New Maryland Medical Malpractice COA Opinion

The Maryland Court of Appeals issued an opinion Friday in Spangler v. McQuitty, ending this cerebral palsy medical malpractice case that began 17 years ago. I first wrote about this case two years ago when the Maryland Court of Appeals heard this tragic case involving a boy who was born with severe cerebral palsy. Plaintiffs’ Maryland malpractice lawyers argued at trial (in Baltimore County) that the doctor breached the duty to obtain the mother’s informed consent, when medmal3he failed to give her an informed choice of her options to either take the baby early or assume the risks that come with letting the delivery play out. A Sophia’s choice. But it was the mother’s choice. The jury – to the tune of $13 million – agreed, and found that that the risks and benefits of these options should have been communicated to the patient, but were not.

So Plaintiffs had to slug out an appeal, lost in the Court of Special Appeals, but won in the Court of Appeals. After this big win, this tragedy was capped off with the young boy’s death, after suffering from cerebral palsy his whole life. Just awful. Defendants, keeping it classy, filed post-trial motions asking – insanely – for a new trial or a reduction in the award of future medical expenses, alleging that the boy’s death was a “significant event [affecting] the equities” of the case. The defense attorney, accordingly, sought a reduction of future medical expenses – the jury awarded $9 million for past and future care – to only the treatment and costs actually incurred.

The Court of Appeals said that the judgment was final and the defendant did not ask, as he could have, nor argue that he should be granted an annuity award, which would end his liability for medical expenses upon the child’s death. I don’t think the doctor would have won had he chosen this path because the trial judge, I bet, would have denied that request too. The Court of Appeals is just tweaking the defense lawyers a bit.

The court also found that the defendant is required to pay post judgment interest from the verdict because… well, that is what post judgment interest is.

Anyway, this was a long and hard fought win for this plaintiff and her malpractice lawyers. You can read the full opinion here.

Updated:
Contact Information