Are you a survivor of sexual assault or abuse that occurred years ago? The State of Maryland took a significant step toward justice for you by passing the Child Victims Act of 2023. This act empowers victims to hold their abusers accountable, regardless of the time that has passed. In collaboration with Sarah Klein from MSF, SBWD Law is dedicated to supporting survivors and ensuring their rights are protected. Contact us for a free consultation and let us stand with you.

Over $200 Million In Verdicts & Settlements On Behalf Of Our Clients

Baltimore Law Blog

Man Receives 285 Million Verdict For Doctors Improper Care

by | Jun 7, 2013 | Medical Malpractice

When Baltimore residents place their trust in the hands of a doctor, they expect that the doctor will act with the care required under the circumstances. Indeed, doctors have a duty to act with reasonable care, although it may be unclear to some patients what exactly that means.

In a medical malpractice case, an injured patient must prove the doctor violated the standard of care. The first step in this showing is that the doctor actually owed the patient a duty of care. For example, a doctor at a restaurant has no duty to come help a person suffering a heart attack. On the other hand, if the doctor is treating the person as a patient, the doctor owes that patient a duty of care.

Accordingly, the doctor typically must have a doctor-patient relationship in order to owe a duty of care. This is an important distinction, as it does not depend on the procedure itself, but the relationship between the doctor and patient.

For example, one man recently was awarded $28.5 million in a medical malpractice action based on significant personal injury he suffered as a result of doctor error. The man had undergone a controversial procedure that he did not need to undergo, during which his doctor failed to monitor warning signs. As a result, the man suffered a loss of oxygen in his brain, cardiac arrest and permanent brain injury.

The doctor’s duty of care was at issue in the case, as the jury found the doctor had violated the standard of care by clear and convincing evidence. This is an even higher evidentiary standard than the typical preponderance of the evidence standard, and demonstrates the egregiousness of the doctor’s conduct and the degree of violation of care in the case.

The use of the Internet or this form for communication with the firm or any individual member of the firm does not establish an attorney-client relationship. Confidential or time-sensitive information should not be sent through this form.