- Free Consultation: 800-604-0704
Recusal: Kiebler v. Johns Hopkins 2
The Baltimore Medical Malpractice Lawyer Blog delves into Maryland appellate opinions in medical malpractice cases. This post focuses on the unreported opinion in Kiebler v. Johns Hopkins Bayview Medical Center, No. 2173, issued on September 24, 2024. Part 1 of the post examined the court’s use of Daubert to dismiss the plaintiff’s experts in a cerebral palsy birth injury case. Part 2, which follows, delves into the court’s decision to reject the plaintiff’s argument for the trial judge’s recusal.
Factual Background on Judge Recusal
The plaintiff, born at 30 weeks gestation, now suffers from spastic diplegic cerebral palsy, a condition causing stiffness primarily in the leg muscles. His parents filed a case for medical malpractice in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City, alleging negligence before and during his delivery. This case, with its intricate medical details, presents a compelling legal challenge. (Op. at 1).
When the mother presented to the hospital for the second time for decreased fetal movement, a biophysical profile for fetal well-being scored 6 out of 10. She also had severe preeclampsia. The doctor admitted her. (Id. at 5).
At 3:30 am the following day, the fetal heart rate tracings worsened to category II. They worsened more by 7 or 8 am, indicating potential fetal distress. At 8:17 am, the doctor called for an emergency c-section, which they accomplished at 8:50 am. The Apgar scores for the baby’s condition were 2 and 6. (Id. at 5-6).
Umbilical cord gas revealed acidemia from excessively low blood pH. The plaintiff did not have any seizures, and an ultrasound of the head was normal. (Id. at 6).
The plaintiff argued that the doctor should have done the c-section by midnight, and the baby would have avoided injury. (Id. at 7). These are the facts that preceded the recusal issue.
The defense motioned to exclude the plaintiff’s standard of care and causation experts under Rule 5-702 and Daubert. The court granted the motion and then entered summary judgment for the defense. The plaintiff appealed. (Id. at 9, 15).
Appellate Court
The Appellate Court found insufficient support for the position that fetal heart rate tracings, acidemia, nucleated red blood cell count, and neuroimaging together supported the cause of injury. The court found persuasive medical literature that states that the plaintiff’s prematurity put him at a 40-50 times higher risk for cerebral palsy than a full-term baby. (Id. at 20).
Judge Recusal
The Appellate Court then turned to the plaintiff’s claim that the trial judge should have recused himself. The plaintiff states that the judge’s wife is an ob-gyn who worked until 2020 and previously trained at and worked for Johns Hopkins. The judge failed to disclose that before issuing his ruling. (Id. at 21.) The plaintiff adds that the judge’s wife is a member of ACOG. In part 1 of this Blog post, I noted that ACOG’s literature was central to the court’s decision. ACOG is an organization with an agenda to limit and eliminate birth injury lawsuits and the damages they seek. ACOG spends millions of dollars advocating against birth injury victims.
The court examined the circumstances and concluded that there was no basis for recusal. The judge’s wife’s previous work for the defendant, which ended 30 years ago, and her retirement as an OB were deemed inconsequential.
Commentary by the Baltimore Medical Malpractice Lawyer
It is important to focus on what the court was deciding. The court addressed the effect of a relationship. The judge’s spouse trained and worked at the defendant 30 years ago and long held the same OB position as the doctor at issue but retired a few years earlier.
The court held that this relationship was not sufficient to require the trial judge’s recusal. I agree. The connection with the defendant was decades before. I don’t believe that the wife’s former occupation in the same position as the doctor in this case required recusal.
General Bias
Bias, however, is a larger question. It raises serious concerns about conscious or subconscious influences on a case. Could a spouse’s negative experience with the legal system color the judge’s thinking? Of course. Yet, there may be no mechanism to root out such bias. This example speaks of the potential dangers and limitations of the system, a matter of significant concern. (I want to be clear that I know of no such bias in this case. This example speaks of the possibilities and limitations of the system.)
Of course, it works the other way too. We could have the same conversation about a judge married to a birth injury lawyer. The point is that judges can bring potential biases from many sources and experiences, and the legal system is limited in its ability to address them. The assignment of a case to a particular judge may play more of a role in the outcome than is often realized, especially by the public. This underlines the need for vigilance and caution in the legal process.
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.