Preview:

REPORTED IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND No. 1329 September Term, 2003

DUANE McCORMACK, as parent and next of friend of RYAN McCORMACK et al.

v.

BOARD OF EDUCATION OF BALTIMORE COUNTY

Adkins, Krauser, Thieme, Raymond G., Jr., (Retired, specially assigned) JJ. Opinion by Krauser, J.

Filed: September 2, 2004

Four-year-old Ryan McCormack was riding home on a school bus, when the bus crossed the center line of the road, striking first an oncoming vehicle and then a utility pole and a tree. Upon

colliding with the front porch of a nearby house, the bus came to rest, leaving Ryan injured and the driver of the bus dead. tragic mishap spawned the litigation now before us. Seeking damages for Ryan's injuries and reimbursement for the monies they had spent for his care and treatment,1 Ryan's parents, appellants Duane and Renee McCormack, brought a negligence action, on behalf of Ryan and themselves, in the Circuit Court for This

Baltimore County against appellee, the Board of Education of Baltimore County ("the Board").2 When the Board conceded

liability, the case was tried before a jury solely on the issue of damages. That trial ended in, what was for the McCormacks, a Blaming this unhappy result on by the circuit court, the

disappointingly small verdict. certain evidential rulings

made

McCormacks seek rectification from this Court. Interestingly enough, the rulings of which they complain do not involve the physical injuries that Ryan sustained as a result of this accident. Rather, they relate to the psychological

injuries that he purportedly suffered.

The McCormacks claim that

the circuit court's exclusion of certain evidence of those injuries
1

The McCormacks also sought compensation for lost wages. a

The estate of Virginia T. Carter, the bus driver, was originally defendant in the case; however, her estate was "dismissed prior to trial."

2

-

specifically,

the

videotaped

testimony

of

Ryan's

treating

psychologist and Ryan's psychological and psychiatric records requires this Court to vacate the judgment below and order a new trial. Persuaded by the Board's argument that the McCormacks' own claim for medical expenses created a conflict of interest with their son's patient-psychologist privilege, the circuit court gave the McCormacks a choice: either agree to a postponement of the

trial so that a guardian could be appointed, pursuant to section 9109 of the Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article ("CJP"),3 to assert or waive that privilege or face a court order, prohibiting the introduction of the testimony and records at issue. If they

requested a postponement for the appointment of a guardian, the court warned, they would have to pay the Board some or all of the costs and expenses that the Board had incurred in preparing for trial.4 When the McCormacks chose to forgo the appointment of a

guardian (presumably to avoid paying the Board's trial preparation expenses), the court excluded the videotaped testimony and the records. The exclusion of that evidence left the court, in its view,

3 Md. Code (1974, 2002 Repl. Vol.),

Download McCormack v. Board of Education.pdf

Maryland Law