Schneider v. Little
206 Md. App. 414
Md. Ct. Spec. App.2012Background
- Victoria Little suffered paraplegia after July 16, 2007 aortobifemoral bypass, leading to a medical malpractice suit in Harford County.
- Plaintiff argued a size mismatch between a 16×9 mm graft and Little’s aorta; operatives and experts described estimates ranging from 7–8 mm to 14–15 mm.
- Surgery was converted from an aortobifemoral to an axillobifemoral bypass due to severely diseased, calcified, and fragile aorta.
- A January 2007 CAT scan allegedly showing a 14–15 mm aorta was excluded at trial as a discovery sanction, influencing evidence on the size issue.
- Evidence of Schneider’s lack of board certification was admitted, later deemed reversible error by the appellate court; Dodds testified on causation, and the court allowed this causation testimony by an anesthesiologist with vascular surgery experience.
- Jury verdicts awarded Little substantial damages against Schneider, Gonze, and Vascular Surgery Associates, with co-defendants Eves and Northern Chesapeake Anesthesia Associates succeeding on their defenses; post-trial motions led to a remand for a new trial with costs allocated two-thirds to appellee and one-third to appellant.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| CAT scan exclusion and discovery sanction. | Schneider's CAT scan should be admitted to establish aorta size. | CAT scan was not properly disclosed; discovery sanction was appropriate. | CAT scan exclusion reversed; reversible error because sanction analysis was missing. |
| Admissibility of board-certification evidence. | Lack of board certification is relevant to credibility. | Board certification status is irrelevant to standard of care. | Admission of board-certification evidence was reversible error. |
| Qualification to testify on causation (Dodds). | Dodds’ vascular anesthesia experience supports causation testimony. | Dodds’ expertise not in spinal-vascular causation; limited relevance. | Court did not abuse discretion in allowing Dodds to testify on causation. |
| Impact of CAT scan and related evidence on causation finding. | CAT scan would have confirmed size mismatch, possibly changing outcome. | Reversible error due to CAT scan exclusion affecting verdict. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hart v. Miller, 65 Md.App. 620 (1985) (courts must consider specific discovery factors in sanctions)
- Colter v. State, 297 Md. 423 (1983) (discretionary continuances may be appropriate over rigid rules)
- Dorsey v. Nold, 362 Md. 241 (2001) (board-certification evidence generally not admissible to prove standard of care)
- Hill v. Wilson, 134 Md.App. 472 (2000) (expert testimony may be limited to deposition disclosures; material variance rule)
- Klupt v. Krongard, 126 Md.App. 179 (1999) (standard for reviewing discovery sanctions is narrow)
- Scully v. Tauber, 138 Md.App. 423 (2001) (requires considered application of sanctions; abuse if discretion not shown)
- Samsun Corp. v. Bennett, 154 Md.App. 59 (2003) (non-specialist may testify on related medical issues given applicable expertise)
- Wood v. Toyota Motor Corp., 134 Md.App. 512 (2000) (admissibility of expert testimony depends on expertise relevance)
- Conyers v. State, 345 Md. 525 (1997) (opening the door doctrine; limited applicability)
- Barksdale v. Wilkowsky, 419 Md. 649 (2011) (harmless error standards; prejudice must be demonstrated)