Contract Breach: Heneberry v. Pharoan
The Baltimore Medical Malpractice Lawyer Blog delves into the intricacies of Maryland medical malpractice cases. In this post, I unravel the interplay between breach of contract and malpractice, specifically using the Court of Special Appeals reported opinion in Heneberry v. Pharoan, 232 Md. App. 468 (2017) as a case study.
The plaintiffs brought a medical malpractice lawsuit in the Circuit Court for Baltimore County alleging that the patient had acute appendicitis and that the defendant surgeon performed an appendectomy. In doing so, the doctor failed to completely remove the entire appendix. The patient suffered pain and needed another procedure to remove the appendiceal stump. (Op. at 1).
The plaintiffs also included a claim for breach of contract against the doctor for failing to remove the entire appendix. The circuit court granted the doctor’s motion to dismiss that count. The parties went to trial on the malpractice claims, and the jury returned a defense verdict. The plaintiffs then appealed the dismissal of the contract claim. (Id. at 1, 3).
Court of Special Appeals
The CSA addressed the plaintiffs’ argument that the trial court erred in considering attachments to the doctor’s motion to dismiss. Rather, it should have limited the analysis to the four corners of the complaint. (Id. at 4).
The appellate court treats the trial court’s grant of a motion to dismiss as one for summary judgment when the court considers facts beyond those in the complaint. (Id. at 5). The CSA noted that this can unfairly prejudice a party if they did not have the opportunity to submit materials in addition to the complaint, but that was not the case here. (Id. at 9).
Maryland courts have a long-standing view that a doctor’s failure to exercise reasonable care is a tort, not a breach of contract. To establish a breach of contract claim, the patient must demonstrate that the doctor made an additional promise or warranty, distinct from the doctor’s agreement to properly perform the procedure.
The CSA described part of the rationale for this principle:
The argument against imposing contractual liability on the physician is that considering the unpredictability of medical results and the differences in individual patients, it is unlikely that the physician of integrity can, in good faith, promise a particular outcome. (Id. at 16).
The plaintiffs here made no such allegation. (Id. at 11-13). As a result, the trial court correctly determined that the doctor was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. (Id. at 14-15).
Insightful Commentary by Baltimore Medical Malpractice Lawyer Mark Kopec on Breach of Contract
Even though this appellate opinion focused on the breach of contract claim, it is worth briefly discussing the accompanying medical malpractice claim.
Many medical malpractice lawyers would not have brought this malpractice case. The parties can fight over whether it violates the standard of care to leave the stump. However, it does not appear that the patient suffered any permanent injury. In this situation, whether the jury finds that the remaining stump is a recognized risk of the procedure or the jury awards insignificant damages, I do not believe that the prospects for the plaintiffs were good. Accordingly, the defense verdict was not surprising.
The prospects were even worse for the breach of contract claim. The plaintiffs ignored well-established case law in Maryland and other states that required a promise beyond the agreement to do the procedure. The CSA had no trouble distinguishing the cases the plaintiff relied upon because most of them contained the same requirements that the courts in this case relied upon.
You can read other Blog posts in the category of causes of action.
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.