Contrib: Reid v. BACE 3
This Baltimore Medical Malpractice Lawyer Blog post is the third in a three-part series. These explore the implications of a Maryland appellate decision that provides guidance for medical malpractice cases. In the reported opinion of Edwina Reid, et al. v. Baltimore Ambulatory Center for Endoscopy, LLC, et al., filed on February 27, 2026, the Appellate Court of Maryland discussed several medical malpractice issues. In this final installment, we focus on the defense of contributory negligence. Specifically, the Court looked at whether a patient can be legally responsible for their own injuries when they are following a doctor’s discharge instructions. This issue is a frequent point of contention for plaintiff lawyers. They often have to navigate the defense’s attempts to shift blame. That is, away from medical providers and onto the victims of negligence.
Part 1 of this series focused on the “same or related specialty” requirement for expert witnesses in Maryland medical malpractice cases. Part 2 discussed the ruling that an erroneous summary judgment for one defendant did not require reversal of defense verdicts in favor of other defendants.
Factual Background
The case centered on a 76-year-old patient who visited an outpatient facility for a routine endoscopic procedure. After the procedure completed, the medical providers monitored the patient in a recovery unit for approximately 30 minutes. The patient’s age and high-risk medical history included hypertension, morbid obesity, and diabetes. Despite this, the gastroenterologist authorized his discharge and allowed him to leave the facility on foot.
While walking to his car in the parking lot, the patient fell and sustained catastrophic spinal injuries. He died two weeks later. His family brought medical malpractice and wrongful death claims in the Circuit Court for Baltimore County. During the trial the defendants argued that the patient was “contributorily negligent.” They supported this theory by citing a statement from the patient’s spouse. She mentioned to emergency responders that her husband appeared to have tripped on a curb or a slight unevenness in the sidewalk. On the basis of this testimony, the trial court allowed the jury to receive an instruction on contributory negligence. This essentially gave the jury the power to bar the family from any recovery if they believed the patient was even slightly at fault for the fall.
Parties’ Arguments
On appeal, the plaintiffs argued that the trial court committed error by giving the contributory negligence instruction. They contended that there was no evidence that the patient acted unreasonably. The plaintiffs’ primary argument was that a patient cannot be found negligent for simply walking to his car after a doctor has officially determined he is safe to be discharged. They argued that “tripping” is a physical event, not a failure of legal duty. This is especially true when the medical team failed to provide the necessary assistance or a wheelchair.
The defendants argued that the instruction was appropriate because the patient had a duty to look where he was walking. They suggested that by failing to navigate the sidewalk safely, the patient contributed to his own injuries. They essentially sought to convince the jury that the fall was the result of a “trips and falls” hazard rather than the residual effects of anesthesia or a lack of medical supervision.
Court’s Ruling on Contributory Negligence in Medical Malpractice
The Appellate Court of Maryland reversed the trial court’s decision on this issue, ruling that the evidence did not support a contributory negligence instruction. The Court held that for a defendant to successfully raise a contributory negligence defense in a medical malpractice case, there must be evidence that the patient violated a specific instruction given by a healthcare provider.
The Court noted that in this case, the patient was doing exactly what he was told he could do. He was leaving the facility. There was no evidence that he ignored a warning not to walk, nor did he refuse a wheelchair. The Court clarified that a patient is entitled to rely on their doctor’s professional judgment that they are fit for discharge. Furthermore, the Court distinguished between “causation” and “negligence.” While a defendant can argue that a trip caused the fall to negate the link to medical care, they cannot label that trip as “negligence” by the patient unless the patient breached a duty of care. Because the patient followed all instructions, the defense of contributory negligence was legally unavailable.
Commentary by Medical Malpractice Lawyer Mark Kopec on Contributory Negligence in Medical Malpractice
In my view, the Appellate Court decided this issue correctly. It is a significant decision for patient rights in Maryland. Contributory negligence is a notoriously harsh doctrine in our state. Maryland is one of the few remaining jurisdictions that follows “pure” contributory negligence. As a result, a plaintiff who is found to be even 1% at fault is completely barred from recovering any damages. This “all or nothing” rule is why defendants so aggressively try to inject this issue into every case they can.
However, contributory negligence is rarely applicable in Maryland medical malpractice cases, and for good reason. A patient enters a medical facility because they lack medical expertise. They are there to rely on the expertise of professionals. It is inherently contradictory to allow a doctor to declare a patient “safe” and then allow that same doctor to argue the patient was “negligent” for believing them.
Tripping is Not Contributory Negligence in Medical Malpractice
As the Court recognized, a patient’s simple act of walking—even if they trip—does not constitute legal negligence if they have been cleared for that activity by their physician. Defendants often try to confuse the jury by framing accidental movements as “fault.” However, this ruling reinforces the high bar required to blame a patient. Unless a patient explicitly defies medical advice (such as getting out of bed after being told to stay put), the defense should not be allowed. This decision prevents defendants from using “victim-blaming” tactics to escape liability for their own failures in risk assessment and patient safety.
You can read other Blog posts on the topic of Defenses.
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.