denied her claim for underinsured motorist benefits. The lower court dismissed her action, and she filed the current appeal.

The plaintiff in the case was involved in a motor vehicle collision in April 2011. As a result of the accident, she suffered injuries. The driver who caused the crash was insured under an auto policy that provided liability coverage up to $20,000. In April 2013, the driver’s insurance company offered the plaintiff the maximum amount available under the policy to settle the claims against the driver. Days later, the plaintiff’s insurance company agreed to the settlement offer and waived its subrogation rights against the other driver. In February 2014, the plaintiff executed the settlement agreement and waiver releasing the driver and the driver’s insurance company from liability for the policy limit of $20,000.

In January 2015, the plaintiff sought payment from her insurer to cover the rest of the damages she suffered in the accident. Although the plaintiff’s insurance policy did include underinsured motorist coverage, her claim was not immediately approved. The plaintiff filed a legal action against her insurance company in September 2016 to recover the amount of damages in excess of the $20,000 settlement. The circuit court ruled that the plaintiff did not file her action before the deadline provided by the statute of limitations, and it dismissed the case.

Court Evaluates Certificate of Qualified Expert in Maryland Medical Malpractice Appeal

December 25, 2019 | by Foran & Foran, P.A.

The requirements for filing a Maryland medical malpractice claim are different than those for a typical personal injury case. If the procedural rules are not followed, the claim could be delayed or even dismissed. In a May 22, 2019 opinion, the Maryland Court of Special Appeals considered whether or not a plaintiff’s medical malpractice lawsuit should have been dismissed by the trial court.

The case was brought by the estate of a deceased patient. The patient had undergone heart surgery and, following the procedure, complained of nausea, vomiting, and other symptoms. The defendant in the case was the cardiologist who provided treatment for her symptoms. After examining the patient, the defendant discontinued three of her medications. Shortly thereafter, the patient was hospitalized for severe congestive heart failure. She underwent another surgery, but her health continued to decline and she died later that day.

The plaintiff filed a medical malpractice claim with the Health Care Alternative Dispute Resolution Office and attached a Certificate of Qualified Expert from a cardiothoracic surgeon. The parties waived arbitration and the claim was then brought in the circuit court. The defendants moved to dismiss the case, arguing that the Certificate of Qualified Expert failed to meet the requirements of the Maryland Health Care Malpractice Act. The circuit court agreed, and the plaintiff filed an appeal.