and stand for the proposition that ex- pert medical testimony is not necessary in cases where “the disability develops coincidentally with, or within a rea- sonable time after the negligent act, or where the causal connection is clearly apparent from the illness, itself and the circumstances surrounding it, or where the cause of the injury relates to matters of common experience, knowledge, or observation of laymen.” Singleton,144 Md. App at 705. In your case, if true, your client will need to testify that their injury developed at or near the time of the accident, and that they had no prior history of the same. In these situations, these two appellate opinions allow the finder of fact to find causation without the necessity of medical-expert witness testimony. Also, two additional Maryland cases address the causation issue: Wil- helm v. State Traffic Safety Commission, 230 Md. 91, 185 A.2d 715 (1962) and Thomas v. Thompson, 114 Md. App 356, 689 A.2d 1295 (1997). These cases mir- ror the holdings in Butler and Travers.
The second method of proceeding
without a medical expert is “10-104 Plus,” which focuses on the benefits of having live medical testimony coupled with the submission of a § 10-104 State- ment. Many times in auto cases, your client will have undergone chiropractic or physical-therapy treatment. In these situations, the § 10-104 Statement alone may not carry enough weight with a judge or jury, and you may desire to call a chiropractor to testify at trial to support your § 10-104 submission. Since your client’s medical records and bills are already in evidence through the § 10-104 procedure, these health-care providers can focus their testimony on the specific treatment they provided.3
they may be able to explain the arduous nature of the provided treatment; the pain typically induced by the recovery process; the fact that while their treat- ment was beneficial; that your client was unable to achieve a complete recovery; that your client will need future medi- cal care; and/or that your client will be
Experienced. Credible. Responsive.
• DAMAGES • BUSINESS VALUATIONS • FORENSIC ACCOUNTING • LAW FIRM MANAGEMENT
“Providing Quality Services In AChanging World Since 1946”
Providing Services to the Legal Profession and Their Clients
Ellin & Tucker Consultants Specialize in
predisposed to premature traumatic arthritis in the future. The expense of calling a chiropractor or physical thera- pist to testify is typically substantially less than the cost of bringing an Ortho- pedist or Medical Doctor to Court.
Video Depositions In some cases, you will want to call
For example,
a physician to testify because either the case has a value greater than the § 10-104 statutory limit, or the injuries and treatment are too far removed from the incident and/or too complex. While at first glance the fees associated with calling a physician often seem steep, there are ways to minimize the costs. First, consider using a video deposition of the physician in lieu of live testimony. The physician appearance fees associated with a de bene esse deposition, taken in their office, are typically much lower than for live trial testimony. This is be- cause physicians typically block off, and bill for, a half-day or more for live testi- mony. However, physicians commonly will only charge their actual hourly rate for the video deposition. Furthermore, the physician will bill
you for their preparation, so minimize the documents that you want them to review, and provide your expert with an organized set of the medical records, and any medical articles that you want him to rely upon. Narrowing the focus for your physician and minimizing their prepara- tion time will minimize their charges. That being said, it is crucial that you
3
Baltimore, MD 410-727-5735
www.etnet.com
Washington, D.C. 202-638-0902 Frederick, MD 301-696-1926 Belcamp, MD 410-272-1680
Maryland licensed chiropractors can qualify as medical experts, under O’Dell v. Barrett, 163 Md. 342, 163 A.191 (1932). In O’Dell, the Court of Appeals held that due to the licensing requirements for chiropractors in the State of Maryland, a chiropractor could testify as a qualified expert, given the chiropractor’s licensing qualifications and his treatment of the Plaintiff. In addition, under Maryland Courts and Judicial Proceedings § 10-104, chiropractors and physical therapists are considered “health-care providers.” Therefore, the physical therapist records are admissible under § 10-104.
32 Trial Reporter Summer 2008
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 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76