Preview:

REPORTED IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND No. 2417 September Term, 2001

GREATER METROPOLITAN ORTHOPAEDICS, P.A., ET AL. v.

SUE WARD, PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF ARCHIBALD WARD

Davis, Adkins, Sharer, JJ.

Opinion by Davis, J.

Filed: November 6, 2002

Appellants Greater Metropolitan Orthopaedics, P.A. (Greater Metropolitan) and Heart Center of Southern Maryland, LLP (Heart Center) appeal from the judgment of the Circuit Court for Prince George's County denying their motion in limine, motion for

mistrial, and motion for new trial.

Appellee Sue Ward,1 Personal

Representative of the Estate of Archibald Ward, filed suit against appellants on July 8, 1999, alleging medical malpractice in the care of Ward. During the trial, the court denied appellants'

motion in limine, motion for mistrial, and motion for new trial and, on November 7, 2001, entered judgment following a jury verdict in favor of appellee. On January 9, 2002, appellants timely noted

their appeal and raised four questions for our review, which we restate and consolidate into three questions as follows: I. Did the trial court err in denying appellants' motion in limine and allowing evidence of permanent injury without medical testimony in support thereof? Did the trial court err in denying appellants' motion for mistrial and subsequent motion for new trial on grounds that appellee presented an improper closing argument before the jury?

II.

III. Did the trial court fail to exercise any discretion in its ruling on the motion for new trial, thereby constituting an abuse of discretion?

The Personal Representative, Sue Ward, is hereafter referred to as "appellee" and the decedent, Archibald Ward, is hereafter referred to as "Ward."

1

- 2 We answer questions I and III in the affirmative and question II in the negative, reversing the trial court's judgment.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND
On July 28, 1998, Ward, an 87-year-old male, was transported to the emergency room at Southern Maryland Hospital, where doctors determined that he had a broken hip. At the time of his fracture,

he suffered from various health problems, such as difficulty swallowing, high blood pressure, atherosclerosis, and

cardiovascular disease.

Nonetheless, he was physically capable of

all aspects of independent daily living and his doctor recommended surgery. Dr. Edward Rabbit, a Greater Metropolitan employee, performed the surgery on Ward's broken hip on July 28, 1998. Prior to

surgery, a series of baseline blood levels were obtained from Ward in order to adequately monitor him post-surgically. Immediately

after the surgery, new blood tests indicated a nineteen-point drop in Ward's blood volume. On July 29, 1998, Ward's condition was labeled "serious" as a result of his post-surgical blood loss and low blood pressure caused by his low blood volume. From July 29 through August 4, Additionally, by August 1,

1998, he received nine units of blood.

- 3 1998, Ward's International Normalization Ratio (INR) count had increased to 7.34.2 Ward bled continuously from the time of his surgery on July 28 until August 4, 1998. The Greater Metropolitan doctors assigned to his case did nothing to determine the source of his bleeding and, on August 3, 1998, concluded that a "wait-and-see" approach was in order. That same day Ward suffered a stroke. At trial, appellee's

expert testified that appellants' delay in treating Ward, as well as repeated episodes of hypotension,3 caused the stroke. The jury

returned a verdict in favor of appellee in the amount of $400,000.

LEGAL ANALYSIS I
Appellants contend that the trial court erred in denying their motion in limine and allowing appellee to introduce evidence of permanent injury unaccompanied by supporting medical testimony. Specifically, appellants argue that it was improper to allow the jury to consider evidence beyond Ward's hospitalization because medical evidence was not presented demonstrating that such injuries were causally related to the stroke he suffered while hospitalized.

A normal INR is 1.0. INR is a measure of the patient's propensity to bleed or how thin a patient's blood is at a given point in time. Hypotension refers constant bleeding.
3

2

to

the

low

blood

pressure

caused

by

- 4 Appellants further assert that it was improper for the jury to award damages based upon evidence of Ward's injuries beyond

hospitalization. Appellee contends that this issue is not preserved for

appellate review because appellants failed to raise the issue at trial. in Appellee, however, is incorrect. in which they objected to Appellants made a motion the "day-in-the-life" Within that

limine,

videotape that appellee wished to introduce at trial.

motion, appellants also objected to appellee's attempt to introduce Ward's injuries sustained after his hospitalization and attribute those injuries to the stroke without medical opinion. The court

denied the motion, but stated that it would "allow a continuing objection to be made part of the record throughout with regard to [appellee's expert's] testimony, at least that evidence." Additionally, appellants repeatedly objected when appellee began testifying about ailments that her husband experienced after the stroke. Appellants' attorney approached the bench and stated,

"[Appellee is] going to attempt to attribute everything that was wrong with [Ward] to these [appellants]." The trial court

overruled the objection.

Direct examination of appellee resumed

and the following colloquoy ensued: [APPELLEE'S COUNSEL]: What about [Ward's] bowel function, bowel and bladder [after he suffered the stroke]?

- 5 [WITNESS]: Well, he was incontinent, which was a

Download Greater Metro Ortho v. Ward.pdf

Maryland Law