In its reported Opinion filed on February 27, 2026, the Appellate Court of Maryland ruled as follows:
Medical Malpractice Expert Qualifications
The medical malpractice plaintiffs brought medical negligence claims against a board-certified gastroenterologist who performed an endoscopy at an ambulatory surgery center, under anesthesia administered by an anesthetist. The plaintiffs offered expert testimony from a board-certified anesthesiologist, who opined that the gastroenterologist violated the standard of care in the post-procedure discharge assessment of the patient. The record established that, in the procedure at issue, a gastroenterologist collaborates with an anesthesiologist (or anesthetist) and the two types of specialists share some common responsibility for post-procedure care. The expert asserted that the standard of care for the post-procedure discharge assessment would be the same for either specialist.
The Health Care Malpractice Claims Act imposes certain qualification requirements for any expert who renders an opinion about an applicable standard of care. If a defendant health care provider is board certified in a specialty, an expert may not opine that the defendant departed from the standard of care unless the expert is “board certified in the
same or a related specialty as the defendant.” Md. Code (1974, 2020 Repl. Vol.), § 3-2A02(c)(2)(ii)1B of the Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article. Generally, two specialties are “related” if there is an overlap in treatment or procedures within the specialties and the treatment or procedures for which the overlap exists is at issue in the case.
The Appellate Court of Maryland ruled that under the circumstances of the case it was deciding, the “related specialty” requirement of the Health Care Malpractice Claims Act did not prohibit the expert anesthesiologist from offering opinion testimony about the standard of care for the post-procedure assessment performed by the defendant gastroenterologist.
Error In Granting Summary Judgment To One Defendant
The circuit court erroneously granted summary judgment in favor of one defendant health care provider. The case proceeded to trial against two other defendant health care providers, and the jury found no violation of the applicable standards of care by those two defendants.
To justify setting aside a jury verdict in a civil case, the appellant must show not only that an error occurred but also that the error probably affected the verdict.
The Appellate Court of Maryland ruled that the erroneous grant of summary judgment in favor of one defendant did not provide a basis to overturn the verdicts in favor of the other defendants. The record established no substantial likelihood that the lack of evidence of negligence by one defendant affected the jury’s assessment of whether the other two defendants violated an applicable standard of care. Although the appellants also contended that the
court made other errors at trial, each of the challenged rulings pertained to issues unrelated to whether those two defendants violated the applicable standards of care. Accordingly, the appellants failed to show a likelihood of prejudice.
Contributory Negligence In Medical Malpractice Cases
Maryland appellate courts have upheld the submission of the issue of contributory negligence to a jury in medical malpractice cases only where there is evidence that the patient did not follow, or unreasonably delayed in following, instructions given by a treating health care provider.
The Appellate Court of Maryland ruled that in the present case, plaintiffs alleged that defendant health care providers violated the applicable standards of care by failing to discharge the patient by wheelchair after a procedure performed under anesthesia and that this violation caused him to fall while walking to his car outside the facility. The defendants contended that they were entitled to a jury instruction on the issue of contributory negligence, based on evidence indicating that the patient tripped on the edge of a sidewalk when he fell. Because there was no evidence that the patient failed to follow, or unreasonably delayed in following, any instructions from his health care providers, the evidence did not properly generate an affirmative defense of contributory negligence.
The Appellate Court of Maryland held: “The case is remanded for a new trial on some but not all claims. The judgment is reversed to the extent that it includes the order granting summary judgment in favor of Dr. Khan and Jahangir Khan, M.D., LLC. The judgment is reversed to the extent that it concerns claims that BACE is vicariously liable for alleged
negligence of Dr. Khan and Jahangir Khan, M.D., LLC. The “related specialty” requirement of the Health Care Malpractice Claims Act does not prohibit Dr. McAlary from offering expert opinion testimony that Dr. Khan departed from the standard of care in his post-procedure discharge assessment of Mr. Reid.
The judgment is affirmed to the extent that it includes the jury verdicts in favor of CRNA Sergott and Nurse Dinisio. The judgment is affirmed to the extent that it concerns claims that BACE is vicariously liable for alleged negligence of CRNA Sergott or Nurse Dinisio.
The judgment is also affirmed to the extent that includes the grant of a partial judgment in favor of defendant BACE, as to claims of negligence independent from its agents or employees.
This case is remanded for a new trial on the remaining claims against Dr. Khan, Jahangir Khan, M.D., LLC, and BACE.
At a trial on the remaining claims, the circuit court should not provide jury instructions on contributory negligence, nor should it submit questions about contributory negligence to the jury. The court may permit the defendants to argue that Mr. Reid fell not because of any medical negligence but because he simply tripped. The court should not permit the defendants to argue that Mr. Reid committed contributory negligence.”
Source Edwina Reid, et al. v. Baltimore Ambulatory Center for Endoscopy, LLC, et al., No. 2349, Sept. Term, 2023.
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 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.