SHILKRET V. ANNAPOLIS EMERGENCY HOSPITAL ASSOCIATION
349 A.2d 245 (1975)
NATURE OF THE CASE: Shilkret (P), child and guardian ad litem, brought a medical
malpractice action against Annapolis (D), physicians and hospital, for injuries suffered by
the child at birth. The trial court entered a directed verdict for D and the Court of
Special Appeals of Maryland affirmed. P appealed.
FACTS: P was born on December 22, 1968, and has been continuously institutionalized since
that date because of brain damage alleged to have resulted from intracranial bleeding caused
by negligence at delivery. This was allegedly complicated by subsequent treatment rendered
by Ds. At the trial, after excerpts from the depositions of the four defendant-physicians
had been admitted in evidence, argument ensued over the applicable standard of care. The
court indicated that it would apply 'the strict locality rule.' But P proffered evidence
under a national standard of care. The proffered testimony of the obstetrician-gynecologist
established that Anne Arundel belongs to the American Hospital Association, one of several
members of the accrediting body known as the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Hospitals.
It was his opinion that all hospitals belonging to this group meet a national standard in
caring for obstetrical patients. At the time of the infant's birth, the witness had been
chief of the obstetrical-gynecological services at the U. S. Army Hospital at Aberdeen
Proving Ground. He believed that in this branch of medicine, the standards at Anne Arundel
were the same as those observed at Aberdeen and at all other accredited hospitals in the
United States. Similarly, as a member of the American College of Gynecologists and
Obstetricians, and being board certified, he believed that a national standard of care
applied to those with the same qualifications. He then detailed how the failure of the four
physicians and the hospital to meet the national standards of care applicable to them
resulted in the injury to P. A second expert witness would have stated in some detail that
he was employed as a neurosurgeon at the National Institutes of Health at Bethesda,
Maryland, that a national standard of care is observed in the diagnosis and treatment of
neurological diseases, the knowledge of which is also possessed by general practitioners,
and that Ds had violated what he believed to be a national standard regarding the care of
newborn infants. D's motion for a directed verdict was granted. The trial court held that
the 'strict locality' standard applies in Maryland, rather than the 'national' (in which the
standard of care is not tied to a particular geographic locality) or 'similar locality' (the
standard of care observed by physicians of ordinary skill and care in either the
defendant-physician's locality or in a similar community) tests urged by appellants, and
therefore ruled that the latter had failed to present a sufficient case for the jury. The
Court of Special Appeals affirmed, holding that its own prior cases -- and the decisions of
this Court -- compelled this result. This appeal resulted.
ISSUE:
RULE OF LAW:
HOLDING AND DECISION:
LEGAL ANALYSIS:
Get
free access to the entire content for Mac, PC or Online
for 2-3 days and free samples
of all kinds of products.
for 2-3 days and free samples of all kinds of products.
https://bsmsphd.com
© 2007-2016 Abn Study Partner
No comments:
Post a Comment