Judge Bias: Harford v. Jones

The Baltimore Medical Malpractice Lawyer Blog discusses Maryland medical malpractice cases. In this post, I examine the issue of judge bias. The case is the Appellate Court of Maryland’s February 28, 2025, reported opinion in Harford Memorial Hospital, Inc. v. Jones, No. 377.

Factual Background

The plaintiffs brought this medical malpractice case to the Circuit Court for Harford County. Two days after surgery, the plaintiffs’ family member tragically died from a pulmonary embolism (PE). The plaintiffs allege that the surgeon and hospitalist were negligent in failing to prevent, diagnose, and also treat the pulmonary embolism. (Op. at 1).

The day after the surgery, the patient nearly fainted, and his condition then deteriorated quickly. He had abnormal vital signs. The hospitalist believed the patient was dehydrated and consequently prescribed fluids. Expert testimony at trial stated that a small pulmonary embolism probably caused the deterioration, which preceded the larger PE that was fatal the next day. (Id. at 3-4).

The next morning, the vital signs had improved but were still abnormal. The hospitalist then ordered several tests. That afternoon, the patient was found unresponsive and could not be resuscitated. (Id. at 4-5).

The plaintiffs allege that the surgeon should have prescribed blood thinner medicine to protect against blood clots instead of using the less effective compression stockings. The hospitalist also should have diagnosed the blood clot and administered blood thinners to prevent the PE. (Id. at 5).

The jury found for the plaintiffs against the hospitalist but not against the surgeon and awarded just over $1.2 million. The hospitalist subsequently moved for a new trial, alleging that the circuit court deprived him of a fair and impartial trial by disparately treating the doctors. He is black, and the surgeon is white. The circuit court denied the motion. The hospitalist then appealed. (Id. at 1).

Appeal on Judge Bias

On appeal, the hospitalist firstly argued that the circuit court erred in making three evidentiary rulings against him:

1. Preventing him from explaining that he was testifying remotely because he had to take care of his sick wife and young kids.
2. Allowing cross-examination about the patient’s condition after it was too late to act
3. Allowing examination on the conversation in which he asked the surgeon if he thinks the patient will sue them. (Id. at 12).

Secondly, the hospitalist asserted that erred by treating him differently from the surgeon:

1. The surgeon was able to say he became a doctor due to the death of his parents.
2. He did not have to answer questions about the patient’s condition after it was too late to act.
3. He did not have to answer questions about the conversation about getting sued.

The hospitalist also claimed that the circuit court admonished him in front of the jury for unresponsive testimony but did not do so when the surgeon was unresponsive. (Id. at 12-13). The hospitalist argued that the cumulative effect created an appearance of partiality and deprived him of a fair trial. The hospitalist did not argue that the circuit court’s conduct was intentional but that it still must be viewed as implicit racial bias. (Id. at 13).

Appellate Court of Maryland

The Appellate Court first examined whether the evidentiary rulings were within the discretion of the circuit court and concluded they were, as follows:

1. Reason for testifying remotely

The medical condition of the hospitalist’s wife was not relevant to the plaintiff’s claims against him and also could have engendered sympathy for him. (Id. at 23-26).

2. The patient’s condition after it was too late to act

The note was relevant for other reasons. The hospitalist had testified about his care of the patient that day and the death. (Id. at 26-28).

3. Conversation about being sued

The conversation went to the hospitalist’s credibility and memory of the events. (Id. at 28-31).

Preservation

The appellate court then found that the hospitalist did not preserve the claim that the circuit court judge made the rulings with racial bias.

1. Surgeon’s reason for becoming a doctor

The hospitalist did not object or move to strike the answer. (Id. at 31-33).

2. The patient’s condition after it was too late to act

The hospitalist did not raise the fact that the court had made him testify about that day but was sustaining the surgeon’s objection to testifying on it. (Id. at 33-34).

3. Conversation about being sued

The hospitalist objected to the question asked of the surgeon. Still, he did not raise with the circuit court judge that he had ruled differently when the plaintiff’s lawyer asked the hospitalist. (Id. at 34-35).

The hospitalist also failed to raise the claim of racial bias when he perceived the trial judge treated him differently in admonishing him to answer the questions. (Id. at 36-38).

At the close of evidence, the hospitalist sought to testify again to explain the reason for testifying remotely. He mentioned some ways the judge had treated him differently but did not ascribe them to racial bias. He also did not ask for any relief relating to the testimony when it was too late to act and about being sued. (Id. at 39-41).

Rationale

The Appellate Court explained the importance of the preservation requirement, a key aspect of legal proceedings that ensures fair and meaningful appellate review:

Our preservation requirements give the litigants and the trial court a chance, as the trial occurs, to examine the claim and the proceedings, to explain, to reconsider, and to move for (and grant or deny) substantial relief. For us, our preservation requirements enable fair and meaningful appellate review of what the trial court did (or did not do) in response to the charge of bias. (Id. at 41-42). 

The Appellate Court added that it saw nothing in the record that rebutted the presumption that the trial judge acted impartially. (Id. at 42).

Commentary by Baltimore Medical Malpractice Lawyer Mark Kopec on Judge Bias

It is not an easy thing to raise racial bias with a trial judge. In addition, it is not the kind of thing that is immediately obvious. However, as the appeal court noted, when one ruling builds upon another, it becomes time to make the claim or forgo it entirely.

The trial judge deserves an opportunity to respond to the assertion of bias and correct any actions taken. This is a fundamental aspect of the legal process, ensuring that all parties have a fair chance to present their case and that the trial is conducted in a just and impartial manner. 

The preservation principle relied upon in this case was already well established. The hospitalist had little chance of succeeding in this claim on appeal, having failed to follow the clear requirements below. This highlights the importance of adhering to procedural rules in legal proceedings, as failure to do so can significantly impact the outcome of a case.

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.