Facts and Procedural History
Allegedly, a 42-year-old patient arrived at a hospital in June 2022 with severe chest pain and underwent emergency repair of an ascending aortic dissection. After six procedures concluded without identified complications, the patient entered intensive care in critical but stable condition. Confusion appeared the next day, followed by concern about altered brain activity and severe weakness in both legs. Neurology recommended magnetic resonance imaging and a head scan because of concern for a spinal cord stroke.
Reportedly, clinicians deferred the MRI because transport outside intensive care, reduced monitoring, and removal of wires used for blood-pressure management posed safety concerns. An MRI days later showed a stroke. The patient asserted that providers had not timely raised blood pressure or considered a lumbar drain. After rehabilitation, the patient claimed continuing limitations, while the defendants cited improved strength, mobility, and daily functioning.
It is alleged that an authorized representative filed suit in federal court, claiming that the hospital and physicians failed to recognize, diagnose, and treat the strokes. The defendants moved to exclude two causation and damages experts. The court excluded one opinion under Federal Rule of Evidence 702 and the other under disclosure and sanction rules. Because local law required expert causation testimony, the court granted summary judgment to the defendants. The plaintiff appealed.
Exclusion of Experts in Medical Malpractice Cases
On appeal, the court reviewed the expert exclusions for abuse of discretion. Rule 702 required the plaintiff to show, more likely than not, that the testimony would help the factfinder, rested on sufficient facts or data, resulted from reliable methods, and reliably applied those methods. The trial court had substantial latitude in assessing reliability.
The first expert relied on limited experience with this specific repair, selected 2022 records, and four articles. The expert neither examined the patient nor reviewed later records, despite opining that deficits were permanent. Three articles did not address the central issue, and the closest article did not support key conclusions about blood-pressure management or lumbar drainage. Although the district court placed too much emphasis on the expert’s specialty, its broader reliability analysis remained within its discretion.
The second expert’s disclosure and report did not identify a causation opinion. Deposition remarks could not cure that omission because they did not provide fair notice or a reasonable opportunity for the defense to prepare. The appellate court therefore upheld that exclusion under Rules 26 and 37.
The court reviewed summary judgment without deference. District of Columbia law required proof of the standard of care, breach, and causation, with experts needed for issues beyond an average juror’s knowledge. Once both opinions were excluded, the plaintiff lacked evidence on an essential element. The court affirmed while clarifying that a physician need not always practice the precise specialty or personally examine a patient. These opinions failed because their factual, methodological, and disclosure deficiencies were decisive.
Discuss a Baltimore Hospital Malpractice Claim with Arfaa Law Group Today
Complex injury claims require carefully supported and timely disclosed expert opinions. If you or a loved one experienced neurological harm or another serious injury after hospital treatment in Baltimore or elsewhere in Maryland, the medical malpractice attorneys at Arfaa Law Group can review the records and discuss potential legal options. Call Arfaa Law Group at (410) 889-1850 or contact the firm through its online form to request a free, confidential consultation.
]]>
Case Setting
Allegedly, the plaintiff consulted a surgeon about the thyroid gland in September 2023 and underwent a total thyroidectomy the following month. After surgery, the plaintiff experienced respiratory distress and stridor, a high-pitched sound associated with a narrowed or obstructed upper airway. The surgeon ordered reintubation approximately three hours later. Following extubation two days afterward, the plaintiff continued to experience intermittent stridor, swallowing difficulty, and a weak voice while receiving intensive care.
]]>Case Setting
Allegedly, a nine-year-old child with chronic constipation experienced severe abdominal pain after approximately two weeks without a bowel movement. A parent took the child to an urgent care facility on August 28, 2020. A physician administered an enema, examined the child’s abdomen, and discharged the child that evening even though the child had not passed a bowel movement. The next morning, the child developed vomiting and diarrhea, became unresponsive, and suffered cardiac arrest and gastrointestinal bleeding. The child died on August 30, 2020. An autopsy attributed the death to complications of bowel obstruction caused by congenital constipation.
Reportedly, one parent filed a medical malpractice claim with Maryland’s Health Care Alternative Dispute Resolution Office on August 16, 2023, and waived arbitration. That parent filed a circuit court complaint on September 22, asserting negligence, wrongful death, and survival claims. The complaint identified the other parent as a use plaintiff. Service occurred after the three-year anniversary of the child’s death.
It is reported that the use plaintiff tried to file a motion to intervene in October 2023, but a clerk indicated that the docket already listed the use plaintiff as a represented party. Counsel for the initiating plaintiff later clarified that the firm did not represent the use plaintiff and that formal intervention was necessary. After retaining counsel, the use plaintiff moved to intervene on June 7, 2024. The circuit court denied the motion because Maryland Rule 15-1001 required action by the earlier of the statutory deadline or 30 days after service. The use plaintiff appealed.
Timeliness of Medical Malpractice Related Wrongful Death Claims
On appeal, the court reviewed the intervention decision for abuse of discretion but considered the controlling legal interpretation without deference. It read Rule 15-1001 together with Maryland’s wrongful death statute. Their plain language required a use plaintiff seeking participation or recovery to file a complaint or intervention motion no later than three years after death, even when service of the existing complaint occurred afterward.
The court recognized that the result was harsh but explained that every eligible beneficiary may independently act during the three-year period. Being listed as a use plaintiff did not itself make the appellant an active party. The rule’s good-cause provision could excuse failure to meet the 30-day service deadline, but it expressly could not excuse failure to satisfy the statutory deadline.
Consequently, the clerk interaction could not revive the expired right.
The court also rejected relation back. Maryland treats the wrongful death filing period as a condition precedent attached to the right to sue, not merely a defense affecting the remedy. When the plaintiff failed to act within three years, the individual claim expired. Relation back cannot restore that right. Adding another beneficiary could also increase, rather than divide, damages for grief and emotional suffering. Applying the doctrine would undermine the intervention deadlines. The court affirmed without deciding whether good cause excused the service-based delay.
Speak with a Baltimore Medical Malpractice Attorney at Arfaa Law Group
Wrongful death claims involving medical care require prompt coordination among beneficiaries and careful compliance with Maryland’s pre-suit rules. If your family lost a loved one after possible medical negligence in Baltimore or elsewhere in Maryland, the medical malpractice attorneys at Arfaa Law Group can advise you of your options and help you take the steps needed to protect your interests. Call Arfaa Law Group at (410) 889-1850 or submit the firm’s online contact form to arrange a free, confidential consultation.
]]>
Facts and Procedural History
Allegedly, the plaintiff received emergency-room care on June 3, 2021, and an intravenous line may have been inserted improperly into the plaintiff’s hand. Acting without counsel, the plaintiff filed both a circuit court complaint and a document presenting the same claim to Maryland’s Health Care Alternative Dispute Resolution Office on April 19, 2024. The defendant hospital moved to dismiss the court action because the plaintiff had neither filed a certificate from a qualified expert nor waived arbitration as required by the Health Care Malpractice Claims Act.
Reportedly, the circuit court granted that motion on July 5, 2024. The plaintiff did not appeal but sent a letter requesting that the case remain on hold during a state medical board investigation. The letter lacked a certificate of service, and the court took no action. The administrative office later dismissed the claim because the plaintiff had not supplied the required certificate.
It is alleged that the plaintiff filed a second circuit court complaint against the hospital on December 11, 2024, based on the same treatment. The hospital again sought dismissal, citing noncompliance with the statutory pre-suit process and expiration of the three-year limitations period. Although the plaintiff submitted medical records and other exhibits, the responses did not initially answer those grounds. The plaintiff later argued that the timely first complaint should make the second complaint timely. On October 31, 2025, the circuit court dismissed the second action with prejudice, and the plaintiff appealed.
Procedural Rules in Maryland Medical Malpractice Cases
On appeal, the court considered only the second action because the plaintiff had never appealed the first dismissal. The plaintiff challenged the limitations ruling and contended that the second complaint should relate back to the first filing. The plaintiff did not address the independent failure to satisfy the Health Care Malpractice Claims Act, including the absence of a qualified expert’s certificate.
Maryland law generally requires a claimant to file with the administrative office a certificate in which a qualified expert attests that the provider departed from the applicable standard of care and that the departure proximately caused the injury. This requirement operates as a condition precedent to a circuit court action. The court concluded that the administrative director properly dismissed the underlying claim when the plaintiff failed to provide the certificate. Because that statutory prerequisite remained unsatisfied, the circuit court also properly dismissed the lawsuit.
The court rejected the limitations argument as well. The first lawsuit did not preserve the later action after its dismissal, and the second complaint arrived more than three years after discovery of the claimed injury. Without a proper certificate, the dispute should not have been in circuit court. The court affirmed on both grounds.
Consult a Baltimore Medical Malpractice Attorney at Arfaa Law Group Today
Medical negligence cases involve demanding deadlines and technical filing requirements that can affect a patient’s rights before a court considers the evidence. If you or a loved one suffered harm because of substandard medical care in Baltimore or elsewhere in Maryland, the medical malpractice attorneys at Arfaa Law Group can review the circumstances and explain the available options. Call Arfaa Law Group at (410) 889-1850 or use the firm’s online contact form to request a free, confidential consultation.
]]>
Patients who receive medical treatment at Veterans Affairs hospitals, military medical facilities, and other federally operated healthcare institutions generally expect to have the same legal remedies available as those treated by private healthcare providers. While injured patients may pursue compensation when negligent medical care causes harm, claims against the federal government are governed by unique procedural rules that differ significantly from traditional medical malpractice lawsuits. A recent decision demonstrates how failing to comply with the Federal Tort Claims Act can prevent a medical malpractice claim from moving forward, regardless of the seriousness of the underlying allegations. If you believe you suffered injuries because of negligent care at a federal healthcare facility, speaking with an experienced Baltimore medical malpractice attorney can help ensure your claim is properly preserved.
Facts and Procedural History
Reportedly, the plaintiff underwent an elective surgical procedure at a Veterans Affairs medical center in Arizona. The plaintiff alleged that while under anesthesia, a physician administered medication and performed an additional medical procedure without obtaining informed consent. The plaintiff initially filed a medical malpractice lawsuit against the physician in state court. The United States subsequently intervened, asserting that the physician was acting within the scope of federal employment during the procedure, removed the case to federal court, and substituted the United States as the defendant under the Federal Tort Claims Act. The federal court ultimately dismissed the malpractice action because the plaintiff had not exhausted the administrative remedies required by the FTCA before filing suit.
It is reported that after the dismissal of the malpractice action, the plaintiff filed additional lawsuits challenging the conduct of various federal agencies and government attorneys involved in defending the original case. The plaintiff asserted constitutional claims, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and allegations relating to fraud on the court, contending that government officials had acted improperly during the defense of the underlying medical malpractice litigation. The defendants moved to dismiss the action on multiple jurisdictional and procedural grounds.
Medical Malpractice Claims Against Federal Entities
The United States District Court dismissed all of the plaintiff’s claims. In doing so, the court explained that the federal government enjoys sovereign immunity unless Congress has expressly authorized a lawsuit. For medical malpractice claims involving federally employed healthcare providers, that waiver of immunity is provided through the Federal Tort Claims Act. However, before filing suit, a claimant generally must first present an administrative claim to the appropriate federal agency and allow the agency an opportunity to investigate and resolve the matter. These administrative exhaustion requirements are mandatory and are a prerequisite to maintaining an FTCA action.
The court further explained that the plaintiff’s constitutional claims could not proceed because they were asserted against federal agencies and officials acting in their official capacities rather than against individual federal officers in their personal capacities. As a result, sovereign immunity barred those claims. Likewise, the plaintiff’s emotional distress allegations could not proceed because they had not been properly pursued under the Federal Tort Claims Act, which provides the exclusive avenue for many tort claims against the federal government. Having determined that the plaintiff failed to establish a valid waiver of sovereign immunity or satisfy the applicable jurisdictional requirements, the court dismissed the action.
Confer with an Assertive Baltimore Medical Malpractice Attorney
If you believe you were injured while receiving treatment at a Veterans Affairs hospital or another federally operated medical facility, it is advisable to talk to an attorney about your potential claims. The assertive Baltimore medical malpractice attorneys of Arfaa Law Group understand the procedural requirements that can determine whether a claim proceeds, and if we represent you, we will help you pursue the compensation you deserve. To schedule a consultation, call Arfaa Law Group at (410) 889-1850 or complete our online contact form today.
When medical negligence results in the loss of a loved one, surviving family members often face overwhelming emotional and legal challenges. Maryland’s wrongful death laws are designed to allow eligible beneficiaries to seek compensation for the losses they have suffered, but strict procedural requirements govern those rights. A recent decision from a Maryland court demonstrates that even when a wrongful death action has already been filed, family members who fail to comply with Maryland’s intervention requirements may lose the opportunity to participate in any recovery. If you have lost a loved one because of suspected medical negligence, consulting an experienced Baltimore medical malpractice attorney as soon as possible can help protect your rights.
History of the Case
Reportedly, the underlying medical malpractice claim arose after a nine-year-old child died following treatment at an urgent care facility. According to the complaint, the child was evaluated for severe abdominal pain and constipation, treated, and discharged without passing a bowel movement. The following day, the child became critically ill, was transported to a hospital, and later died from complications associated with a bowel obstruction.
]]>Patients who suffer injuries because of negligent medical care often assume that filing a lawsuit before the statute of limitations expires is enough to preserve their rights. In Maryland, however, medical malpractice claims are governed by procedural requirements that are just as important as the allegations themselves. Before a case can proceed in circuit court, claimants generally must satisfy the requirements of the Maryland Health Care Malpractice Claims Act, including filing a claim with the Health Care Alternative Dispute Resolution Office and submitting a Certificate of Qualified Expert. A recent decision from a Maryland court demonstrates that failing to comply with these mandatory steps can prevent a claim from moving forward, regardless of the underlying allegations. If you believe you have been harmed by negligent medical care, speaking with an experienced Baltimore medical malpractice attorney early in the process can help protect your rights.
Case Setting
Reportedly, the plaintiff filed a medical malpractice complaint against a hospital in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City, alleging that an intravenous line had been improperly inserted during an emergency room visit several years earlier. At approximately the same time, the plaintiff also filed a claim with the Health Care Alternative Dispute Resolution Office involving the same allegations. The hospital moved to dismiss the circuit court action, arguing that the plaintiff had neither filed the required Certificate of Qualified Expert nor waived arbitration as required by Maryland’s Health Care Malpractice Claims Act. The circuit court agreed and dismissed the complaint.
]]>Jury Awards Damages Following Alleged C-Section Negligence
Reportedly, a Montgomery County jury awarded approximately $825,646 to a woman who suffered a permanent bladder injury during a cesarean section performed at a Maryland hospital. According to the report, the plaintiff underwent a nonemergency C-section after labor failed to progress. Because she had previously undergone a cesarean delivery, scar tissue had formed between her bladder and uterus, creating additional surgical challenges. During the procedure, the physician allegedly made a significant incision into the patient’s bladder while separating the organs. The plaintiff contended that the physician negligently attempted to repair the injury before requesting assistance from a urologist, resulting in ongoing complications.
It is reported that although the patient’s child was delivered safely, the bladder injury did not heal properly, leading to the development of a vesicouterine fistula. Even after subsequent surgery corrected the abnormal connection between the bladder and uterus, the plaintiff reportedly continued to experience urinary dysfunction, bladder spasms, and incontinence requiring her to wear protective pads. The evidence further indicated that she had been advised not to become pregnant again because of the risk of additional complications. After a six-day trial, the jury found the physician liable and awarded $750,000 in noneconomic damages for pain and suffering, along with $75,646 for future medical expenses. According to the report, the noneconomic damages award fell below Maryland’s statutory cap applicable at the time of the verdict.
Why the Verdict Matters
Although every medical malpractice case depends upon its own facts, this verdict highlights several important principles of Maryland law. First, a poor medical outcome alone does not establish negligence. Instead, an injured patient generally must prove that the healthcare provider breached the applicable standard of care and that the breach proximately caused the patient’s injuries. In most Maryland medical malpractice cases, this requires testimony from qualified medical experts who can explain both what a reasonably competent healthcare provider should have done under similar circumstances and how the defendant’s conduct caused the injury. Without persuasive expert testimony, even a serious injury may not result in liability.
The verdict also demonstrates the types of damages that may be available when medical negligence causes lasting harm. Maryland law permits injured patients to seek economic damages, which can include past and future medical expenses, lost income, diminished earning capacity, and other measurable financial losses. Plaintiffs may also recover noneconomic damages for losses that cannot easily be quantified, including pain, suffering, emotional distress, inconvenience, disfigurement, and loss of enjoyment of life. Unlike economic damages, however, noneconomic damages in Maryland medical malpractice cases are subject to statutory caps that are adjusted over time. As this case illustrates, juries may award substantial compensation even when those statutory limitations apply.
The case also serves as an important reminder that strict filing deadlines govern Maryland medical malpractice claims. In most situations, an action must be filed within the earlier of five years from the date the injury was committed or three years from the date the injury was discovered, although exceptions may apply depending upon the circumstances. Waiting too long can permanently bar an otherwise valid claim.
Finally, unlike many other personal injury actions, Maryland medical malpractice claims generally cannot proceed directly to circuit court. Before filing suit, a claimant ordinarily must comply with the requirements of the Health Care Alternative Dispute Resolution Office, including filing a Certificate of Qualified Expert establishing that the healthcare provider departed from the applicable standard of care and that the departure proximately caused the alleged injury. These procedural requirements frequently determine whether a case is allowed to proceed on its merits.
Learn How an Experienced Baltimore Medical Malpractice Attorney Can Help
A serious medical injury can change your health, your finances, and your family’s future in an instant. If you believe you were harmed because a healthcare provider failed to meet the accepted standard of care, do not wait to learn about your legal rights. The experienced Baltimore medical malpractice attorneys at Arfaa Law Group have extensive experience representing patients and families harmed by negligent medical care. We understand the medical and legal issues these cases present and are prepared to pursue the compensation you deserve. Call Arfaa Law Group at (410) 889-1850 or complete our online contact form today to schedule a consultation and discuss your potential medical malpractice claim.
Diagnosing rare medical conditions can present significant challenges. However, healthcare providers are still expected to recognize warning signs, order appropriate testing, and refer patients for additional evaluation when the accepted standard of care requires it. When a patient later suffers catastrophic harm because a serious condition went undiagnosed, the resulting medical malpractice litigation often turns on expert testimony establishing what reasonably competent physicians should have done under the circumstances. A recent Maryland decision illustrates how evidentiary rulings concerning expert opinions and medical literature can shape the outcome of a medical negligence trial. If you or a loved one suffered harm because a healthcare provider failed to diagnose a serious medical condition in a timely manner, you should speak with a Baltimore medical malpractice attorney to discuss your legal options.
Factual and Procedural Setting
Allegedly, the decedent sought medical treatment over a period of approximately two years for symptoms that included shortness of breath, lightheadedness, and other cardiovascular complaints. Multiple healthcare providers evaluated the decedent, underwent cardiac testing, and were hospitalized on more than one occasion. Despite continued treatment, the decedent was never diagnosed with cardiac amyloidosis, a progressive condition caused by abnormal protein deposits in the heart.
Reportedly, the decedent died suddenly in December 2017. An autopsy concluded that the death most likely resulted from an arrhythmia caused by previously undiagnosed cardiac amyloidosis. The decedent’s family subsequently filed a medical malpractice action alleging that the defendants failed to recognize the condition, diagnose it during the years preceding the decedent’s death, and provide treatment that could have extended the decedent’s life. Following a jury trial, the jury found that none of the defendants breached the applicable standard of care. The plaintiffs appealed, challenging several evidentiary and procedural rulings made before and during trial.
Expert Testimony in Medical Malpractice Cases
On appeal, the court reviewed whether the circuit court abused its discretion in limiting expert testimony, excluding certain evidence, refusing to reopen discovery, and preventing an additional witness from testifying. The appellate court emphasized that trial judges possess broad discretion when managing discovery and determining the admissibility of expert testimony and evidence, particularly in complex medical malpractice cases.
A significant issue involved the plaintiffs’ cardiology expert, who intended to testify that prescribing a particular medication before it received FDA approval represented the applicable standard of care during the relevant treatment period.
Applying Maryland’s Daubert-Rochkind framework, the trial court determined that the expert failed to demonstrate the reliability of that opinion because it was unsupported by peer-reviewed literature, lacked evidence of general acceptance within the medical community during the relevant years, and relied primarily on the expert’s own conclusions. The court agreed that Maryland law requires more than an expert’s personal belief to establish the applicable standard of care and affirmed the exclusion of that portion of the testimony.
The court also upheld the exclusion of a medical journal article published shortly before the decedent’s death. Because medical malpractice claims are evaluated based on the standard of care existing when the alleged negligence occurred, the court concluded that a publication released after most of the relevant treatment period could not reliably establish what reasonably competent physicians should have known during the earlier years at issue.
The court further observed that the plaintiffs’ expert remained free to testify regarding the standard of care based on training and clinical experience even without introducing the article itself. Finally, the court affirmed the jury’s verdict for the defense, finding no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s evidentiary rulings or in its management of discovery.
Discuss Your Potential Case with a Knowledgeable Medical Malpractice Baltimore Attorney
If you believe you or a loved one suffered preventable harm because a serious medical condition was not timely diagnosed or treated, the knowledgeable Baltimore medical malpractice lawyers at Arfaa Law Group can review your medical records, evaluate the strengths of your claim, and help you determine the most effective course of action. Call Arfaa Law Group at (410) 889-1850 or contact the firm through its online form to schedule a confidential and free consultation.
Many medical malpractice cases never reach a jury because they are resolved on procedural issues before the evidence of negligence is fully considered. Maryland law requires patients to satisfy specific pre-suit obligations, and courts will also examine whether a complaint contains sufficient factual allegations connecting each healthcare provider to the claimed injury. A recent Maryland decision demonstrates that even where a patient alleges inadequate follow-up treatment and worsening medical conditions, a lawsuit may be dismissed if these legal requirements are not met. If you believe you or a loved one suffered preventable injuries because of substandard medical care, an experienced Baltimore medical malpractice attorney can help you understand whether you have a viable claim and the steps necessary to protect your rights.
Facts and Procedural History
Allegedly, the plaintiff suffered serious pelvic injuries after being struck by a vehicle while incarcerated and was transported to a hospital for emergency treatment. After returning to the correctional facility, the plaintiff maintained that recommended follow-up care was denied and that the plaintiff continued experiencing severe back and hip pain, difficulty walking, and declining mobility. According to the complaint, repeated requests for additional treatment, including physical therapy and mobility assistance, were either delayed or inadequately addressed, resulting in worsening physical limitations.
Reportedly, the plaintiff filed suit asserting several claims against correctional officials and healthcare providers. As relevant to the medical negligence allegations, the plaintiff contended that the healthcare providers failed to provide appropriate follow-up treatment, delayed physical therapy, failed to provide a wheelchair in a timely manner, and prescribed ineffective medications that did not adequately address the plaintiff’s condition. The healthcare defendants moved to dismiss the medical negligence claim, arguing both that the plaintiff failed to satisfy Maryland’s mandatory pre-suit requirements and that the complaint did not sufficiently allege malpractice.
Medical Malpractice Pre-Suit Requirements
The district court first addressed Maryland’s procedural requirements governing medical malpractice actions. The court explained that any person seeking damages for injuries arising from medical negligence generally must first file a claim with the Maryland Health Care Alternative Dispute Resolution Office before initiating a lawsuit. As part of that process, a claimant ordinarily must submit a Certificate of Qualified Expert and an accompanying expert report that identifies the applicable standard of care, explains how the healthcare provider departed from that standard, and establishes that the alleged breach caused the patient’s injuries.
The court emphasized that these statutory requirements apply regardless of whether the medical malpractice action is filed in state court or federal court. Because the plaintiff presented no evidence that it had pursued the required administrative process before filing suit, the court concluded that dismissal of the medical negligence claim was warranted.
The court further explained that even if the plaintiff had completed the required administrative procedures, the complaint still failed to state a viable medical-negligence claim against the moving healthcare defendants. Under Maryland law, a medical malpractice plaintiff must plausibly allege that a healthcare provider owed a duty of care, breached the applicable medical standard of care, and caused compensable injuries through that breach. The court found that although the complaint generally alleged delays in physical therapy, inadequate pain management, and insufficient mobility assistance, it failed to connect those alleged deficiencies to specific acts or omissions by the individual physician or the corporate healthcare defendant. Instead, the allegations consisted largely of generalized conclusions without sufficient factual support to demonstrate that either defendant personally breached the applicable standard of care.
Accordingly, the court dismissed the medical negligence claim without prejudice. The dismissal preserved the plaintiff’s opportunity to pursue the claim in state court if the required administrative procedures could still be completed.
Talk to a Trusted Baltimore Medical Malpractice Attorney About Your Potential Claims
If you believe substandard medical care caused you or someone you love to suffer preventable harm, do not wait to learn what options may be available. The trusted Baltimore medical malpractice attorneys at Arfaa Law Group can review the circumstances surrounding your care, identify potential claims, and help you make informed decisions about the best path forward. Call Arfaa Law Group at (410) 889-1850 or use the firm’s online form to schedule a confidential, free consultation.