Published on:

Hashmi v. Bennett (416 Md. 707, 7 A.3d 1059)

elderly-woman-maryland-nursing-home-neglect-200x300Articles: Maryland

Hashmi v. Bennett (416 Md. 707, 7 A.3d 1059)

Hashmi v. Bennett (416 Md. 707, 7 A.3d 1059)
Plaintiff (Appellee) – Troy Bennett, representing the surviving family members of Adrian Bennett (Deceased)
Defendant (Appellant) – Dr. Shoaib Hashmi
Court of Appeals of Maryland (2010)
On September 8, 2005, surviving family members of Troy Bennett filed suit against Hashmi, as well as Emergency Physician Associates of Maryland and The Good Samaritan Hospital of Maryland, Inc. On November 16, 2005, by a First Amended Complaint, Dr. Roman Kostrubiak was joined as a defendant.

On October 10, 2006, the complaints against Dr. Kostrubiak and Emergency Physician Associates of Maryland, as well as Good Samaritan Hospital, were dismissed with prejudice as a result of separate settlements. The Bennett’s executed a “Joint Tortfeasor Release,” discharging all claims against Emergency Physician Associates of Maryland and its employee, Dr. Kostrubiak, in exchange for $400,000. A jury trial commenced against Hashmi as the lone defendant. A trial court found in favor of the Bennetts.  Dr. Hashmi appealed. The Court of Special Appeals affirmed the trial court’s ruling. Hashmi petitioned for a writ of certiorari to the highest court of Maryland and it was granted.


On or about April 22, 2003 at approximately 3:15pm, Adrian Bennett, 27 at the time, was admitted to Good Samaritan Hospital complaining of nausea, vomiting, generalized weakness and a bump on the head. At or about 7:30pm, Dr. Kostrubiak discharged Adrian from the ER and admitted him to the hospital under the care of Dr. Hashmi.

Pneumonia and gastroenteritis were the primary diagnosis. At or about 2:30am, Adrian was transferred to the medical floor. To this point, Hashmi had failed to recognize Adrian’s progressive septic state. Adrian continued to demonstrate signs of progressive sepsis. Adrian was seen by nurses throughout the night, but they did not call any doctor until 4am on April 23. At or around 9:30am Adrian received medical attention for his sepsis, but by this time he was suffering from severe septic shock. At or about 12:45pm, Adrian was pronounced dead.


The trial court found for the Bennetts. After a reduction due to statutory caps, a final award of $598, 333.33 was entered for the Bennetts.


Did the settlement agreement between the Bennetts and the hospital confer “joint tortfeasor” status on three hospital employees for the purpose of reducing the jury verdict under the Maryland Uniform Contribution Among Joint Tort- Feasors Act (UCATA)?

When multiple parties (tortfeasors) cause harm to an injured party, the issue arises as to whether one of th m may be held liable for all of the negligence, or whether each tortfeasor may individually be held responsible in a proportionate or equal manner for the injury.


Since Dr. Hashmi was not a party to the Good Samaritan Release, he was required to prove (or at least attempt to prove) that any specific Good Samaritan employees were separate individual tortfeasors, i.e. were negligent and caused Adrian Bennett’s death. Since he did not do that, any award entered against him cannot be reduced under UCATA.

Client Reviews

  • Having worked in the medical field, I appreciated the way that Mr. Rosenfeld and his staff approached my family’s situation. The combination of medical knowledge and legal expertise was indeed the winning combination for our case.
  • While nothing can change the way our mother was treated at a nursing facility, I do feel a sense of vindication that the facility was forced to pay for their treatment. I am certain that they would never have done had my attorneys not held their feet to the fire.
  • I was very nervous about initiating a claim against my mother’s nursing facility, but Rosenfeld Injury Lawyers took care of everything from getting the medical records to going to court. I felt like I had real advocates on my side. That meant a lot to me.
  • After a horrific episode at a nursing home, my sister and I spoke to a number of law firms. No one took the time to answer our questions and explain the legal process like Mr. Rosenfeld. He did a tremendous job on our case and I can see why he’s earned the praise he has from clients and peers.
  • I liked the fact that I could call the office and ask questions about the legal process at anytime. I could tell that my case was in good hands. I think that this was reflected in my father’s settlement was more than I anticipated the case ever being worth.