Shilkret v. Annapolis Emergency Hospital Association

349 A.2d 245 (1975)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

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 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-physicians 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.