eNotes: Liability – March 2024 – Maryland

SIGNIFICANT CASE SUMMARIES

Maryland Case Summary

Ceron v. Kamara
Maryland Appellate Court
2024 Md. App. LEXIS 109

Decided: February 8, 2024

Defendant’s statement during closing was not sufficiently prejudicial to constitute a reversible error.

Background

Claudia Ceron (“Plaintiff”) and Richard Kamara (“Defendant”) were involved in a motor vehicle accident in Montgomery County, Maryland. Plaintiff alleged a multitude of short-term and long term injuries, with the most severe being spinal complications related to a herniated disk that required extensive treatment and surgery. Plaintiff relied on two expert witnesses, an orthopedic surgeon and an orthopedic spinal surgeon. Plaintiff requested $717,484.58 in economic damages, and up to $2,200,000 in non-economic damages. Defendant stipulated to liability and the trial was held on damages. Defendant relied on two medical experts to contest Plaintiff’s claims, a radiologist who reviewed Plaintiff’s MRIs and an orthopedic spinal surgeon who had examined the Plaintiff. Defendant’s radiologist testified that Plaintiff had a condition which made her more likely to experience disk injuries.

Plaintiff argued that Defendant’s experts provided inconsistent testimony, as the radiologist admitted during cross-examination that the accident could have exacerbated Plaintiff’s underlying condition, while Defendant’s orthopedic surgeon stated that Plaintiff’s injuries were unrelated to the accident. During closing arguments, Defendant’s counsel argued the testimony of the defense experts was consistent, stating that the radiologist was retained only because counsel had never used this orthopedic spinal surgeon before as an expert. Plaintiff objected to this statement, arguing that Defendant was stating facts not in evidence. The Lower Court overruled Plaintiff’s objection and no other action was taken. The jury ultimately awarded Plaintiff $243,000 in damages.

Holding

On appeal, the Court held that while Defendant’s statement regarding the hiring of the radiologist expert was improper, the statement was not prejudicial enough to justify reversal. In evaluating prejudice, the Court evaluates factors such as the severity of the remarks, the measures taken to cure any potential prejudice, and the weight of evidence. The Court found that Defendant’s statement in question was isolated from the rest of Defendant’s closing and arguably supported Plaintiff’s argument, as Defendant was expressing doubt in his own expert. Additionally, the Court held that the jury instructions cured any potential prejudice. The Court further indicated that just because the jury awarded Plaintiff much less than she requested did not indicate Defendant’s statement improperly influenced the jury. The Lower Court’s decision was affirmed.

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