Washington DC Medical Malpractice law
Statute of Limitations
The statute of limitations in Washington D.C. in medical malpractice actions is three years. D.C. Code Ann. §12-301 (2008). The statute of limitations begins to toll in Washington D.C. like most other states when the medical malpractice plaintiff knows of (1) the injury, (2) the injury’s cause, and (3) evidence of a medical mistake. A malpractice plaintiff's knowledge includes not only "actual notice" but also "inquiry notice,” which is defined as “investigating matters affecting one's affairs such that an investigation would have led to the uncovering of these three factors.”
One quirk of some informed consent cases in Washington D.C. is that if the claim is not based on negligence, there is a one-year statute of limitations for “battery” informed consent claims. Id.
Minors, mentally incompetent, or (believe it or not) imprisoned medical malpractice victims may bring their action within three years following the removal of their disability. D.C. Code Ann. §12-302 (2008).
A wrongful death action must be brought within one year of the date of death. D.C. Code Ann. § 16-2702 (2008).
Contributory or Comparative Negligence
Regrettably, Washington D.C. is one of five jurisdictions that still follow the draconian doctrine of contributory negligence in medical malpractice cases. Stager v. Schneider, 494 A.2d 1307 (D.C. 1985). Thus, technically, if a medical malpractice plaintiff is 1% at fault for his/her injury, the claim is barred.
Medical Malpractice Lawyers Fees and Damage Caps
There are no caps on medical malpractice lawyer’s fees or damage caps in Washington, D.C.
Res Ipsa Loquitur
While rarely applied to medical malpractice cases in Washington D.C., the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur can be applied in medical malpractice case when the adverse consequences of the medical procedure (1) ordinarily do not occur in the absence of negligence, (2) are caused by something within the exclusive control of the doctor, and (3) are not due to any voluntary action or contribution on the part of the medical malpractice plaintiff. When these requirements are proved by a preponderance of the evidence, Washington D.C. law allows the jury to infer negligence from the occurrence of the patient's injury.
Expert Testimony
In a medical malpractice action, a plaintiff must establish through expert testimony: (1) the applicable standard of care, (2) deviation from that standard, and (3) a causal relationship between the medical malpractice and the injury. Pannu v. Jacobson, 909 A.2d 178 (D.C. 2007). In other words, the plaintiff’s medical malpractice lawyer must establish through a medical expert that a reasonably prudent doctor in the doctor’s specialty would have done something different under in similar circumstances and the failure to do what should have been done caused injury. Berkow v. Hayes, 841 A.2d 776 (D.C. 2004). The caveat to that rule is that a jury may make its own inferences from the proven facts when a doctor has “committed a blunder so egregious that a layman is capable of comprehending its enormity.” Tavakoli-Nouri v. Gunther, 745 A.2d 939, 941 (D.C. 2000).
In Washington, D.D. the applicable standard to be applied by an expert in a medical malpractice action is a national standard, not a local standard. Accordingly, before an expert witness will be allowed to testify in a medical malpractice lawsuit tried in Washington, D.C., plaintiff’s medical malpractice lawyer must offer evidence that a particular course of treatment is followed nationally. Among the factor to determine if this standard is met are: (1) the standard of care focuses on the course of action a reasonably prudent doctor with the doctor’s specialty would take under the same or similar circumstances; (2) the course of action or treatment is followed nationally (the fact that Washington, D.C. doctors follow a national standard of care is insufficient alone to establish a national standard of care). In demonstrating that a particular course of action or treatment is followed nationally, reference to a published standard is not necessary but may be helpful. Hawes v. Chua, 769 A.2d 797 (D.C. 2000). The personal opinion of the testifying doctor alone without reference to a standard of care is not enough to get a medical malpractice case in the District of Columbia to a jury.
Please note: Below is a summary of Washington D.C. medical malpractice law. It is designed for Washington D.C. medical malpractice lawyers and malpractice injury victims. It goes without saying that you should not rely on this information but use it is a basis for further research. While this information is relatively current, the law changes frequently and some of the rules offered above are general rules that do not fully account for exceptions.
See also Washington D.C. Personal Injury/Malpractice Cases (general information about D.C.)
See also Value of Personal Injury Cases in Washington D.C. (median values in Metro area)
See also Wrongful Death Settlements and Verdicts in Washington D.C. (median values)
See also Value of Medical Malpractice Cases in Washington D.C. (malpractice cases)
See also Malpractice Cases Generally (an overview)
See also Contact us or call 1-800-553-8082
Other Jurisdictions
See Virginia
See Baltimore
City
See Baltimore
County
See Prince
George's County
See Anne
Arundel County
See Howard
County
See Calvert
County
See Wicomico County (Salisbury)
See Charles County
See Cecil County