Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

plaintiffdefendantnegligenceappealtrialmalpractice
plaintiffdefendantnegligenceappealtrialmalpracticeappellantappellee

Related Cases

Chumbler v. McClure, 505 F.2d 489
View Case »
Hankla v. Postell, 293 Ga. 692, 749 S.E.2d 726, 13 FCDR 3070
View Case »
Pederson v. Dumouchel, 72 Wash.2d 73, 431 P.2d 973, 31 A.L.R.3d 1100
View Case »
Higdon v. Carlebach, 348 Mich. 363, 83 N.W.2d 296
View Case »
Creasey v. Hogan, 292 Or. 154, 637 P.2d 114
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Shilkret v. Annapolis Emergency Hospital Ass’n, 276 Md. 187, 349 A.2d 245, 99 A.L.R.3d 1119

Facts

The infant plaintiff, Mark Alan Shilkret, was born at the Anne Arundel General Hospital on December 22, 1968, and has been institutionalized since due to brain damage allegedly caused by negligence during delivery. The defendants included two obstetricians, an anesthesiologist, and a pediatrician, all of whom were involved in the delivery and subsequent care of the infant. The plaintiffs argued that the defendants failed to meet the national standards of care applicable to their professions.

According to the agreed statement of facts filed in lieu of a record extract, the infant plaintiff, Mark Alan Shilkret, was born at the Anne Arundel General Hospital (Anne Arundel) on December 22, 1968, and has been continuously institutionalized since that date because of brain damage that appellants allege resulted from intracranial bleeding caused by negligence at delivery.

Issue

The main legal issue was whether the strict locality rule or a national standard of care should apply in medical malpractice cases in Maryland.

We granted certiorari for the limited purpose of deciding whether the Court of Special Appeals was correct in holding ‘that (in Maryland) the ‘Strict Locality Rule’ must be applied' in medical malpractice cases.

Rule

The court held that a physician is under a duty to use that degree of care and skill which is expected of a reasonably competent practitioner in the same class to which he belongs, acting in the same or similar circumstances; similarly, a hospital must adhere to the same standard.

We hold that a physician is under a duty to use that degree of care and skill which is expected of a reasonably competent practitioner in the same class to which he belongs, acting in the same or similar circumstances.

Analysis

The court determined that the strict locality rule was outdated and did not reflect the realities of modern medical practice. It emphasized that advancements in medical education and practice have led to a national standard of care that should apply to all physicians and hospitals, regardless of their geographic location. The evidence presented by the plaintiffs indicated that there were national standards of care for the relevant medical practices, which warranted a jury's consideration.

In addressing this issue, we note at the outset that we are dealing with two types of defendants, physicians and hospitals.

Conclusion

The Court of Appeals reversed the decision of the Court of Special Appeals and remanded the case for a new trial, instructing that the national standard of care should be applied.

Judgment of the Court of Special Appeals reversed; remanded to that court with instructions to remand the case as against all appellees to the Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County for a new trial; appellees to pay costs.

Who won?

The plaintiffs prevailed in the appeal as the court ruled that the national standard of care should apply, allowing their case to proceed to trial.

The Court of Appeals reversed the decision of the Court of Special Appeals and remanded the case for a new trial, instructing that the national standard of care should be applied.

You must be