Certificates of Qualified Experts (Continued from page 10)
legislature sought “to weed out” frivolous defenses as well.
Failure to File a Timely CQE
Initially, the statute provided harsh con- sequences if an appropriate CQE were not filed in a timely manner. Maryland Courts strictly construed the time limits in § 3- 2A-04(b), perhaps most infamously in Robinson v. Pleet, 76 Md. App. 173, 544 A.2d 1 (1987), cert. denied, 313 Md. 689, 548 A.2d 128 (1988), in which the Court of Special Appeals affirmed the summary dismissal of a claim because a valid CQE had not been timely filed: The law is replete with procedural hurdles over which a plaintiff must jump before his claim can be heard in court. If the plaintiff through his own fault misses one of those hurdles, he will not be heard to complain of his inability to maintain his cause of action. Robinson, 76 Md. App. at 180, 544
A.2d at 4. Simply stated, “the legislative response
to Robinson was swift,” McCready Mem. Hosp. v. Hauser, 330 Md. 497, 506, 624 A.2d 1249, 1254 (1993), and in the en- suing years, the General Assembly ameliorated the requirements for a party to obtain an extension of the time within which a CQE must be filed. Even so, a party’s failure to file a valid and timely CQE remains an explicit statutory basis for summary dismissal of a party’s claims or defenses. Navarro-Monzo v. Washing- ton Adventist Hosp., 380 Md. 195, 844 A.2d 406 (2004) (trial court summarily dismissed action where valid CQE was secured, but arguably was not timely filed); Roth v. Dimensions Health Corp., 332 Md. 627, 632 A.2d 1170 (1993) (trial court summarily dismissed action where valid CQE was secured, but arguably was not timely filed); Marousek v. Sapra, 87 Md. App. 205, 589 A.2d 529 (1991) (trial court summarily dismissed action where valid CQE was secured, but arguably was filed just four days late); Furst v. Isom, 85 Md. App. 407, 584 A.2d 108 (1991) (trial
court summarily dismissed action where valid CQE was secured, but arguably was not timely filed); Robinson v. Pleet, 76 Md. App. 173, 544 A.2d 1 (1987) (trial court summarily dismissed action where valid CQE was secured, but not timely filed). At least one court in Maryland has granted judgment to a plaintiff based upon a de- fense failure to file a timely CQE. Mayo v. United States, Civil No. WDQ-03- 3497, slip op. at 6 (Feb. 25, 2005) (FTCA claim).
Modern CQE Requirements
The basic requirements of the CQE re- mained unchanged until the December 2004 Special Session of the Maryland General Assembly, at which time the Leg- islature revised and strengthened aspects of the CQE that had been criticized in the past. The remainder of this article will review the requirements for a valid CQE. The form of the plaintiff’s CQE is de- rived from § 3-2A-04(b), which provides, in pertinent part:
a claim or action . . . shall be dismissed,
WALLS REPORTING, INC. Serving
Maryland, Washington, D.C. & Northern Virginia
Real-time reporting Local and international coverage Video Depositions DC & DVD Video synchronization with transcript Condensed transcripts, word index, disks E-transcript and publisher bundle
Management & coordination of nationwide litigation
Depositions suites in Washington, D.C., Alexandria, VA., Greenbelt, MD., Rockville, MD., Baltimore City, MD., Annapolis, MD., Easton, MD., Salisbury, MD.
Walls Reporting, Inc.
416 Schoolers Pond Way, Arnold, MD. 21012 Telephone 410-647-6434 Toll Free 800-319-3991
12 Trial Reporter Spring 2006
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52