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

plaintiffdefendantnegligenceappealtrialverdicttestimonymalpractice
plaintiffnegligenceappealmalpracticeappellant

Related Cases

Lillibridge v. McCann, 117 Mich. 84, 75 N.W. 288, 41 L.R.A. 381, 72 Am.St.Rep. 553
View Case »
Wagner v. International Railway Co., 189 A.D. 925, 180 N.Y.S. 957 (Mem)
View Case »
Kaplan v. Mamelak, 162 Cal.App.4th 637, 75 Cal.Rptr.3d 861, 08 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 5149, 2008 Daily Journal D.A.R. 6251
View Case »
Price v. Baker, 143 Colo. 264, 352 P.2d 90
View Case »
M. Miller Co. v. Dames & Moore, 198 Cal.App.2d 305, 18 Cal.Rptr. 13
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 due to brain damage allegedly caused by negligence during delivery. The defendants included two obstetricians, an anesthesiologist, and a pediatrician. At trial, the court ruled that the strict locality rule applied, which the plaintiffs conceded made it impossible for them to prove their case. They proffered expert testimony indicating that national standards of care existed for hospitals and physicians, but the trial judge directed a verdict for the defendants.

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

Whether the strict locality rule should apply in medical malpractice cases in Maryland, or if a national standard of care should be adopted.

We are asked to decide upon the proper standard of care to be applied in medical malpractice cases.

Rule

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; a hospital is required to use that degree of care and skill which is expected of a reasonably competent hospital in the same or similar circumstances.

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; that a hospital is required to use that degree of care and skill which is expected of a reasonably competent hospital 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 noted that advancements in medical education and the availability of information have led to a more standardized practice across the country. The court found that the evidence presented by the plaintiffs regarding national standards of care was sufficient to take the issue to the jury, as it demonstrated that the defendants failed to meet these standards.

The court reasoned that the strict locality rule was outdated and did not reflect the realities of modern medical practice, noting that advancements in medical education and the availability of information have led to a more standardized practice across the country.

Conclusion

The Court of Appeals reversed the judgment of the Court of Special Appeals and remanded the case for a new trial, instructing that the standard of care applicable to the defendants should not be limited by geographic locality.

Judgment of the Court of Special Appeals reversed and cause remanded with instructions.

Who won?

The plaintiffs prevailed in the appeal, as the court ruled that the strict locality rule was not applicable and that the case should be tried under a national standard of care.

The plaintiffs prevailed in the appeal, as the court ruled that the strict locality rule was not applicable and that the case should be tried under a national standard of care.

You must be