Roxanne Hawkins alleged that before initiating her Maryland medical malpractice action, she asked Calvert Health Medical Center (“Calvert Health”) to send her her husband, Ronald Hawkins’s, medical records. Once she obtained the
records, she retained Dr. Matthew Grayson Tuck and asked him to prepare an expert report based on his review of those records. These “original, true medical records” supplied the factual basis for Dr. Tuck’s expert opinion that the doctors provided substandard medical care to Mr. Hawkins and, consequently, they “form[ed] the foundation of [Ms. Hawkins’s] entire case.” During discovery, however, the doctors (suddenly, she says) produced “over one thousand pages of falsely manufactured medical records, records which were not provided to [Ms. Hawkins] by the hospital” in response to her pre-litigation request. Ms. Hawkins asserted that the circuit court abused its discretion and “pre-killed” her case by “put[ting]” these “new,” fabricated records, which undermined Dr. Tuck’s expert opinion, “into the case mere days before trial.”
The Appellate Court of Maryland stated in its unreported Opinion dated January 27, 2026: “We acknowledge Ms. Hawkins’s frustration at having filed a lawsuit in reliance on an expert report that was based on what she believed was a complete set of Mr. Hawkins’s medical records, only to be provided with additional records during discovery that largely refuted her expert’s opinions. But contrary to Ms. Hawkins’s assertion, the circuit court didn’t “force” the complete set of records into the case on the eve of trial. As the circuit court found, the Doctors provided the records to her early in the discovery process, about a year-and-a-half before trial was scheduled to begin. Although it wouldn’t have been ideal for Ms. Hawkins to expend additional resources to have Dr. Tuck review the full set of Mr. Hawkins’s medical records and, if necessary, revise his expert opinion, the timing of the Doctors’ disclosure gave her plenty of time to do so before trial. And true, it’s possible that Dr. Tuck would have found that the full set of records either largely or entirely contradicted his initial opinion that the Doctors breached the applicable standard of care when treating Mr. Hawkins. But although this was an understandably disheartening prospect, it was one that she and her counsel needed to face rather than hiding behind unsubstantiated allegations of fabrication. Ultimately, the circuit court declined to punish the Doctors, who provided Ms. Hawkins all the medical records from Mr. Hawkins’s 2021 stays at Calvert Health at the appropriate time during discovery, for the hospital’s failure to send her a complete set of records before litigation began. That decision wasn’t an abuse of discretion.”
“The decision whether to modify a scheduling order or to strike an expert as a sanction for a violation of a scheduling order “turns ‘on the facts of the particular case.’” … Before making either decision, a court considers several factors, including: (1) whether the violation of the scheduling order “was technical or substantial”; (2) the timing of a party’s
post-deadline attempt to comply with their discovery obligations; (3) “the reason, if any, for the violation” of the order; (4) the degree of prejudice to the parties that would arise from the decision to amend the order or to strike the expert, respectively; and (5) “whether any resulting prejudice might be cured by a postponement and, if so, the overall desirability of a continuance.”
“Of the two choices the court had before it—ordering Dr. Tuck’s post-deadline deposition or striking him as an expert—the court chose the option more favorable to Ms. Hawkins … The court recognized that it might be difficult for Dr. Tuck to review all 1,000 pages of Mr. Hawkins’s medical records before his after-deadline deposition, but it still wasn’t unreasonable for the court to conclude that ordering the deposition would be less prejudicial to Ms. Hawkins than striking Dr. Tuck completely. We hold that because the circuit court’s decision to order Ms. Hawkins to make Dr. Tuck available for a post-deadline deposition was reasonable and was grounded in logic and the facts of the case, see id. at 550–51, the court didn’t abuse its discretion in making it.”
“As with the circuit court’s initial decision at the August 19 hearing to amend the scheduling order instead of striking Dr. Tuck as an expert, its decision to reverse course and strike Dr. Tuck at the September 12 hearing was reasonable, logical, and based on a thorough application of the appropriate guiding principles to the facts of the case … We hold that the court acted well within its discretion when it granted the Doctors’ motion to strike and for summary judgment.”
Source Hawkins v. Ajmera, No. 1343 September Term, 2024.
If you or a loved one may have been injured (or worse) as a result of medical malpractice in Maryland, you should promptly find the best Maryland medical malpractice lawyer for you, who may investigate your medical malpractice claim for you and represent you or your loved one in a Maryland medical malpractice case, if appropriate.
Click here to visit our website or call us toll-free at 800-295-3959 to find experienced Maryland medical malpractice attorneys who may assist you.
Turn to us when you don’t know where to turn.