178 A.3d 501
Md.2018Background
- Rear-end collision on Oct. 14, 2011; Patricia Lamalfa (plaintiff) later sought medical care and eventually had surgery for an epigastric hernia and arthroscopic surgery for a right-shoulder rotator cuff tear. Plaintiff sued for negligence; negligence was resolved for plaintiff at trial and the jury determined damages.
- Defense orthopedic expert Dr. Halikman examined Lamalfa and relied on four post-accident medical records (Mercy ER record, Koyen record, a Chiropractic record, and a Levin consultation) in forming his opinion that the shoulder and abdominal conditions were not caused by the accident.
- Trial court admitted those four medical records over plaintiff’s hearsay/authentication objections under Maryland Rule 5-703(b) while the expert relied on them; jury received the records and awarded past medical expenses and minimal non-economic damages.
- On appeal plaintiff argued that “disclosure” under Md. Rule 5-703(b) does not mean admission and that the records were inadmissible hearsay (and not shown trustworthy or necessary); she also argued the court failed to make requisite findings and that admission prejudiced her.
- Court of Special Appeals affirmed; Maryland Court of Appeals granted certiorari and affirmed, holding that when the four Rule 5-703(b) elements are met the trial court may admit (i.e., disclose to the jury) such materials, and that here the records met the elements or any error was harmless.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether "disclosed" in Md. Rule 5-703(b) means admissible/"admitted" | Lamalfa: "Disclosed" is narrower than admission; documents should only be discussed or shown during expert testimony, not admitted for jury deliberation | Hearn: No practical distinction — court has discretion how to disclose; documents relied on by expert may be admitted if Rule 5-703(b) elements are met | Court: "Disclosed" can mean admitted where the four Rule 5-703(b) elements are satisfied; trial court has discretion to give records to jury with limiting instruction available upon request |
| Whether the trial court erred in admitting the four medical records under Rule 5-703(b) (trustworthy, unprivileged, reasonably relied upon, necessary to illuminate) | Lamalfa: Records were untrustworthy or not necessary to illuminate Dr. Halikman’s opinion; court failed to make required findings | Hearn: Records were treating-provider documents, produced in discovery, relied on by expert, and thus trustworthy and necessary to explain expert's basis | Court: Although better practice is to state findings, the record supports that the records were unprivileged, reasonably relied upon, trustworthy, and necessary to illuminate the expert’s testimony; no abuse of discretion |
| Whether admitting the records circumvented hearsay rules and opened the door to admitting any inadmissible document relied on by an expert | Lamalfa: Admission would allow an "end run" around hearsay protections and let jury give undue weight to selected documents | Hearn: Rule 5-703(b) contains gatekeeping safeguards (the four elements) and limiting instructions; waiver applies if limiting instruction not requested | Court: No end-run — Rule 5-703(b) has built-in safeguards; admission requires satisfying the four elements and a limiting instruction is available (and here plaintiff waived request) |
| Whether any error in admitting the records was prejudicial (harmless error) | Lamalfa: Admission allowed jurors undue weight on documents in deliberations; limiting instruction would be ineffective once documents go to jury | Hearn: No evidence jury gave undue weight; plaintiff failed to request limiting instruction (waiver) | Court: Even if admission were error, it was harmless — no indication jury gave undue weight; plaintiff waived limiting-instruction issue by not requesting it |
Key Cases Cited
- U.S. Gypsum Co. v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, 336 Md. 145 (discusses expert reliance on third-party reports and potential admission to explain expert basis)
- Brown v. Daniel Realty Co., 409 Md. 565 (clarifies four-element test for admissibility under Md. Rule 5-703(b))
- Cooper v. State, 434 Md. 209 (explains Md. Rule 5-703(a)/(b) — experts may rely on inadmissible materials and trial courts may admit such materials to show basis of opinion)
- Alban v. Fiels, 210 Md. App. 1 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. discussion of interplay between Rule 5-703(a) and (b) and purpose-limited admission)
- Gillespie v. Gillespie, 206 Md. App. 146 (allows admission under Rule 5-703 of a psychiatric report relied on by the court-appointed expert)