SIGNIFICANT CASE SUMMARY

Maryland Case Summary

Jabbi v. Adventist Healthcare, Inc.
Maryland Appellate Court
No. 2071, Sept. Term, 2023

Decided: March 5, 2025

Expert witness testimony in suits dealing with complex medical issues may rely on a combination of medical experience and scientific literature as the required factual basis under Maryland Rule 5-207.

Background

At twenty-four weeks pregnant, Plaintiff presented to Defendant hospital for pain in her abdomen and back. A nurse saw Plaintiff, who then consulted with a physician. The attending physician concluded that Plaintiff’s vitals and fetal tracing were normal and discharged her. Plaintiff was prescribed Tylenol and provided with handouts on back pain during pregnancy. Fourteen hours later, Plaintiff went to another hospital for nausea, vomiting, and the same pain she was experiencing in her initial visit to the first hospital. Plaintiff was diagnosed with preeclampsia and transferred to another hospital for further treatment. As her condition worsened, Plaintiff was forced to deliver her baby via cesarean section. Her baby was born weighing just over one pound, required resuscitation at birth, and was immediately intubated. At the time of this suit, at seven years old, Plaintiff’s child had developmental delays and cognitive impairments that Plaintiffs attributed to premature birth.

Plaintiffs sued for medical malpractice against the first hospital, the attending physician, the nurse, and Plaintiff’s primary obstetrician. The hospital, the attending physician, and the nurse filed a Motion in Limine to preclude the testimony of Plaintiffs’ expert witnesses, and a Motion for Summary Judgment. The Circuit Court for Montgomery County – a trial level court – granted both Motions, concluding that Plaintiffs’ experts’ testimonies were speculative and not supported by literature or facts. Plaintiffs appealed to determine whether the Trial Court abused its discretion by precluding their experts’ testimonies.

Holding

The Appellate Court of Maryland found the Trial Court improperly rejected Plaintiffs’ experts’ testimonies as speculative and unsupported. The Appellate Court determined that the experts’ opinions that proper care would have prolonged her pregnancy, allowing for treatment likely to mitigate her child’s injuries, were supported by a sufficient factual basis as required by Maryland Rule 5-702. Maryland Rule 5-702 and its reliance on the Daubert framework allow for flexibility in complex medical suits, permitting support through a combination of experience and literature. The Appellate Court noted that the experts supported their opinions with experience, literature, studies, precedent, and publications, all of which it found the Trial Court disregarded in making its decision. While the Defendants claimed that the experts’ failed to produce the American College of OBGYN guidelines, the experts also relied on literature and other information that the Appellate Court deemed sufficient. The Trial Court also failed to conduct a Rochkind hearing before excluding these experts’ opinions. The Appellate Court concluded that the Trial Court abused its discretion by precluding Plaintiff’s expert witness testimony and in granting summary judgment for Defendants. It thus reversed the judgment and remanded the case.

Questions about this case can be directed to Veronica Giron at 443.641.0557 or vgiron@tthlaw.com.