DeMuth v. Strong
45 A.3d 898
Md. Ct. Spec. App.2012Background
- Maryland’s Health Care Malpractice Act requires expert qualifications when a defendant is board certified, including a related-specialty requirement for testimony (CJP 3-2A-02(c)(2)(ii)).
- Plaintiff Strong, treated by orthopedic surgeon DeMuth, underwent right knee replacement (2007) and left knee replacement (Feb 2008) with later vascular complications leading to amputation.
- Postoperative concerns included neuropraxia vs. vascular compromise; early signs suggested ischemia, but DeMuth did not perform ABI/Doppler tests or consult vascular surgery promptly.
- Strong presented two experts: Baumgaertner (orthopedic surgery) and Johanning (vascular surgery); the latter testified on standard of care and causation.
- DeMuth challenged Johanning’s qualifications under the related-specialty provision, arguing vascular surgery is not the same or related to orthopedics for purposes of the statute.
- The circuit court allowed Johanning to testify and the jury awarded Strong $1,682,751.93; DeMuth appealed challenging the expert qualifications and post-trial issues.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether related specialty includes vascular and orthopedic for post-op care. | Related specialty includes overlapped postoperative care; vascular is related to ortho in knee surgery context. | Related specialty requires same or truly related field; orthopedic and vascular are distinct with different certifying boards. | Yes; vascular and orthopedic are related within the act for this post-op care context. |
| Whether post-8:00 p.m. breaches after Feb 16 could support liability. | Breaches after 8:00 p.m. caused damages independent of leg loss; evidence supports causation and damages beyond amputation. | Breaches after 8:00 p.m. did not cause injury; evidence should be limited or severed from liability. | The court properly denied partial judgment and related post-trial relief; breaches after 8:00 p.m. could support liability. |
Key Cases Cited
- Breslin v. Powell, 421 Md. 266 (Md. 2011) (statutory interpretation guiding narrowing of tort reform provisions)
- Debbas v. Nelson, 389 Md. 364 (Md. 2005) (history and gatekeeping function of expert certificates)
- Jones v. Bagalkotakar, 750 F. Supp. 2d 574 (D. Md. 2010) (related specialty includes overlapping procedures across specialties)
- Sami v. Varn, 260 Va. 280 (Va. 2000) (related-field concept measured by overlap of procedures and standard of care)
- Waldt v. Univ. of Md. Med. Sys. Corp., 411 Md. 207 (Md. 2009) (statutory interpretation and expert qualification standards)
- Town of Oxford v. Koste, 204 Md.App. 578 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 2012) (statutory construction factors and purpose guiding interpretation)
- Jones v. Bagalkotakar, 750 F. Supp. 2d 574 (D. Md. 2010) (overlapping specialties may be related for expert testimony)