Act which are not affirmatively stated therein. Carroll v. Konits, 2007 Md. LEXIS at 65-78. Nonetheless, any or all of these issues could again come before the court in the near future. With the caveat that no one knows or
can predict what the Court of Appeals next opinion will hold, a few basics suggestions can be offered.6
These sug-
gestions are not only based on what the Court of Appeals’ recent opinions argu- ably require, but what the next round of opinions may hold.
1) Plaintiffs should file both a certifi-
cate of merit and report signed by the expert;
2) Both the certificate and the report
should specifically identify by name (as best as possible) the licensed health care providers who are alleged to have departed from the standards of care;
3) Both the certificate and the report
should identify the ways in which each specifically identified licensed health care provider departed from the stan- dards of care to a reasonable degree of medical certainty;
4) Both the certificate and the report
should state a proximate causal con- nection between the departures from standards of care of each specifically named health care provider and the dam- ages or harm claimed to a reasonable degree of medical certainty and using the specific term “proximate cause:”
5) Both the certificate and report
should state the expert’s compliance with the 20% requirement regarding time spent on “activities that directly involve testimony in personal injury claims;”
6) Both the certificate and report should state the expert’s board certifi-
6
These suggestions should not be inter- preted to constitute a statement of the standard of legal care.
Fall 2007 Trial Reporter 33
Join MTLA’s Listserv Find out why
MTLA members think the listserv is the most valuable membership service MTLA provides.
cation, experience, etc., as necessary to comply with Md. Cts. & Jud. Proc. Code Annot. § 3-2A-02(c) (2)(ii);
7) Both the certificate and report
should state that the opinions contained therein are based on the expert’s educa- tion, training, experience and review of pertinent documents, including but not limited to [insert description here]; and
8) Both the certificate and report
should state that the expert’s opinions are based on current knowledge and reserve the ability to amend those opin- ions as additional information becomes available.
The bottom line is that since we have
no way of predicting what the Court of Appeals will hold in the next round of opinions addressing certificate of merit/ report issues, it is prudent to provide more information than any reasonable interpretation of the statute would re- quire. And then hope for the best.
About the Author
David J. Wildberger is a shareholder in the firm of Iliff & Meredith, P.C. in Pasadena, Maryland. He serves on the MTLA Board of Governors. He fo- cuses his practice on the representation of individuals and families harmed by medical negligence.
Post questions Seek advice Talk strategy
Gain the opinions of the best legal experts around—your colleagues.
Contact MTLA
mtla@mdtriallawyers.com P: 410-539-4336
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 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60