Maryland Medical Malpractice Lawyer Blog

Generally, recovery in Maryland for malpractice against a physician/psychiatrist is allowed only where there is a relationship between the doctor and patient. This relationship may be established by contract, express or implied, and the fact that a physician does not deal directly with a patient does not necessarily preclude the existence of a physician-patient relationship.

Complaints of malpractice and intentional infliction of emotional distress with regard to third parties have been reviewed by Maryland Courts. In the case of Dehn v. Edgecombe, 384 Md. 606 (Md. 2005), Mr. Dehn underwent a vasectomy. According to Mr. Dehn, his primary care physician advised him that he could resume engaging in unprotected intercourse with his wife without fear of pregnancy, despite the fact that requisite tests had yet to be performed. Mrs. Dehn subsequently became pregnant and sued her husband’s primary care physician, claiming that the physician had negligently counseled her husband. The Court held that there was no independent cause of action for a patient’s wife against a doctor who acted negligently while treating her husband because there was no relationship or direct interaction with the wife.

There are exceptions to this rule. For example, when a physician undertakes to act gratuitously or in an emergency situation, a duty may be created, but such exceptions are rare, particularly when the doctor never provided any treatment to the person alleging negligence. Dehn v. Edgecombe, 384 Md. 606 (Md. 2005). Therefore, this case does not appear to fall within one of these exceptions.

“The common law duty of care owed by a health care provider to diagnose, evaluate, and treat its patient ordinarily flows only to the patient, not to third parties. Thus, it has often been said that a malpractice action lies only where a health care provider-patient relationship exists and there has been a breach of a professional duty owing to the patient.” Dehn v. Edgecombe, 384 Md. 606 (Md. 2005).
Continue Reading →

A New York trial judge has ordered a new trial on damages in the malpractice case of a businessman left permanently paralyzed after a stroke. The plaintiff was awarded $5 million in April after a jury trial. The judge, however, set aside the verdict last week with respect to damages, finding that the award was too low. The judge then entered judgment for approximately $18.4 million. Specifically, the judge found that the jury’s award of $1 million each for past and future pain and suffering to the plaintiff and his family deviated materially from what would be fair compensation, and thus increased the award to $5 million each. The plaintiff contended in the case that doctors at a hospital failed to diagnose what they called “classic symptoms” of a brain aneurysm that led to the stroke.

The Massachusetts Supreme Court issued a written decision yesterday in a medical malpractice case, finding that doctors can be held liable for medical negligence that reduces a patient’s chance of survival, even if the patient’s probability for recovery was already less than 50 percent. The Massachusetts Supreme Court’s ruling came in a closely watched medical malpractice case. In 2004, a jury awarded $1 million to the family of a man whose cancer was overlooked by a doctor. The court upheld the jury’s award in its decision, ruling that Massachusetts law is such that if a doctor’s negligence reduces or eliminates the patient’s chance for recovery, the doctor still is liable for damages. A copy of the article regarding the case can be found here.