eNotes: Liability – January 2025 – Maryland

SIGNIFICANT CASE SUMMARIES

Maryland Case Summaries

Robinson v. Canton Harbor Healthcare Ctr., Inc.
Maryland Appellate Court
No. 2169, September Term, 2022

Decided: April 24, 2024

In a case involving a skilled nursing facility, a nurse with sufficient training and experience can attest to proximate causation of a patient’s pressure ulcers.

Background

Felicia Robinson filed a case in Baltimore City Circuit Court as personal representative of her late husband and as a survivor against Canton Harbor Healthcare Center, Inc. alleging that the skilled nursing facility was negligent in her husband’s care, resulting in his death from pressure ulcers. Plaintiff’s Complaint included a certificate of qualified expert (“CQE”) in which a registered nurse opined that Defendant breached the standard of care and that said breach was the proximate cause of Mr. Robinson’s injuries. In response to Plaintiff’s Complaint, Defendant filed a Motion to dismiss, arguing that an RN cannot provide expert testimony on the issue of causation, with the Motion citing to Maryland Rule 5-702 (qualifications for expert witnesses) and CJP § 3-2A-04(b)(1)(i) (requires CQE in medical malpractice cases). The Circuit Court granted the Motion to dismiss and Plaintiff appealed.

Holding

The Appellate Court of Maryland found that Defendant’s argument that RNs were unable to attest in a CQE to proximate causation was far too narrow of an interpretation of the Maryland Health Care Malpractice Claims Act (“HCMCA”). The Appellate Court noted that nothing in the HCMCA expressly precludes an RN from being an expert for a CQE. The Appellate Court referred to COMAR 10.27.09.02, which describes the job functions of a RN, including the identification of expected outcomes in patient care. As managing pressure ulcers constitutes the type of services within the expertise of an RN, the Appellate Court agreed with Plaintiff that an RN could attest that a breach of care was the proximate cause of such injuries. This holding was narrow and only applied to medical malpractice cases involving pressure ulcers. The Appellate Court reversed the Lower Court’s decision and remanded for further proceedings.

Questions about this case can be directed to Lucas Duty at (443) 641-0572 or lduty@tthlaw.com.

Walton v. Premier Soccer Club, Inc.
Maryland Appellate Court
No. 1691, Sept. Term, 2022

Decided: March 1, 2024

Under the Statute and Ordinance Rule, to make out a prima facie case of negligence, plaintiffs must prove that the violation of a statutory duty was the proximate cause of alleged injuries.

Background

Sydney Walton, age 14, suffered a concussion during practice when she hit her head on a wall surrounding the indoor soccer field. Her parents, the Waltons, sued various Defendants on two theories of negligent liability. One theory was that the Defendants violated the Statute or Ordinance Rule by not making available to players, parents, and coaches certain information prescribed by the statute. The statute in question “requires youth sports programs to make available to youth athletes, their parents/guardians, and coaches information about concussions and head injuries developed by the State Department of Education[.]” Defendants, specifically coaches and team mom, did not provide the Waltons with any of the necessary or required information.

The Waltons argued that there was a prima facie case of negligence against the Defendant-coaches/team mom. Specifically, under the Statue and Ordinance Rule, Defendants were negligent because Sydney sustained a concussion (i.e., the injury the statute was designed to prevent), and Sydney was a youth athlete (i.e., a member of the class the statute was designed to protect). The Court rejected this argument, holding that to establish a prima facie case of negligence, the Waltons must also prove that the violation of the statutory duty was the proximate cause of the Sydney’s injuries. The Waltons appealed.

Holding

The Appellate Court affirmed the Lower Court’s decision, holding that under the Statue and Ordinance Rule, a Plaintiff must satisfy a two-prong test to make out a prima facie case of negligence. The first prong requires the Plaintiff to prove that the Plaintiff’s injury was what the statute intended to prevent, and the Plaintiff was a member of the class that the statute intended to protect. Here, the Waltons offered sufficient evidence that Sydney sustained an injury which the statute intended to protect and prevent. The second prong, however, requires the Waltons to prove that the violation of the statute was the proximate cause of Sydney’s injury. The Court held that the Waltons did not offer any proof that Defendant’s failure to provide the Waltons with concussion information caused her to sustain the concussion, nor any evidence that had the information been provided, Sydney would not have sustained the concussion. Therefore, the Court held that the Waltons failed to prove proximate cause, a required element to a prima facie case of negligence.

Questions about this case can be directed to Alex Mitchell at (443) 641-0563 or amitchell@tthlaw.com.