Lamalfa v. Hearn, 163 A.3d 205

On Oct. 14, 2011 Patricia Lamalfa was rear-ended in Maryland; she later sought medical treatment for back, shoulder, and abdominal complaints and eventually underwent an epigastric hernia repair (2012) and right rotator cuff surgery (2015).
Lamalfa sued Janis Hearn for negligence; at trial the court granted judgment for liability in Lamalfa’s favor and sent only damages to the jury.
Defense expert Dr. Halikman relied on four of Lamalfa’s medical records (Mercy ER record, Koyen record, Chiropractic record, Levin record) and defense counsel moved to admit those records; plaintiff objected on hearsay/prejudice grounds but did not object on authentication or request a Rule 5-703(b) limiting instruction.
The court admitted the four records over plaintiff’s objections under Rule 5-703 (expert bases of opinion), and the jury awarded past medical expenses and minimal non-economic damages.
On appeal Lamalfa argued the records were unauthenticated and inadmissible hearsay (not properly admitted under Rule 5-703 or the business-records exception) and that admission was prejudicial; the Court of Special Appeals affirmed.

Issue	Lamalfa's Argument	Hearn's Argument	Held
Admissibility/authentication of medical records	Records were inadmissible hearsay and not properly authenticated under Rule 5-902(b)	Records admitted as facts/data reasonably relied upon by expert (Rule 5-703) and also fall within hearsay exceptions	Authentication challenge not preserved (no Rule 5-902 objection at trial); admission affirmed
Use of Rule 5-703 to place records before the jury	Rule 5-703 permits disclosure to jury only, not substantive admission; records could be misused in deliberations	Rule 5-703 allows writings relied on by expert to be shown to jury; court may admit them so long as used only to evaluate expert opinion	Admission under Rule 5-703 proper; records were trustworthy, relied upon, and necessary to illuminate expert testimony; no abuse of discretion
Failure to obtain limiting instruction	Admission without limiting instruction allowed jurors to use records substantively, prejudicing Lamalfa	Plaintiff failed to request the mandatory limiting instruction under Rule 5-703(b); waiver of complaint	Plaintiff waived issue by not requesting limiting instruction at trial; reversal not warranted

Brown v. Daniel Realty Co., 409 Md. 565 (upholding admission of a report relied upon by an expert under Rule 5-703) (Rule 5-703 admission/disclosure analysis)
United States Gypsum Co. v. Mayor & City Council of Baltimore, 336 Md. 145 (experts may rely on out-of-court materials; such materials usually admitted only to explain expert opinion)
Alban v. Fiels, 210 Md. App. 1 (discussing interplay of Rule 5-703(a) and hearsay reliance for experts)
Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Nothstein, 300 Md. 667 (background on experts relying on hearsay materials)
Gillespie v. Gillespie, 206 Md. App. 146 (permitting admission under Rule 5-703 of a report relied on by a testifying expert)