Sample Requests for Admission in Medical Malpractice Case

Below are sample request for admission that we filed in a medical malpractice case in Baltimore, Maryland.

requests for admission

The purpose of this set of admission requests is to find out what issues are really being disputed by the parties and, just as importantly, to get the doctors to give their real positions early in the case.

Defense counsel in malpractice cases loves to keep all of their options open from the beginning. They will try to find ambiguity in your "Is the sky blue?" type questions. This make is hard for plaintiffs' and their experts to focus on what the real defenses will be and what is the white noise. This discovery tool helps you move past the smoke screens and get to the heart of just how the doctors' attorneys intend to defend the case.

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR BALTIMORE CITY, MARYLAND

KEVIN STEVENS - Plaintiff
v
DAVID MANNING, et al. - Defendants,

CASE NO. 24-C-04-006577 OT

Plaintiff’s First Request for Admissions

The Plaintiff, Michelle Curran, by and through her attorneys, Ronald V. Miller, Jr. Rodney M. Gaston and Miller & Zois, LLC, requests that the Defendant, John M. Hartson and Defendant John M. Hartson, M.D., P.A. admit or deny the following statements of fact. If objection is made, please state the reason for the objection.

Requests for Admission
  1. The Defendants were properly served with the summons and complaint in the above captioned case.
  2. The Defendants have no basis to assert as a defense or affirmative defense the lack of subject matter jurisdiction or the lack of personal jurisdiction.
  3. The Defendants have no evidence to support the affirmative defense that the Plaintiff assumed the risk of her injuries.
  4. The Defendants have no evidence to support the affirmative defense that the Plaintiff was contributorily negligent, or that she failed to mitigate her damages.
  5. The Defendants have no evidence to support the affirmative defense that the Plaintiff’s case is barred by the Statute of Limitations.
  6. The Defendants have no evidence to support the affirmative defense that the Plaintiff’s case fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
Injuries and Treatment
  1. That Defendant John Hartson, transected (cut in half) the Plaintiff’s left iliac vein and artery on January 10, 2012 during the course of a medical procedure that he performed on the Plaintiff at Peninsula Regional Medical Center in Salisbury, MD.
  2. That the Plaintiff’s transected left iliac vein and artery were solely and proximately caused by the actions of John Hartson, M.D. on January 10, 2012.
  3. That at the time that the Plaintiff’s left iliac vein and artery were transected by John Hartson, M.D., John Hartson, M.D. was employed by John Hartson, M.D., P.A. and performing work within the scope of his employment with John Hartson, M.D., P.A.
  4. That as a direct and proximate result of the Plaintiff’s iliac vein and artery being transected by John Hartson, M.D., the Plaintiff required immediate surgical care that was performed by Douglas Donovan, M.D. and follow up surgical care by Dr. Donovan in the form of approximately ten surgical procedures that are outlined in the Plaintiff’s medical chart at Peninsula Regional Medical Center.
  5. That the follow-up medical care the Plaintiff received by Dr. Dononvan was medically necessary and reasonable in light of the injuries the Plaintiff received during the operation performed by John Hartson, M.D. on January 10, 2012 (the transcection of the Plaintiff’s left iliac vein and artery).
  6. That as a direct and proximate result of the Plaintiff’s left iliac vein and artery being transected by John Hartson, M.D., the Plaintiff required medical care and treatment from Dr. Maull at Peninsula Regional Medical Center, which included the placement of a left double J-Stent and the removal of the J-Stent on or about January 21, 2012 and March 27, 2012 respectively, and that the medical bills generated by these two procedures were fair and reasonable.
  7. That the P.R.M.C. hospital bills that were generated by the additional inpatient care the Plaintiff received following the transection of her left iliac vein and artery were fair and reasonable and directly related to the transection of her iliac vein and artery and complications that arose from that injury.
  8. More on This Case

    This case ultimately settled with "Dr. Hartson" (not his real name) just before trial for $850,000. This is a case where the doctor simply blew it: he cut the Plaintiff’s iliac vein. The defense was the usual "abnormal anatomy" garbage.

  9. That the Defendants have no evidence that the Plaintiff’s medical care and treatment that she received from Dr. Brownlee was unreasonable or unnecessary.
    That the Defendants have no evidence that any of the Plaintiff’s medical care and treatment that she received from Dr. David Davis relative to her injury at bar was unreasonable or unnecessary.
  10. That the Defendants have no evidence that any of the Plaintiff’s medical care and treatment that she received from Dr. Hogan relative to her injury at bar was unreasonable or unnecessary.
    That the Plaintiff is disabled from gainful employment due to the injuries she received to her left iliac vein and artery on January 10, 2012.
  11. That the Plaintiff earned approximately $22,000 per year in the year 2005.
    That the Plaintiff has a permanent injury as a direct result of the transection of her left iliac vein and artery.
  12. That at the time that Dr. Hartson transected the Plaintiff’s left iliac vein and artery, he did not know exactly which blood vessels he cut.
  13. At the time that John Hartson first saw a large amount of blood coming from the Plaintiff’s body during the operation on January 10, 2012, he did not know the specific source of the bleeding.
  14. That when Dr. Hogan first arrived in the operating room, Dr. John Hartson was unable to identify the blood vessels that he transected.
  15. That John Hartson, M.D. does not remember what he told Dr. Hogan when Dr. Hogan arrived in the emergency room.
  16. That before Dr. Hogan was able to identify which of the Plaintiff’s blood vessels were cut, Dr. John Hartson was unable to identify the vessels to Dr. Hogan
  17. That the transection of both the iliac vein and artery at the same time is not a recognized risk of the surgical procedure that John Hartson, M.D. performed on the Plaintiff on January 10, 2012.
  18. That the Defendants cannot identify any medical journal, publication, text book, or other medical document that specifically states that the transcection of both the iliac vein and artery is a recognized risk of the surgical procedure John Hartson, M.D. performed on the Plaintiff on 24. January 10, 2012.
  19. That John Hartson, M.D. told the Plaintiff’s husband following the surgical procedure on January 10, 2012 that he had made a mistake by cutting the Plaintiff’s iliac vein and artery and by not realizing that the vein and artery were in the location of dissection when he cut them.
  20. That John Hartson, M.D. did not see the Plaintiff’s iliac vein and artery at the time he cut them both with his Metzenbaum scissors.
  21. That it is a breach of the standard of medical care that applies to the type of operation that John Hartson, M.D. performed on the Plaintiff on January 10, 2012 for a surgeon with similar medical skills to dissect in an area of a patient’s body when the surgeon cannot clearly visualize what he is cutting/dissecting.
  22. admissionsrequestmalpractice
  23. That it is a breach of the standard of medical care that applies to the type of operation that John Hartson, M.D. performed on the Plaintiff on January 10, 2012 for a surgeon with similar medical skills to close the edges of the Metzenbaum scissors, used in the operation for the purpose of dissection, when the doctor cannot visualize what is in the fold of the scissors immediately before they are closed.
  24. That Dr. John Hartson did not inform Dr. Hogan where the severed ends of the Plaintiff’s iliac severed vein and artery were approximately located when Dr. Hogan arrived in the operating room.
  25. That Douglas Paris, M.D. is qualified under Maryland law to render opinions in the case at bar relative to the breach of the standard of medical care applicable to the incident at bar.
  26. That the standard of medical care applicable to the matter at bar, specifically the surgical procedure performed on the Plaintiff by John Hartson, M.D., is the same standard of medical care applicable to other doctors with similar medical qualifications and medical skills as John Hartson, M.D. performing similar medical procedures throughout the State of Maryland.
  27. That the Defendants have no evidence that the injuries and disabilities now complained of by the Plaintiff were directly caused by anything other than the injury to the Plaintiff’s iliac vein and artery that occurred on January 10, 2012 and the resulting medical complications stemming from that injury.
  28. That the Plaintiff suffered left leg nerve damage as a direct result of the injury to her left iliac vein and artery that occurred on January 10, 2012
  29. That the Plaintiff suffered left foot nerve damage as a direct result of the injury to her left iliac vein and artery that occurred on January 10, 2012.
  30. That John Hartson, M.D. has never received any specific medical training in how to effectuate the repair of a severed vein or artery.
  31. That the Defendants and all of their experts have no complaints or criticisms of the medical care that the Plaintiff received from any of her doctors following the cutting of her iliac vein and artery on January 10, 2012.
  32. That the Defendants found Mrs. Curran to be a person who provided an accurate and credible medical history during the time period that he/they treated the Plaintiff.
  33. That the Defendants have no evidence to suggest that the Plaintiff engaged in any “drug seeking” behavior following the operation on January 10, 2012.
  34. That the Defendants have no evidence that the Plaintiff failed to follow the advice of her subsequent treating physicians following the operation on January 10, 2012.
  35. That the Defendants have no evidence that the Plaintiff’s final medical outcome would have been different if she had received different or additional medical care other than what she received after the January 10, 2012 injury to her iliac vein and artery.
  36. That the Plaintiff has complied with all aspects of Maryland Law and conditions precedent to bringing this action against the Defendants.
  37. That the Defendants have no evidence that the Plaintiff made any false statements to any of her medical providers and experts.
  38. That Dr. John Hartson did not take any action or perform any act during the operation of the Plaintiff that is not reflected in his operative note of January 10, 2012.
  39. That no other person who was present at any time in Plaintiff’s operating room on January 10, 2012 took any action, or failed to take any action, that directly or indirectly caused or contributed to the severing of the Plaintiff’s iliac artery and vein.
  40. That no other person who was present at any time in Plaintiff’s operating room on January 10, 2012 took any action, or failed to take any action, that directly or indirectly caused or contributed to Plaintiff’s severed iliac artery and vein becoming a worse medical condition than it was at the time the vein and artery were severed.
  41. That following the cutting of the Plaintiff’s iliac vein and artery on January 10, 2012, no other person or thing took any action, or failed to take any action, that directly or indirectly caused the Plaintiff’s medical condition to become worse.
  42. That following the cutting of the Plaintiff’s iliac vein and artery on January 10, 2012, no other person or thing took any action, or failed to take any action, that directly or indirectly prevented the Plaintiff from making the best physical recovery that was medically possible in light of her injuries.
  43. That the Defendants have no evidence that any of the medical bills generated by the follow up treatment the Plaintiff received for the injuries she sustained on January 10, 2012, were unfair, unreasonable, or inflated.
  44. The attached documents, medical records from John M. Hartson, M.D., bates stamped at 01-26 are authentic.
  45. The attached documents, medical records from Dr. Davis, bates stamped at 27-90, are authentic.
  46. The attached documents, medical records from Peninsula Regional Medical Center, for dates of service January 10, 2012 through March 4, 2012 and bates-stamped at 91-238, are authentic.
  47. The attached documents, medical bills for services rendered by Peninsula Regional Medical Center, for dates of service January 10, 2012 through March 4, 2012 and bates-stamped at 415-472 are authentic.
  48. The medical treatment rendered by Peninsula Regional Medical Center and bill for services rendered, for dates of service January 10, 2012 through March 4, 2012, was fair, reasonable, necessary and causally related to the incident complained of in the Plaintiff’s Complaint.
  49. The attached documents, medical records from Peninsula Regional Medical Center, for date of service March 27, 2012 and bates-stamped at 239-246, are authentic.
  50. The medical treatment rendered by Peninsula Regional Medical Center, for date of service March 27, 2012, was fair, reasonable, necessary and causally related to the incident complained of in the Plaintiff’s Complaint.
  51. admissionmedmal
  52. The attached documents, medical records from Peninsula Regional Medical Center, for dates of service March 3, 2012 through April 19, 2012 and bates-stamped at 247-298, are authentic.
  53. The attached documents, medical bills for services rendered by Peninsula Regional Medical Center, for dates of service March 3, 2012 through April 19, 2012 and bates-stamped at 473-494 are authentic.
  54. The medical treatment rendered by Peninsula Regional Medical Center and bill for services rendered, for dates of service March 30, 2012 through April 19, 2012, was fair, reasonable, necessary and causally related to the incident complained of in the Plaintiff’s Complaint.
  55. The attached documents, medical records from Peninsula Regional Medical Center, for date of service May 2, 2012 and bates-stamped at 299-314, are authentic.
  56. The attached documents, medical bills for services rendered by Peninsula Regional Medical Center and Emergency Services Associates, for date of service May 2, 2012 and bates-stamped at 502-505 are authentic.
  57. The medical treatment rendered by Peninsula Regional Medical Center and Emergency Services Associates and bills for services rendered, for dates of service May 2, 2012, was fair, reasonable, necessary and causally related to the incident complained of in the Plaintiff’s Complaint.
  58. The attached documents, medical records from Peninsula Regional Medical Center, for date of service August 8, 2012 and bates-stamped at 315-325, are authentic.
    The attached documents, medical bills for services rendered by Peninsula Regional Medical Center and Emergency Services Associates, for date of service August 8, 2012 and bates-stamped at 506-508 are authentic.
  59. The medical treatment rendered by Peninsula Regional Medical Center and Emergency Services Associates and bills for services rendered, for dates of service August 8, 2008, was fair, reasonable, necessary and causally related to the incident complained of in the Plaintiff’s Complaint.
  60. The attached documents, medical records from Ability Rehab Consultants, bates-stamped at 326-329, are authentic.
  61. The attached documents, medical records from Peninsula Regional Medical Center, for dates of service October 10, 2012 through October 14, 2012 and bates-stamped at 330-348, are authentic.
  62. The attached documents, medical bills for services rendered by Peninsula Regional Medical Center, for dates of service October 10, 2012 through October 14, 2012 and bates-stamped at 509-512 are authentic.
  63. The medical treatment rendered by Peninsula Regional Medical Center and bill for services rendered, for dates of service October 10, 2012 through October 14, 2012, was fair, reasonable, necessary and causally related to the incident complained of in the Plaintiff’s Complaint.
  64. The attached documents, medical records from Peninsula Regional Medical Center, for dates of service November 17, 2012 through November 21, 2012 and bates-stamped at 349-359, are authentic.
  65. The attached documents, medical bills for services rendered by Peninsula Regional Medical Center, for dates of service November 17, 2012 through November 21, 2012 and bates-stamped at 513-521 are authentic.
  66. The medical treatment rendered by Peninsula Regional Medical Center and bill for services rendered, for dates of service November 17, 2012 through November 21, 2012, was fair, reasonable, necessary and causally related to the incident complained of in the Plaintiff’s Complaint.
  67. The attached documents, medical bills for services rendered by Peninsula Regional Medical Center, for date of service December 10, 2012 and bates-stamped at 522-524 are authentic.
  68. The attached documents, medical records from Peninsula Regional Medical Center, for dates of service February 20, 2007 through March 8, 2007 and bates-stamped at 360-412, are authentic.
  69. The attached documents, medical bills for services rendered by Peninsula Regional Medical Center, for dates of service February 20, 2007 through March 8, 2007 and bates-stamped at 525-543 are authentic.
  70. The medical treatment rendered by Peninsula Regional Medical Center and bill for services rendered, for dates of service February 20, 2007 through March 8, 2007, was fair, reasonable, necessary and causally related to the incident complained of in the Plaintiff’s Complaint.
  71. The attached documents, medical records from HealthSouth, for date of service August 9, 2007 and bates-stamped at 413-414, are authentic.
  72. The attached documents, medical bills for services rendered by Delmarva Radiology, bates-stamped at 495-501 are authentic.
  73. The attached documents, medical bills for services rendered by Douglas Brownlee, M.D., for dates of service January 10, 2012, January 17, 2012, February 7, 2012, March 30, 2012, March 31, 2012, April 1, 2012, April 4, 2012, April 11, 2012, May 2, 2012, September 25, 2012, October 18, 2012, October 26, 2008, November 17, 2012, December 20, 2012, March 2, 2007, May 3, 2007 and May 9, 2007, bates-stamped at 544-546 and totaling $52,608.00, are authentic and are fair, reasonable, necessary and causally related to the incident complained of in the Plaintiff’s Complaint.
  74. The attached documents, medical bills for services rendered by Peninsula Regional Medical Center, bates-stamped at 547-556 are authentic.

Respectfully submitted,
MILLER & ZOIS, LLC

Ronald V. Miller, Jr.
1 South St, #2450
Baltimore, MD 21202
(410)779-4600
(410)760-8922 (Fax)
Attorney for the Plaintiff

  • Another Set of Malpractice RFAs
  • More examples of RFAs)
  • Sample Tort Discovery (our warehouse of discovery in different types of tort cases)

Contact Us For a Free Consultation

If you are hurt in a serious accident or are the victim of medical malpractice, contact our team of lawyers to discuss your case.
Call us now for help at (800) 553-8082

You can also get a FREE no obligation on-line consultation.

Client Reviews

  • They quite literally worked as hard as if not harder than the doctors to save our lives.
    ★★★★★
  • Ron helped me find a clear path that ended with my foot healing and a settlement that was much more than I hope for.
    ★★★★★
  • Hopefully I won't need it again but if I do, I have definitely found my lawyer for life and I would definitely recommend this office to anyone!
    ★★★★★
  • The last case I referred to them settled for $1.2 million.
    ★★★★★
  • I am so grateful that I was lucky to pick Miller & Zois.
    ★★★★★
  • The entire team from the intake Samantha to the lawyer himself (Ron Miller) has been really approachable.
    ★★★★★
  • The case settled and I got a lot more money than I expected. Ron even fought to reduce how much I owed in medical bills so I could get an even larger settlement.
    ★★★★★
  • Miller and Zois is the best firm in the state of Maryland, and without their support, understanding, and just being there when I needed encouragement, I truly do not know how I would have succeeded without them.
    ★★★★★

Contact Us

Free Consultation (800) 553-8082 Call 24/7