eNotes: Liability – September 2024 – Maryland

SIGNIFICANT CASE SUMMARIES

Maryland Case Summaries

Doctor’s Weight Loss Centers, Inc. v. Blackston
Maryland Supreme Court
No. 17, Sept. Term 2023

Decided: July 31, 2024

Maryland Supreme Court applies Virginia damages cap to Maryland resident’s medical malpractice damages award.

Background

Plaintiff Shelly Blackston had a liposuction procedure at Dr. Heron’s office in Alexandria, Virginia. After administering anesthesia, Dr. Heron made 15 to 18 different incisions through which cannulas (small tubes) were inserted to extract body fat. While still in Dr. Heron’s office, Plaintiff complained of “dizziness and excruciating pain.” After returning home to Maryland, Plaintiff’s infection manifested. She was bleeding, developed a high fever, was throwing up, and the incisions were swollen and oozing puss. Ultimately, Plaintiff collapsed at her home and was taken to a Maryland hospital where she was diagnosed with methicillin-resistant staphylococcus aureus (“MRSA”), a highly dangerous, contagious bacterial infection. Plaintiff subsequently underwent five surgeries and several rounds of antibiotics.

Plaintiff filed suit in Maryland alleging medical malpractice and failure to obtain informed consent. At trial, Plaintiff’s expert testified that the infection was introduced during the procedure. Defendant’s experts did not opine on when or where the infection occurred. Finding for Plaintiff on each claim, the Jury awarded $2,000,000 in non-economic damages, $60,000 in economic damages, and medical expenses of $240,900. The Circuit Court reduced the non-economic damages to $755,000, pursuant to Maryland’s cap on non-economic damages. The Appellate Court of Maryland reversed, holding Virginia’s damage cap applies, because Plaintiff was infected in Virginia. At the time, Virginia’s non-economic damages cap was $2,150,000 while Maryland’s was $755,000. Defendant’s filed a Writ of Certiorari.

Holding

The Supreme Court of Maryland affirmed the decision of the Appellate Court of Maryland. Under the choice of law rule, lex loci delicti, Maryland courts apply the substantive law of the place of the wrong. For a tort, that is the place where the final element of the cause of action occurs. In the negligence context, that is generally where the injury occurs. The Court declined to accept the Defendant’s argument that while the Plaintiff was “seeded with the bacteria” in Virginia, that bacteria did not manifest into an infection until she was back in Maryland. Rather, the Court relied on the testimony of Plaintiff’s experts that the infection was introduced during the procedure and held that there was sufficient evidence for the Jury to conclude that Plaintiff sustained an injury in the form of an infection in Dr. Heron’s Virginia office. Virginia substantive law applied.

Questions about this case can be directed to Nicholas Daetwyler at (443) 641-0567 or ndaetwyler@tthlaw.com.

Doe v. Kein
Maryland Appellate Court
No. 1609, Sept. Term, 2022

Decided: August 9, 2024

A claim of negligent defamation is not a claim of negligence, but of defamation, and the abatement statute applies.

Background

The minor child of Jane and John Doe suffered an accidental overdose. While the minor child was being treated at the Children’s National Medical Center, a report was made to Montgomery County Child Welfare Services (“CWS”). CWS interviewed the Does, concluding that no abuse had occurred. The minor child was discharged on February 13, 2019. On February 15, 2019, the minor child was hospitalized again, with treatment initially occurring at Shady Grove Hospital. While the minor child was hospitalized at Shady Grove, another report was made to CWS. Defendant was assigned to investigate the matter. Defendant then informed hospital staff that the Does’ custody had been removed, even though no Emergency Custody Order had been issued. A few hours later, due to Defendant’s suspicion that Jane Doe had Munchausen’s Syndrome by Proxy (“MSP”), the Does lost custody of the minor child.

After custody of the minor child was returned to the Does, Jane Doe filed suit against Defendant for negligent defamation and defamation in the Circuit Court for Howard County. However, during a motions hearing on December 22, 2021, it was discovered that Jane Doe passed away earlier that month. The estate of Jane Doe was substituted as a Plaintiff, alongside John Doe and the parties chose to move forward. On August 10, 2022, the State and Defendant moved for summary judgment, arguing that the defamation and negligent defamation counts extinguished upon Jane Doe’s death under the abatement statute. The Circuit Court of Howard County granted that Motion for summary judgment, finding that negligent defamation falls under the abatement statute and as such, a cause of action for slander abates upon the death of either party.

Holding

The Appellate Court of Maryland affirmed the decision of the Circuit Court for Howard County. The Appellate Court held that negligent defamation, despite the application of a negligence standard, was ultimately still a claim of defamation. The Appellate Court found Plaintiff’s argument, that a cause of action for negligent defamation was, in essence, a cause of action for negligence, was contrary to Maryland jurisprudence. As negligent defamation is undeniably defamation, Plaintiff’s negligent defamation claim abated upon Jane Doe’s death.

Questions about this case can be directed to Lucas Duty at (443) 641-0572 or lduty@tthlaw.com.