Little v. Schneider, 73 A.3d 1074

In 2007 Victoria Little underwent attempted aortobifemoral bypass by Drs. Schneider and Gonze; due to suture failure they converted to an axillobifemoral bypass after massive blood loss, leaving Little paralyzed and with other severe injuries.
At trial Little alleged negligence based largely on a graft–aorta size mismatch; jury found the surgeons negligent and awarded multi-million dollar damages (later subject to statutory caps and settlements).
Dr. Schneider testified as an adverse fact witness called by Little (not as an expert). During cross-examination defense counsel extensively detailed Schneider’s education, training, clinical volume, publications, hospital roles, and community service.
After extensive witness accreditation by defense counsel, the trial judge allowed Little on re-direct to elicit that Schneider was not board-certified in vascular surgery; the Court of Special Appeals reversed that ruling and excluded the redirect inquiry and also excluded a chest CAT scan offered by Schneider.
The Maryland Court of Appeals granted certiorari to decide (1) whether Schneider’s lack of board certification was admissible after he “opened the door” by touting credentials, and (2) whether the trial judge abused discretion in excluding a CAT scan that Schneider had not used in treating Little.

Issue	Little's Argument	Schneider's Argument	Held
Admissibility of physician's lack of board certification after extensive accreditation	Schneider put his qualifications at issue by extensive "puffing," so Little should be allowed to rebut with lack of certification	Lack of board certification is irrelevant to standard of care (Dorsey) and should be excluded	Court held judge did not abuse discretion: defense "opened the door" by exceeding reasonable accreditation limits, permitting limited rebuttal about lack of certification
Exclusion of a chest CAT scan not used in treatment	The scan could be relevant to actual aortic size (central fact) and thus admissible	Scan was not part of Schneider’s treatment or relied upon; Schneider was a fact witness and lacked personal knowledge to testify about it	Court held exclusion proper: relevance alone insufficient; as a fact witness Schneider lacked personal knowledge and none of his experts relied on the scan, so testimony/exhibit could be excluded

Dorsey v. Nold, 362 Md. 241, 765 A.2d 79 (2001) (physician’s failure to pass board exam generally irrelevant to breach of care)
Clark v. State, 332 Md. 77, 629 A.2d 1239 (1993) ("opening the door" doctrine allows otherwise inadmissible evidence to meet issues injected by opponent)
Terry v. State, 332 Md. 329, 631 A.2d 424 (1993) ("opening the door" applicable to opening statements)
City of Baltimore v. Zell, 279 Md. 23, 367 A.2d 14 (1977) (limits and purpose of witness accreditation; trial judge has discretion over extent)