Preview:

HEADNOTE: MEDICAL MALPRACTICE -- HEALTH CARE MALPRACTICE CLAIMS ACT -- ARBITRATION -- The doctor in a medical malpractice case asserted that the claims should be dismissed because the petitioners failed to file a sufficient certificate of qualified expert, as required by the Health Care Malpractice Claims Act ("HCMCA"). The petitioners presented three arguments: their certificate was sufficient, the doctor had waived this argument when he unilaterally waived arbitration, and the petitioners were entitled to a good cause extension for more time to file a sufficient certificate. The Court first held that the certificate was insufficient, but only because it failed to include a report of the attesting expert, as the HCMCA requires. A report is insufficient if it does not include the applicable standard of care and how or why the defendant allegedly departed from it. The certificate adequately identified the individual who allegedly violated the standard of care, and it need not state that the expert satisfies the HCMCA's 20-percent rule or that the expert's opinions are stated to a reasonable degree of medical probability. Second, the doctor did not waive his challenge to the sufficiency of the petitioners' certificate. Third, and finally, the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it denied the petitioners' request for a good cause extension.

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND No. 125 September Term, 2009

GAIL A. KEARNEY, INDIVIDUALLY, etc., et al. v. ROBERT S. BERGER

Bell, C.J. Harrell Battaglia Greene Murphy Barbera Eldridge (retired, specially assigned) JJ.

Opinion by Greene, J. Bell, C.J., Murphy and Eldridge, JJ., dissent.

Filed: October 28, 2010

This is a medical malpractice case filed by the Estate of Kevin M. Kearney and four of Kearney's surviving family members ("Petitioners") against Dr. Robert Berger ("Dr. Berger"). Petitioners allege that Dr. Berger should have, but did not, perform a timely biopsy when he examined a mole on Kearney and that the mole later proved to be melanoma, a type of skin cancer. Kearney subsequently died, and Petitioners assert that Dr. Berger's failure to perform a timely biopsy led to Kearney's death. Dr. Berger disputes his liability. Although Dr. Berger disputes that he is liable, his liability is not the issue in this appeal. We have instead been asked to determine whether Petitioners, in maintaining their cause of action, satisfied the requirements of the Health Care Malpractice Claims Act ("HCMCA"), Maryland Code (1974, 2006 Repl. Vol., 2009 Supp.),

Download Kearney v. Berger.pdf

Maryland Law