Chase v. Kennedy Krieger Children's Hosp.
| Decision Date | 05 April 2023 |
| Docket Number | 1827-2021 |
| Parties | SHARI CHASE v. KENNEDY KRIEGER CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL, INC. |
| Court | Court of Special Appeals of Maryland |
Circuit Court for Baltimore City Case No. 24C20004575
Leahy Shaw, Meredith, Timothy E. (Senior Judge, Specially Assigned), JJ.
Appellant Shari Chase, filed suit in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City seeking damages for personal injuries she allegedly sustained when her head hit a mounted cabinet in an observation room at the Kennedy Krieger Children's Hospital, Inc. ("Kennedy Krieger"). After Ms. Chase failed to timely designate a medical expert witness, the circuit court granted Kennedy Krieger's motion for summary judgment because without expert testimony, Ms. Chase's claim failed as a matter of law.
On appeal, Ms. Chase presents seven issues for our review, which we have rephrased and consolidated as follows:[1]
I. Did the circuit court err in granting Kennedy Krieger's motion for summary judgment?
For the reasons set forth below, we affirm the judgment of the circuit court.
On or about November 2, 2017, Ms. Chase was seated in a chair in an observation room at Kennedy Krieger, where her son was receiving treatment. [2] When Ms. Chase stood from the chair, she bumped her head on a wall-mounted cabinet. Approximately three years later, on October 30, 2020, she filed suit against Kennedy Krieger,[3] alleging that she had sustained severe physical and mental injuries as a result of Kennedy Krieger's negligence in failing to construct and maintain the wall cabinet in a safe manner, and failing to warn her of the dangerous condition presented by the cabinet.[4]
Kennedy Krieger filed an answer asserting a general denial of liability for the alleged injuries suffered by Ms. Chase. The court then issued a scheduling order on January 21, 2021. The scheduling order provided that Ms. Chase's expert witness designation was due on or before April 23, 2021. Discovery was to conclude on September 22, 2021, and the deadline for filing dispositive motions was set for October 23, 2021.
Ms. Chase described her injury in her response to interrogatories provided on March 23, 2021. She stated that she was directed by a Kennedy Krieger employee to a seat in an observation room where she could wait during her son's treatment. When she stood up from the chair, she hit her head on an overhead cabinet.[5] Ms. Chase stated that, as a result of the incident at Kennedy Krieger, she suffered injuries to her shoulder, clavicle, brain, occipital nerve, neck, and rib, and that she had "eye swing," post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), psychological injury, neurological injury (trigger finger condition), and mood change.
In addition to requesting Ms. Chase's account of the alleged injury, the set of interrogatories propounded by Kennedy Krieger asked Ms. Chase to state "the names and addresses of all health care providers who have examined you as a result of the occurrence here involved" as well as "the names and addresses of all physicians or other experts who you propose to call as witnesses, the subject matter of their testimony, and . . . copies of all written reports received from them." In response, Ms. Chase stated that a list of health care providers "will be attached . . . [o]n a separate document" and that she would provide "[w]itnesses to be called" on an "attached list." The record, however, reflects that no such list was attached or otherwise appended to Ms. Chase's response to interrogatories.
Kennedy Krieger's request for production of documents sought, inter alia, "[a]ny and all reports from experts concerning either liability or damages" and "[t]he most recent resume or curriculum vitae of each expert whom you expect to call as an expert witness at trial." In response, Ms. Chase stated that "[t]here are no expert reports to share at this time" and "[n]o experts identified at this time." Ms. Chase also appended a list of her treating physicians and physical therapists to her response.
As discovery proceeded, Kennedy Krieger obtained documents which indicated that Ms. Chase had been injured in a car accident in August 2017 in which “she was hit from behind by a truck” and which had caused her to suffer “neck pain, headache, brain fog, arm pain and numbness .. 'on and off as well as right shoulder pain and right hand - trigger finger." Kennedy Krieger also obtained documents indicating that Ms. Chase had also sustained work-related injuries in October 2017 and February 2018, resulting in injuries to her head, brain, neck, collar bone, rib, shoulders, and arms. Ms. Chase had filed claims for her injuries and obtained compensation through settlements approved by the Worker's Compensation Commission of Maryland.
On August 27, 2021, Ms. Chase filed a motion to extend the discovery and expert designation deadlines, which the court denied by written order on October 7, 2021.[6]Thereafter, on September 21, 2021-five months after her expert witness designation deadline and the day before the close of discovery-Ms. Chase filed a list of "potential and selected expert witnesses" consisting of the names of her treating physicians. Ms. Chase had mailed Kennedy Krieger's counsel an "Expert List" on September 18, and a "Rebuttal List" on September 20, 2021. That filing purported to be dated March 22, 2021, but was entered on the court docket and stamped by the clerk of court on September 21, 2021. Kennedy Krieger then moved to strike Ms. Chase's expert witness list as untimely and noncompliant with Maryland Rule 2-402(g). The circuit court granted the motion and struck Ms. Chase's expert disclosures by order entered on November 8, 2021.
Kennedy Krieger moved for summary judgment on October 25, 2021, asserting that it was entitled to judgment because Ms. Chase had failed to provide evidence showing that "(1) Kennedy Krieger breached a duty owed to her; (2) she suffered any actual injury from [the incident]; and (3) any injury she suffered was causally related to the incident." Kennedy Krieger argued that, because Ms. Chase had suffered similar injuries on at least three occasions within months of the incident at issue, expert testimony was required to establish causation and damages, and, because she had failed to provide such testimony, her claim failed as a matter of law. Kennedy Krieger requested a hearing on the motion, but subsequently withdrew that request, and submitted on the papers.
Ms. Chase filed her opposition to the motion for summary judgment on November 1, 2021. She argued that expert testimony was not necessary, as the issues of causation and damages were within the common knowledge of the ordinary layperson. She further asserted-for the first time-that on March 22, 2021 she had submitted her designation of "preliminary medical experts" to Kennedy Krieger and filed it with the circuit court. Citing to Section 10-104 of the Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article, Ms. Chase also argued that "whether or not that list is recognized by the courts" her medical records were admissible "to prove the existence of a medical condition[.]"
Kennedy Krieger filed a Reply to Ms. Chase's opposition, denying receipt of an expert witness list dated March 22, 2021, and further highlighting the absence of an entry on the court docket for any such filing as well as Ms. Chase's assertion that she had "no experts identified at this time" in her response to Kennedy Krieger's request for production of documents filed the very next day. Due to those attendant circumstances, Kennedy Krieger pointed out that "it defies credulity to suggest at this late date that Plaintiff did timely file expert designations." The circuit court granted Kennedy Krieger's motion for summary judgment on December 22, 2021.
Ms. Chase noted an appeal on January 21, 2022.[7]
Because the determination of whether a trial court properly granted summary is a question of law, we review the trial court's decision de novo. CX Reinsurance Co., Ltd. v Johnson, 481 Md. 472, 484 (2022) (quoting Rossello v. Zurich Am. Ins. Co., 468 Md. 92, 102 (2020)). We independently examine the record to determine whether a genuine dispute of material fact exists, and if none exists we determine whether the prevailing party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Id. (quoting Rossello, 468 Md. at 102-03). In doing so, "we will 'construe the facts properly before the court, and any reasonable inferences that may be drawn from them, in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party.'" Macias v. Summit Mgmt., Inc., 243 Md.App. 294, 313 (2019) (quoting Remsburg v. Montgomery, 376 Md. 568, 579-80 (2003)).
We review a circuit court's decision to impose a sanction for violation of a scheduling order for abuse of discretion, Watson v. Timberlake, 253 A.3d 1094, 1101 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 2021), cert. denied, 476 Md. 281, 261 A.3d 248 (2021).
Ms Chase asserts an array of challenges to the circuit court's grant of summary judgment. She first objects, generally, that the "[t]here are numerous genuine disputes as to material facts, hence a motion for summary judgment [cannot] be granted." As to the issue of causation, Ms. Chase contends that the circuit court's recognition of similar injuries suffered by her around the time of the incident at Kennedy Krieger constituted an effort "to deflect blame" through use of a "smoke and mirror technique." Next, Ms. Chase argues that the circuit court erroneously struck her expert witness list because it was properly served along with her answers to Kennedy Krieger's interrogatories on March 22, 2021. Finally, Ms. Chase raises several additional sources of error, including that: she was never served with Kennedy...
To continue reading
Request your trial