Newsroom
Anderson Coe & King achieved a significant appellate victory involving the interpretation of the statute of limitations in a medical malpractice action. In Crystal v. MidAtantic Cardiovascular Associates, P.A., et al., Court of Special Appeals, No. 1687 Sept. Term, 2015 (Filed March 29, 2016), a reported decision, AC&K represented an interventional cardiologist who placed a stent in the patient’s left anterior descending artery (LAD) in 2004. The patient sued the physician in 2011, alleging that the stent was unnecessary. The patient’s expert placed the level of stenosis present in the LAD at 30-40%, while the treating interventional cardiologist estimated it at 70-80%. The patient sought to avoid Maryland’s five-year statute of limitations for medical malpractice, Md. Code Ann., Cts. & Jud. Proc. Section 5-109, by claiming that the treating interventional cardiologist had committed fraud, permitting the patient to file suit within three years of discovering the fraud, under Cts. & Jud. Proc. Section 5-203. The patient’s evidence of fraud was the alleged stark disagreement between his testifying expert’s opinion regarding the level of stenosis in the LAD and the level reported by the treating physician. The Court of Special Appeals held that the patient’s evidence was insufficient to establish fraud and affirmed the entry of summary judgment on behalf of the physician.
