Subscribe
Alert
Please keep in mind that merely contacting Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough LLP will not establish an attorney-client relationship. Nelson Mullins cannot represent you until the firm knows there would not be a conflict of interest, and the firm determines that it is otherwise able to accept the engagement. Accordingly, please do not send Nelson Mullins any information or documents until a formal attorney-client relationship has been established through an interview with an attorney and authorized in the form of an engagement letter from Nelson Mullins. Any information or documents sent prior to your receipt of an engagement letter cannot be treated as confidences, secrets or protected information of any nature. Clicking "Submit" acknowledges that you understand and agree with this notice.
Leianne S. McEvoy
Partner
100 S. Charles Street
Suite 1600
Baltimore, MD 21201
Suite 1600
Baltimore, MD 21201
leianne.mcevoy@nelsonmullins.com
Leianne has experience defending clients in personal injury, medical malpractice, and complex litigation cases before state and federal courts. Her practice encompasses medical malpractice, products liability defense, premises liability, and mass tort litigation.
In medical malpractice, her work includes both catastrophic and non-catastrophic injuries and has covered virtually every area of medicine, including obstetrics, gynecology, intensive...
Leianne has experience defending clients in personal injury, medical malpractice, and complex litigation cases before state and federal courts. Her practice encompasses medical malpractice, products liability defense, premises liability, and mass tort litigation.
In medical malpractice, her work includes both catastrophic and non-catastrophic injuries and has covered virtually every area of medicine, including obstetrics, gynecology, intensive care, general surgery, neurology, anesthesiology, gastroenterology, pediatrics, nursing care, infectious disease, neonatal intensive care, urogynecology, pelvic organ repair, and cardiology. She also provides general liability and premises liability representation for a tertiary care center.
care, general surgery, neurology, anesthesiology, gastroenterology, pediatrics, nursing care, infectious disease, neonatal intensive care, urogynecology, pelvic organ repair, and cardiology. She also provides general liability and premises liability representation for a tertiary care center.
Experience
The following is a selected sampling of matters and is provided for informational purposes only. Past success does not indicate the likelihood of success in any future matter.
- Has had responsibility for all phases of the litigation process, including pre-trial, trial, and appellate work
- Recent case results include securing a defense verdict in favor of a hospital in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City after a multi-week jury trial
Representative Matters
- Obtained defense jury verdict on the standard of care in Baltimore City Circuit Court in a medical malpractice case alleging negligence, lack of informed consent and loss of consortium. Plaintiff alleged that he suffered from toxicity from the improper dosing and management of an antibiotic. Plaintiff claimed he required, among other things, 12 hours a day of attendant nursing care.
- Lead counsel in a medical malpractice case in Baltimore City involving the death of a 28-year-old African American woman from severe acute pancreatitis. Reached “high/low” settlement during jury deliberation saving the client substantially on the jury verdict.
- Lead counsel defending a birth-injury case stemming from allegations asserted against a labor- and-delivery nurse and the hospital where plaintiffs’ minor son was delivered. Plaintiffs alleged that the co-defendant obstetrician should have delivered the minor son earlier to avoid permanent brain injury and cerebral palsy. Plaintiffs alleged that the hospital was negligent due to the acts of the labor-and-delivery nurse only, asserting the nurse should have initiated the chain of command to challenge the obstetrician’s discharge order, and had she done so, the obstetrician’s treatment plan and discharge order would have been overturned and the baby would have been delivered that same day thus avoiding all injuries to the neonate. The plaintiffs settled the claim for significantly less than claimed damages.
- Lead counsel in a medical malpractice case in Baltimore City stemming from allegations that the hospitalist service failed to diagnose plaintiff with a necrotizing soft-tissue infection, which resulted in leg amputation. Plaintiffs brought negligence, loss of consortium, and informed consent counts against all defendants. As to informed consent, plaintiffs alleged the hospital failed to obtain consent because the hospital failed to perform imaging to evaluate for possible diagnoses, thereby choosing to not treat the patient’s medical complaints without her consent. The hospital and hospitalist moved for summary judgment on plaintiffs’ informed consent count, arguing the claim of “misdiagnosis” or “failure to diagnose” was not permitted as an informed consent claim as a matter of law. The Circuit Court for Baltimore City granted summary judgment. In so doing, the court strengthened Maryland law recognizing claims of informed consent and medical malpractice are separate and disparate theories of liability. By knocking out one of plaintiffs’ counts, the hospital and hospitalist were able to further strengthen and leverage its defense position and successfully resolved the matter prior to trial for a fraction of the potential exposure.
- Lead counsel in a medical malpractice case in Baltimore City defending a major hospital and two maternal fetal medicine physicians in which plaintiffs alleged the defendants failed to properly manage the patient’s cervical shortening during pregnancy. Plaintiffs contended that the health care providers’ alleged negligence resulted in the premature delivery of the patient’s neonate at 23 weeks gestation and in her subsequent death a month later. The defendants successfully challenged the admissibility of several liability opinions proffered by plaintiffs’ maternal fetal medicine expert, resulting in the trial court scheduling a pre-trial evidentiary hearing to determine whether the challenged opinions were admissible. Defendants also filed several motions for summary judgment on plaintiffs’ medical negligence and informed consent claims, raising alternative arguments as to why plaintiffs could not establish a prima facie case against defendants, even if the challenged expert opinions were considered. The court granted each of the motions for summary judgment and entered judgment in favor of the defendants.
- Lead counsel and trial counsel for major hospital defending a medical malpractice matter stemming from allegations against the hospital and its maternal fetal medicine and neonatology providers. The case proceeded to trial in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City on three counts: the minor plaintiff’s medical malpractice claim (Count I); the mother’s medical malpractice claim (Count II); and plaintiffs’ claim for informed consent (Count III). At the conclusion of all evidence, the jury returned a verdict against defendants. Defendants moved for Judgment Notwithstanding the Verdict, arguing the plaintiffs failed to meet their burden of proof that any alleged breach in the standard of care proximately caused any of the plaintiffs’ injuries. The Circuit Court denied the motions and defendants appealed the ruling to the Court of Special Appeals of Maryland. The Court of Special Appeals of Maryland overturned the Circuit Court’s denial of Defendant’s Motion Notwithstanding the Verdict. In so doing, the appellate court held: “because we conclude that the evidence presented at trial was not sufficient to support findings of either negligent treatment or breach of informed consent, we hold that the trial court erred by not granting [defendant]’s motions for judgment notwithstanding the verdict. We reverse the judgments.” Appellees/plaintiffs appealed the Court of Special Appeals’ ruling and the Court of Appeals, the highest court in Maryland, denied their petition affirming the Court of Special Appeals’ decision. On Oct. 1, 2021, the Circuit Court for Baltimore City entered a final Order on Remand which vacated the judgment originally entered for plaintiffs, granted Defendant’s Motion for Judgment Notwithstanding the Verdict, and entered final judgment for Defendant. This matter gained national attention and was publicized on the national news and throughout national newspapers.
Education
-
University of Baltimore,
JD,
magna cum laude
(2006)
- Heuisler Honor Society
- Florida Atlantic University, BA (1998)
Admissions
- District of Columbia
- Maryland
- Supreme Court of the United States
- U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
- U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland
Practice Areas
Industries
The following is a selected sampling of matters and is provided for informational purposes only. Past success does not indicate the likelihood of success in any future matter.
- Has had responsibility for all phases of the litigation process, including pre-trial, trial, and appellate work
- Recent case results include securing a defense verdict in favor of a hospital in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City after a multi-week jury trial
Representative Matters
- Obtained defense jury verdict on the standard of care in Baltimore City Circuit Court in a medical malpractice case alleging negligence, lack of informed consent and loss of consortium. Plaintiff alleged that he suffered from toxicity from the improper dosing and management of an antibiotic. Plaintiff claimed he required, among other things, 12 hours a day of attendant nursing care.
- Lead counsel in a medical malpractice case in Baltimore City involving the death of a 28-year-old African American woman from severe acute pancreatitis. Reached “high/low” settlement during jury deliberation saving the client substantially on the jury verdict.
- Lead counsel defending a birth-injury case stemming from allegations asserted against a labor- and-delivery nurse and the hospital where plaintiffs’ minor son was delivered. Plaintiffs alleged that the co-defendant obstetrician should have delivered the minor son earlier to avoid permanent brain injury and cerebral palsy. Plaintiffs alleged that the hospital was negligent due to the acts of the labor-and-delivery nurse only, asserting the nurse should have initiated the chain of command to challenge the obstetrician’s discharge order, and had she done so, the obstetrician’s treatment plan and discharge order would have been overturned and the baby would have been delivered that same day thus avoiding all injuries to the neonate. The plaintiffs settled the claim for significantly less than claimed damages.
- Lead counsel in a medical malpractice case in Baltimore City stemming from allegations that the hospitalist service failed to diagnose plaintiff with a necrotizing soft-tissue infection, which resulted in leg amputation. Plaintiffs brought negligence, loss of consortium, and informed consent counts against all defendants. As to informed consent, plaintiffs alleged the hospital failed to obtain consent because the hospital failed to perform imaging to evaluate for possible diagnoses, thereby choosing to not treat the patient’s medical complaints without her consent. The hospital and hospitalist moved for summary judgment on plaintiffs’ informed consent count, arguing the claim of “misdiagnosis” or “failure to diagnose” was not permitted as an informed consent claim as a matter of law. The Circuit Court for Baltimore City granted summary judgment. In so doing, the court strengthened Maryland law recognizing claims of informed consent and medical malpractice are separate and disparate theories of liability. By knocking out one of plaintiffs’ counts, the hospital and hospitalist were able to further strengthen and leverage its defense position and successfully resolved the matter prior to trial for a fraction of the potential exposure.
- Lead counsel in a medical malpractice case in Baltimore City defending a major hospital and two maternal fetal medicine physicians in which plaintiffs alleged the defendants failed to properly manage the patient’s cervical shortening during pregnancy. Plaintiffs contended that the health care providers’ alleged negligence resulted in the premature delivery of the patient’s neonate at 23 weeks gestation and in her subsequent death a month later. The defendants successfully challenged the admissibility of several liability opinions proffered by plaintiffs’ maternal fetal medicine expert, resulting in the trial court scheduling a pre-trial evidentiary hearing to determine whether the challenged opinions were admissible. Defendants also filed several motions for summary judgment on plaintiffs’ medical negligence and informed consent claims, raising alternative arguments as to why plaintiffs could not establish a prima facie case against defendants, even if the challenged expert opinions were considered. The court granted each of the motions for summary judgment and entered judgment in favor of the defendants.
- Lead counsel and trial counsel for major hospital defending a medical malpractice matter stemming from allegations against the hospital and its maternal fetal medicine and neonatology providers. The case proceeded to trial in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City on three counts: the minor plaintiff’s medical malpractice claim (Count I); the mother’s medical malpractice claim (Count II); and plaintiffs’ claim for informed consent (Count III). At the conclusion of all evidence, the jury returned a verdict against defendants. Defendants moved for Judgment Notwithstanding the Verdict, arguing the plaintiffs failed to meet their burden of proof that any alleged breach in the standard of care proximately caused any of the plaintiffs’ injuries. The Circuit Court denied the motions and defendants appealed the ruling to the Court of Special Appeals of Maryland. The Court of Special Appeals of Maryland overturned the Circuit Court’s denial of Defendant’s Motion Notwithstanding the Verdict. In so doing, the appellate court held: “because we conclude that the evidence presented at trial was not sufficient to support findings of either negligent treatment or breach of informed consent, we hold that the trial court erred by not granting [defendant]’s motions for judgment notwithstanding the verdict. We reverse the judgments.” Appellees/plaintiffs appealed the Court of Special Appeals’ ruling and the Court of Appeals, the highest court in Maryland, denied their petition affirming the Court of Special Appeals’ decision. On Oct. 1, 2021, the Circuit Court for Baltimore City entered a final Order on Remand which vacated the judgment originally entered for plaintiffs, granted Defendant’s Motion for Judgment Notwithstanding the Verdict, and entered final judgment for Defendant. This matter gained national attention and was publicized on the national news and throughout national newspapers.
Media
Recognitions
The bar rules of some states require that the standards for an attorney's inclusion in certain public accolades or recognitions be provided. When such accolades or recognitions are listed, a hyperlink is provided that leads to a description of the respective selection methodology.
- The Daily Record, Personal Injury & Medical Malpractice Law Power List (2024)
- The Best Lawyers in America®, Mass Tort Litigation/Class Actions – Defendants (2023–2025), Medical Malpractice Law – Defendants (2019-2025); Product Liability Litigation – Defendants (2019–2025)
- Maryland Super Lawyers® Rising Stars, Personal Injury Products: Defense (2015–2016)
Professional Activities
- American Bar Association: Young Lawyers Division
- DRI – The Voice of the Defense Bar
- Heuisler Honor Society
- Maryland State Bar Association
- National Bar Association
- Maryland Defense Counsel, Board Member/ Editor of The Defense Line
Leianne has experience defending clients in personal injury, medical malpractice, and complex litigation cases before state and federal courts. Her practice encompasses medical malpractice, products liability defense, premises liability, and mass tort litigation.
In medical malpractice, her work includes both catastrophic and non-catastrophic injuries and has covered virtually every area of medicine, including obstetrics, gynecology, intensive... care, general surgery, neurology, anesthesiology, gastroenterology, pediatrics, nursing care, infectious disease, neonatal intensive care, urogynecology, pelvic organ repair, and cardiology. She also provides general liability and premises liability representation for a tertiary care center.
Experience
The following is a selected sampling of matters and is provided for informational purposes only. Past success does not indicate the likelihood of success in any future matter.- Has had responsibility for all phases of the litigation process, including pre-trial, trial, and appellate work
- Recent case results include securing a defense verdict in favor of a hospital in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City after a multi-week jury trial
Representative Matters
- Obtained defense jury verdict on the standard of care in Baltimore City Circuit Court in a medical malpractice case alleging negligence, lack of informed consent and loss of consortium. Plaintiff alleged that he suffered from toxicity from the improper dosing and management of an antibiotic. Plaintiff claimed he required, among other things, 12 hours a day of attendant nursing care.
- Lead counsel in a medical malpractice case in Baltimore City involving the death of a 28-year-old African American woman from severe acute pancreatitis. Reached “high/low” settlement during jury deliberation saving the client substantially on the jury verdict.
- Lead counsel defending a birth-injury case stemming from allegations asserted against a labor- and-delivery nurse and the hospital where plaintiffs’ minor son was delivered. Plaintiffs alleged that the co-defendant obstetrician should have delivered the minor son earlier to avoid permanent brain injury and cerebral palsy. Plaintiffs alleged that the hospital was negligent due to the acts of the labor-and-delivery nurse only, asserting the nurse should have initiated the chain of command to challenge the obstetrician’s discharge order, and had she done so, the obstetrician’s treatment plan and discharge order would have been overturned and the baby would have been delivered that same day thus avoiding all injuries to the neonate. The plaintiffs settled the claim for significantly less than claimed damages.
- Lead counsel in a medical malpractice case in Baltimore City stemming from allegations that the hospitalist service failed to diagnose plaintiff with a necrotizing soft-tissue infection, which resulted in leg amputation. Plaintiffs brought negligence, loss of consortium, and informed consent counts against all defendants. As to informed consent, plaintiffs alleged the hospital failed to obtain consent because the hospital failed to perform imaging to evaluate for possible diagnoses, thereby choosing to not treat the patient’s medical complaints without her consent. The hospital and hospitalist moved for summary judgment on plaintiffs’ informed consent count, arguing the claim of “misdiagnosis” or “failure to diagnose” was not permitted as an informed consent claim as a matter of law. The Circuit Court for Baltimore City granted summary judgment. In so doing, the court strengthened Maryland law recognizing claims of informed consent and medical malpractice are separate and disparate theories of liability. By knocking out one of plaintiffs’ counts, the hospital and hospitalist were able to further strengthen and leverage its defense position and successfully resolved the matter prior to trial for a fraction of the potential exposure.
- Lead counsel in a medical malpractice case in Baltimore City defending a major hospital and two maternal fetal medicine physicians in which plaintiffs alleged the defendants failed to properly manage the patient’s cervical shortening during pregnancy. Plaintiffs contended that the health care providers’ alleged negligence resulted in the premature delivery of the patient’s neonate at 23 weeks gestation and in her subsequent death a month later. The defendants successfully challenged the admissibility of several liability opinions proffered by plaintiffs’ maternal fetal medicine expert, resulting in the trial court scheduling a pre-trial evidentiary hearing to determine whether the challenged opinions were admissible. Defendants also filed several motions for summary judgment on plaintiffs’ medical negligence and informed consent claims, raising alternative arguments as to why plaintiffs could not establish a prima facie case against defendants, even if the challenged expert opinions were considered. The court granted each of the motions for summary judgment and entered judgment in favor of the defendants.
- Lead counsel and trial counsel for major hospital defending a medical malpractice matter stemming from allegations against the hospital and its maternal fetal medicine and neonatology providers. The case proceeded to trial in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City on three counts: the minor plaintiff’s medical malpractice claim (Count I); the mother’s medical malpractice claim (Count II); and plaintiffs’ claim for informed consent (Count III). At the conclusion of all evidence, the jury returned a verdict against defendants. Defendants moved for Judgment Notwithstanding the Verdict, arguing the plaintiffs failed to meet their burden of proof that any alleged breach in the standard of care proximately caused any of the plaintiffs’ injuries. The Circuit Court denied the motions and defendants appealed the ruling to the Court of Special Appeals of Maryland. The Court of Special Appeals of Maryland overturned the Circuit Court’s denial of Defendant’s Motion Notwithstanding the Verdict. In so doing, the appellate court held: “because we conclude that the evidence presented at trial was not sufficient to support findings of either negligent treatment or breach of informed consent, we hold that the trial court erred by not granting [defendant]’s motions for judgment notwithstanding the verdict. We reverse the judgments.” Appellees/plaintiffs appealed the Court of Special Appeals’ ruling and the Court of Appeals, the highest court in Maryland, denied their petition affirming the Court of Special Appeals’ decision. On Oct. 1, 2021, the Circuit Court for Baltimore City entered a final Order on Remand which vacated the judgment originally entered for plaintiffs, granted Defendant’s Motion for Judgment Notwithstanding the Verdict, and entered final judgment for Defendant. This matter gained national attention and was publicized on the national news and throughout national newspapers.
Education
-
University of Baltimore,
JD,
magna cum laude
(2006)
- Heuisler Honor Society
- Florida Atlantic University, BA (1998)
Admissions
- District of Columbia
- Maryland
- Supreme Court of the United States
- U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
- U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland
Practice Areas
- Clinical Research Stage Contracting & Risk Management
- Healthcare Providers & Suppliers
- Litigation
- Toxic Torts/Asbestos
- Products Liability - Pharmaceuticals & Medical Devices
- Premises Liability
Industries
The bar rules of some states require that the standards for an attorney's inclusion in certain public accolades or recognitions be provided. When such accolades or recognitions are listed, a hyperlink is provided that leads to a description of the respective selection methodology.
- The Daily Record, Personal Injury & Medical Malpractice Law Power List (2024)
- The Best Lawyers in America®, Mass Tort Litigation/Class Actions – Defendants (2023–2025), Medical Malpractice Law – Defendants (2019-2025); Product Liability Litigation – Defendants (2019–2025)
- Maryland Super Lawyers® Rising Stars, Personal Injury Products: Defense (2015–2016)
- American Bar Association: Young Lawyers Division
- DRI – The Voice of the Defense Bar
- Heuisler Honor Society
- Maryland State Bar Association
- National Bar Association
- Maryland Defense Counsel, Board Member/ Editor of The Defense Line
Highlights from the Firm’s Insights
The Price of Fake Reviews Just Went Up: What the...
August 16, 2024
CPPA Enforcement Advisory Targets Dark Patterns in Data Privacy: What...
September 6, 2024
