$770,000 Prison Malpractice Verdict Affirmed By Court: In its unreported opinion dated February 14, 2023, the Appellate Court of Maryland affirmed a prison medical malpractice jury verdict in the amount of $770,00 in which only noneconomic damages (pain and suffering) were sought.
Underlying Facts
Corizon, LLC and Corizon Health, Inc. (“Corizon”) provide medical services to correctional facilities in and outside of the State of Maryland. On July 1, 2016, David Hall was incarcerated at Ordnance Road Correctional Center in Glen Burnie, Maryland, when he was involved in a fight with another inmate. During the altercation, Hall suffered an injury to his left wrist. On 5 July 2016, Hall was seen by Corizon employee, serving as Ordnance Road Correctional Center’s Site Medical Director, Dr. Rivera-Ramirez. Dr. Rivera-Ramirez diagnosed Hall with a fractured wrist, gave him an Ace bandage, and told him that his wrist would “self-heal.”
Hall continued to suffer pain and immobility in his wrist. On August 19, 2016, after filing several complaints with the correctional facility regarding his ongoing wrist pain, Hall was evaluated by an orthopedic specialist. At that time, Hall was noted to have a “severe wrist facture that had collapsed and will require extensive surgery from a hand surgeon[.]”
In April of 2019, Hall filed a prison medical malpractice complaint. In November of 2019, Corizon stipulated to liability. Hall dismissed Dr. Rivera-Ramirez from the litigation. In October of 2021, the case proceeded to a two-day jury trial on damages.
Prior to trial, Hall filed a motion in limine, asserting that he would be seeking noneconomic damages only. Accordingly, he sought to prohibit the introduction of information relating to his medical bills or lost wages, which he asserted were both irrelevant to his pain and suffering and would be misleading to a jury. The trial court granted Hall’s motion in limine.
At trial, Hall introduced expert testimony showing that the delay in treatment resulted in a malunion of the bones, causing a permanent injury to his wrist. He also introduced evidence and expert testimony regarding his life expectancy, demonstrating that he was expected to live approximately 50 more years. During closing argument, his Maryland medical malpractice lawyer requested an award of $100 per day for Hall’s remaining life expectancy, to which Corizon objected. The jury returned an award of three million dollars for Hall, which was reduced to $770,000 pursuant to the statutory limits enumerated in Md. Code Ann., Courts and Judicial Proceedings (“CJP”), § 3-2A-09(b)(1) (Maryland’s cap on noneconomic damages in medical malpractice cases).
On appeal, the defendants argued that the per diem argument was improper under the circumstances. The defendants acknowledged that per diem arguments are permitted in Maryland, but asserted that reversal was required in part because Hall’s “counsel selected an arbitrary number” that “was not based in or tied to any evidence.”
The Appellate Court of Maryland stated that it “is unaware of any support for the proposition that Hall’s per diem argument was beyond the “great leeway” afforded to parties in their closing remarks … [n]or are we persuaded by Appellants’ assertion that they were denied a “meaningful opportunity to rebut Hall’s per diem argument” because they were prohibited from introducing evidence of his economic damages. Although Appellants contend that “the
only effective rebuttal” to Hall’s closing argument “would have been to make reference to” his economic damages, we disagree. As Appellants acknowledge, this Court has noted previously that there is “no relevance in the submission of a bill for services submitted by a physician to the severity of appellant’s pain and suffering.” Wright v. Hixon, 42 Md. App. 448, 456 (1979). We are unpersuaded that Hall’s medical bills would have been “the only effective rebuttal[,]” let alone relevant to his claims for noneconomic damages.”
The Appellate Court of Maryland further stated “a judge is permitted to sua sponte provide a cautionary instruction where, in the trial court’s discretion, such an instruction is appropriate. Here, the record indicates plainly that the circuit court determined, within its discretion, that Hall’s per diem argument was not prejudicial. We are unpersuaded that this was a clear abuse of the court’s discretion.”
Source Luis Rivera-Ramirez, M.D. v. David J. Hall, No. 756 September Term, 2022.
If you or a loved one were injured due to deliberate indifference or the lack of appropriate medical care while incarcerated in a prison, jail, or other correctional facility in Maryland or in another U.S. state, you should promptly seek the legal advice of a local medical malpractice lawyer in your state who handles prisoner/inmate medical malpractice claims and may investigate your claim and represent you, if appropriate.
Visit our website or call us toll-free in the United States at 800-295-3959 to be connected with prisoner rights lawyers in your state who may assist you.
Turn to us when you don’t know where to turn.