Medical Malpractice News

Maryland,Virgina And DC, Malpactice Tort Reform

The law governing malpractice varies from state to state, but among the goals of tort law are compensation for the victim and deterrence of malpractice. To prevail in court, the injured person must demonstrate that the injury was caused by a health care provider’s negligence. In the context of malpractice, negligence means proving that the provider failed to meet the same standard of care expected of a member of the profession in good standing in the same circumstances, and that the provider’s failure caused the injury that resulted in damage or loss.

To date, the District has not adopted any major changes to its tort law, while both Maryland and Virginia have adopted selected tort reforms with differing approaches. For example, Virginia has a $1.5-million cap on total damages, whereas Maryland caps nonmonetary damages at $575,000. For filing claims, Virginia provides 2 years from the date of the injury with some stated extensions, while Maryland provides 5 years from the date of injury or 3 years from discovery, whichever is earlier. Neither state has amended its collateral source rule. While the District does not have a specific arbitration program for malpractice cases, as do Maryland and Virginia, the courts can order nonbinding arbitration or the parties can agree to binding arbitration.

Please contact us if anyone you know has suffered from debilitating injuries due to medical malpractice in North Dakota.

	Did You Know?
	You still have rights even if you signed a consent form A consent form does not give the health care provider a license to commit malpractice. While the execution of a typical consent form indicates acknowledgement of stated risks and complications associated with a given treatment or procedure, it does not relieve the health care provider from his or her duty of meeting the standard of care associated with such treatment or procedure.