- Free Consultation: 800-604-0704
Household Services: Fowlkes v. Choudhry
The Baltimore Medical Malpractice Lawyer Blog features reported cases from the Maryland Appellate Courts in medical malpractice cases. Accordingly, you can search the blog database by using the topics on this page. In this post, I address household services as a part of economic or pecuniary damages. The opinion is by the Court of Appeals in Fowlkes v. Choudhry, 472 Md. 688 (2021).
Court of Special Appeals
The question before the court was what must be proven in a wrongful death medical malpractice case for a parent to recover damages for loss of household services from a deceased adult child under the Wrongful Death Act, CJP 3-901 et seq. On appeal, the Court of Special Appeals had vacated a $500,000 award in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City for loss of household services, which she would have received from her adult daughter, who died after receiving medical treatment from the defendant’s doctor. (Op. at 1). The CSA held that the evidence was insufficient, applying a three-part test:
[A] beneficiary must: (1) identify domestic services that have a market value; (2) have reasonably expected the decedent to provide the identified services, which—absent the decedent’s legal obligation to provide the services—will typically require evidence showing that the decedent was regularly providing the services in the past, and also (3) present some evidence concerning the duration the decedent would have likely provided the services. (Id. at 2-3).
The CSA was specifically concerned with the lack of market-value evidence and the absence of proof that the child intended to continue to provide the services in the future. (Id. at 4).
Court of Appeals
The Court of Appeals upheld the CSA, ruling that the plaintiff had not introduced evidence to show the deceased child’s intent to continue to perform household services in addition to what the parent expected. (Id. at 5-6).
There must be evidence that the deceased intended to continue providing the services. Specifically, this evidence can relate to a legal obligation, a written or verbal promise to provide the services, or actions by the deceased that show their intent. (Id. at 22). The court disagreed with the CSA’s emphasis on the duration of the services. (Id. at 32).
In this case, there was no proof that the deceased had a legal duty to provide services to her mother. There was no evidence of any promise, written or oral, by the decedent to her mother or provided to another that the daughter intended to provide services for any period. (Id. at 33).
The court noted that the daughter was in the habit of providing household services to her mother. Further, the daughter had lived with her mother her entire life. Moreover, the parent wanted to live with her daughter her entire life. However, those pieces of evidence needed to be sufficient to go to the jury, who would then determine the deceased’s intent. Allowing that evidence would let the jury speculate about the decedent’s intent. (Id.).
As a result, the court affirmed the CSA’s reversal of the $500,000 economic damages for household services. (Id. at 34).
Commentary by the Baltimore Medical Malpractice Lawyer on Household Services
In cases where there is no legal duty to provide household services, like in Fowlkes, the Court of Appeals has specified that the medical malpractice lawyer must present evidence of the deceased’s statements or actions that indicate an intent to continue providing the services in the future.
Comprehensive proof is key. The parent or another family member can testify that the adult child had stated that they intended to provide the services for their parent’s life. This kind of evidence can make a significant difference in the case.
It is less clear what actions will suffice. In Fowkes, it was not enough that the daughter had lived with her mother her entire life. But what if the adult child moves the parent into the child’s home? I believe that would be sufficient to indicate an intent to continue to provide the services in the future. But I wonder if the Maryland courts would agree.
That takes us back to statements. One way to make the intention to provide household services clear is to record the intention on paper and keep it with important papers. If that sounds unusual, then consider that it would take only a moment. Consider it like an insurance policy. In Fowlkes, the lack of proof of future intention cost the plaintiff $500,000.
Mark Kopec is a top-rated Baltimore medical malpractice lawyer. Contact us at 800-604-0704 to speak directly with Attorney Kopec in a free consultation. The Kopec Law Firm is in Baltimore and helps clients throughout Maryland and Washington, D.C. Thank you for reading the Baltimore Medical Malpractice Lawyer Blog.