Wantz v. Afzal
14 A.3d 1244
| Md. Ct. Spec. App. | 2011Background
- Evelyn Reynolds died from a staph infection after a spinal fusion; Wantz as executor filed wrongful death and survival actions against Hiren Shah, Donelson & Carnell, M.D., P.A., Rizwana Afzal, and Frederick Memorial Hospital.
- Appellees moved to strike or preclude three expert witnesses designated by Wantz on causation under Md. Rule 5-702.
- Circuit Court granted motions to strike/preclude the experts and then granted judgment for appellees due to lack of causation testimony.
- Wantz appealed, contending the trial court abused its discretion in excluding the experts’ causation testimony.
- Maryland Court of Special Appeals held the trial court abused its discretion and reversed, remanding for further proceedings.
- Court concluded Manders, Gaber, and Zoarski were qualified to offer causation opinions and had a sufficient factual basis to do so.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Manders' qualifications to testify on causation | Manders is a neurosurgeon with 50+ years’ experience and relevant immobilization knowledge. | Manders lacked post‑operative spinal fusion experience and needed orthopedist expertise. | Abuse of discretion; Manders qualified to opine on causation. |
| Gaber's qualifications to testify on causation | Gaber’s internal/geriatric medicine background and post‑operative care exposure support causation opinions. | Gaber lacked specific experience with spinal fractures and post‑operative care for fusion patients. | Abuse of discretion; Gaber qualified with adequate factual basis. |
| Zoarski's qualifications to testify on immobilization and paralysis | Zoarski could opine that immobilization would have prevented paralysis. | The specifics of immobilization timing/method are outside Zoarski's expertise. | Abuse of discretion; Zoarski not eviscerated; testimony on causation permissible. |
Key Cases Cited
- Radman v. Harold, 279 Md. 167 (Md. 1977) (experts need not be specialists to testify on medical matters)
- Wolfinger v. Frey, 223 Md. 184 (Md. 1960) (general practitioner may testify on causation)
- Ungar v. Handelsman, 325 Md. 135 (Md. 1992) (no bar to non-specialists testifying as experts)
- Air Lift, Ltd. v. Bd. of Co. Comm'rs, 262 Md. 368 (Md. 1971) (experts need not be in the exact field to testify)
- Sippio v. State, 350 Md. 633 (Md. 1998) (facts for expert testimony may come from various sources)
- Giant Food, Inc. v. Booker, 152 Md.App. 166 (Md. 2003) (expert testimony must be based on adequate factual basis)
- Rollins v. State, 392 Md. 455 (Md. 2006) (expert admissibility largely within trial court discretion)
- Bryant v. State, 393 Md. 196 (Md. 2006) (admissibility of expert testimony governed by standard discretion)
- Brown v. Contemporary OB/GYN Assocs., 143 Md.App. 199 (Md. 2002) (trial court abuse if misapplies 5-702)
- Pepper v. Johns Hopkins Hosp., 111 Md.App. 49 (Md. 1996) (expert testimony admissibility considerations in medical context)
- Samsun Corp. v. Bennett, 154 Md.App. 59 (Md. 2003) (orthopedist can testify on causation despite lack of specialty)
- Univ. of Md. Med. Sys. v. Waldt, 411 Md. 207 (Md. 2009) (limited experience with procedure may affect admissibility)
- Radman v. Harold, 279 Md. 167 (Md. 1977) (reiterated principle on non-specialist experts)
- Sippio v. State, 350 Md. 633 (Md. 1998) (multiple sources can provide factual basis for expert)