Hunt v. Mercy Medical Center
1998 Md. App. LEXIS 111, 710 A.2d 362, 121 Md. App. 516 (1998)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Emotional distress resulting from a negligent medical misdiagnosis is compensable as a 'physical injury' when its manifestations are capable of objective determination. Expert medical testimony is not required to prove causation if the connection between the negligent act and common physical manifestations of stress (e.g., sleeplessness, fatigue) is within the common experience of lay jurors.
Facts:
- On the advice of his urologist, Charles Dell’uomo, age 78, underwent a prostate biopsy at Mercy Medical Center on March 9, 1995.
- The next day, Dr. Victor A. Fazekas, a pathologist at Mercy, diagnosed the tissue specimen as cancerous.
- Based on this diagnosis, Mr. Dell'uomo was informed he had prostate cancer and would require radiation treatment.
- Mr. Dell'uomo consented to the treatment, which he was told could cause side effects like fatigue, urinary frequency, and rectal irritation.
- Beginning on April 17, 1995, Mr. Dell'uomo underwent fifteen separate radiation treatments over three weeks.
- On May 8, 1995, the misdiagnosis was discovered, and Mr. Dell'uomo was informed that he did not have cancer.
- A subsequent biopsy, which Mr. Dell'uomo reluctantly agreed to, confirmed he was cancer-free.
- Mr. Dell’uomo died in the spring of 1996 from causes unrelated to the misdiagnosis or radiation treatments.
Procedural Posture:
- Charles Dell’uomo initiated a medical malpractice action before the Maryland Health Claims Arbitration Office against Dr. Fazekas and Mercy Medical Center, among others.
- Following Mr. Dell'uomo's death, Carol Sue Hunt, the personal representative of his estate, was substituted as the claimant.
- The arbitration panel found no liability and issued an award in favor of the health care providers.
- Hunt, as appellant, rejected the award and filed a complaint in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City to nullify it, requesting a jury trial.
- Dr. Fazekas and Mercy Medical Center filed motions for summary judgment, arguing the injury was not compensable and that Hunt failed to arbitrate in good faith by not presenting expert medical testimony.
- The Circuit Court (trial court) granted summary judgment in favor of both Dr. Fazekas and Mercy Medical Center.
- Hunt appealed the Circuit Court's grant of summary judgment to the Court of Special Appeals of Maryland (intermediate appellate court).
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does emotional distress from a negligent medical misdiagnosis, which manifests in objectively determinable physical symptoms like sleeplessness and fatigue, constitute a compensable injury for which causation can be proven without expert medical testimony?
Opinions:
Majority - Thieme, Judge
Yes. Emotional distress from a negligent misdiagnosis is a compensable injury when its outward manifestations are capable of objective determination, and expert testimony is not necessary to establish causation for resulting common maladies. The court traced the evolution of Maryland's 'physical injury' rule, established in cases like Vance v. Vance, which permits recovery for emotional injuries if they are 'capable of objective determination.' Here, testimony from Mr. Dell'uomo about his sleeplessness, fatigue, and constipation, combined with his companion's testimony about his irritability, withdrawal, and constant worry, provided a sufficient basis for a jury to quantify the injury. Regarding causation, the court applied the Wilhelm v. State Traffic Safety Comm'n standard, which holds that expert testimony is only required for 'complicated medical questions,' not for matters within the 'common experience, knowledge, or observation of laymen.' The court concluded that a jury is competent to understand that the stress of a cancer diagnosis and unnecessary radiation can cause common ailments like fatigue, sleeplessness, and mood changes without needing an expert to explain the connection.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies that under Maryland's 'physical injury' rule, the key to a compensable emotional distress claim is the quality of the evidence, not a specific threshold of severity. By establishing that lay testimony can be sufficient to prove both the objective manifestations of emotional harm and its causation, the court lowers a significant barrier for plaintiffs. This precedent is important in medical malpractice and other negligence cases where the primary harm is emotional, as it validates claims based on common, observable symptoms without requiring the plaintiff to incur the expense and burden of securing expert medical testimony for matters a jury can reasonably understand.
