Lamalfa v. Hearn

457 Md. 350

178 A.3d 501

Patricia LAMALFA

v.Janis HEARN et al.

No. 39, Sept. Term, 2017

Court of Appeals of Maryland.

February 2, 2018

Argued by Ryan P. Richie (Jennifer L. Allen, Wilson and Parlett, Upper Marlboro, MD), on brief, for Petitioner.

Argued by George W. Fanshaw (Simmons, Fields & Fanshaw, P.A., Timonium MD), on brief, for Respondents.

Argued before: Barbera, C.J., Greene, Adkins, McDonald, Watts, Hotten, Getty, JJ.

Watts, J. In Maryland, it is well established that "[a]n expert may give an opinion based on facts contained in reports, studies, or statements from third parties, if the underlying material is shown to be of the type reasonably relied upon by experts in the field." U.S. Gypsum Co. v. Mayor and City Council of Balt., 336 Md. 145, 176, 647 A.2d 405, 420 (1994) (citations omitted). This Court has stated that "the underlying reports, data, or statements themselves may be admitted into evidence for the purpose of explaining the basis of the expert's opinion." Id. at 176, 647 A.2d at 420 (citations omitted). This process is formalized under Maryland Rule 5–703(b), which provides, in pertinent part, that, "[i]f determined to be trustworthy, necessary to illuminate testimony, and unprivileged, facts or data reasonably relied upon by an expert pursuant to section (a) may, in the discretion of the court, be disclosed to the jury even if those facts and data are not admissible in evidence." In Brown v. Daniel Realty Co., 409 Md. 565, 601, 976 A.2d 300, 321 (2009), this Court explained that, from Maryland Rule 5–703(b), we distilled "four elements [that] must be satisfied for a document to be admissible under [Maryland R]ule[ 5–703]. The document must be (1) trustworthy, (2) unprivileged, (3) reasonably relied upon by an expert in forming her or his opinion, and (4) necessary to illuminate that expert's testimony."

This case concerns admission, under Maryland Rule 5–703(b), of medical records of the plaintiff that a defense expert relied upon in forming his opinions. Specifically, in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City ("the circuit court"), Patricia Lamalfa, Petitioner, sued Janis Hearn, Respondent, for negligence related to a motor vehicle accident. At a jury trial, during Respondent's medical expert's testimony, the circuit court admitted into evidence, over Petitioner's objection, four of Petitioner's post-accident medical treatment records that the expert relied upon in forming his opinions. At the close of all of the evidence, the circuit court granted a motion for judgment in Petitioner's favor on negligence, and ruled that the jury would determine "the amount of damages, if any[,] that should be awarded." Petitioner requested that the jury enter a verdict for economic and non-economic damages in an amount from $50,000 to $150,000, including damages for emotional distress. The jury returned a verdict in Petitioner's favor in the amount of $10,576.05, which included the full amount of Petitioner's medical bills in the amount of $9,926.05, plus $650.00 for non-economic damages. Consistent with the jury's award, the circuit court entered judgment in Petitioner's favor and against Respondent in the amount of $10,576.05. Petitioner appealed, and the Court of Special Appeals affirmed the circuit court's judgment. Petitioner filed in this Court a petition for a writ of certiorari , which we granted.

Against this backdrop, we consider whether the circuit court properly admitted four medical records into evidence under Maryland Rule 5–703, and, specifically, whether "disclosed" under Maryland Rule 5–703(b) means "admitted." We hold that the circuit court did not abuse its discretion or err in admitting Petitioner's post-accident medical treatment records into evidence under Maryland Rule 5–703. Specifically, we conclude that "disclosure" means that evidence is admissible under Maryland Rule 5–703(b) where the evidence satisfies the four elements set forth in Maryland Rule 5–703(b), and that such evidence may, in a trial court's discretion, be disclosed to the jury to explain the factual bases for an expert's opinion. Additionally, under the circumstances of this case, the medical records satisfied the four elements of Maryland Rule 5–703(b) because they were trustworthy, unprivileged, reasonably relied upon by the defense expert in forming his opinions, and necessary to illuminate the defense expert's testimony. And, we conclude that, even if disclosure, i.e. , admission, of the medical records under Maryland Rule 5–703 was error, such error was harmless as Petitioner has failed to demonstrate that she was prejudiced by admission of the medical records or their use at trial; the record contains no indication that the jury placed undue weight on the medical records.

BACKGROUND

On October 14, 2011, Petitioner, a resident of Brooklyn, New York, was in Maryland to attend a family member's wedding. On the way to the wedding, Petitioner was sitting in the rear passenger seat of a small SUV that was being driven by her son, Steven Lamalfa ("Steven"). Steven drove the SUV southbound on Interstate 95 and onto an exit ramp, where it came to a complete stop. While stopped, the SUV was rear-ended by a vehicle that was being driven by Respondent.

Emergency medical technicians responded to the scene, but Petitioner did not seek medical treatment at that time. Petitioner, Steven, and the other occupants of the SUV—Steven's girlfriend, Gina Illardo; Petitioner's friend, Brigitte Rivera ("Rivera"); and Steven's infant daughter—eventually left the scene of the accident and attended the wedding. After the wedding, Petitioner and the SUV's other occupants went to a hotel for the night. The next morning, Petitioner went to the emergency room at Mercy Medical Center ("Mercy") in Baltimore City complaining of lower back pain and some pain in her left forearm. Petitioner was treated at Mercy, released that same day, and returned to New York that night.

On October 21, 2011, a week after the accident, Petitioner sought medical treatment from Yury Koyen, M.D., of Relief Medical, P.C. in Brooklyn, New York, who specializes in physical medicine and rehabilitation. At that time, Petitioner complained of upper and lower back pain, pain in both arms, pain in her left hip, periodic numbness in her right hand, pain in her right shoulder, weakness in her left arm, tailbone pain that was worsened by sitting, and emotional distress related to the accident, including flashbacks, fear of sitting in a car, and claustrophobia. Dr. Koyen recommended that Petitioner undergo physical therapy and chiropractic treatment, as well as diagnostic testing in the form of MRIs and X-rays.

In October of 2011, Petitioner also started experiencing severe abdominal pain; however, a CT scan of Petitioner's abdomen and pelvis performed on October 31, 2011, was normal. Later, on March 7, 2012, Sampath Kumar, M.D., performed surgery on Petitioner to repair an epigastric hernia. Apparently, the epigastric hernia was a recurrent issue for Petitioner, who had surgery to repair an epigastric hernia in 1984.

In the meantime, on November 7, 2011, Petitioner had an MRI of her right shoulder performed, which revealed a rotator cuff injury. In December 2014, over three years later, Petitioner visited Jaspreet Sekhon, M.D., who ordered another MRI, which revealed a rotator cuff tear. Thereafter, Petitioner underwent arthroscopic surgery on her right shoulder.

On September 23, 2014, Petitioner filed in the circuit court a complaint against Respondent, alleging negligence.¹ Specifically, Petitioner alleged that Respondent negligently operated her motor vehicle and caused Petitioner's injuries. Petitioner sought damages in excess of $75,000. From February 16 to 18, 2016, the case was tried before a jury. At trial, as part of the plaintiffs' case, Petitioner and Steven testified,² and videotaped de bene esse depositions of Dr. Koyen, Dr. Kumar, and Dr. Sekhon were played for the jury.³

Petitioner, who was fifty-four years old at the time of trial, testified that she worked as a hairdresser from the age of eighteen until approximately within a year of the accident, and that she did not have difficulties performing her job or otherwise have problems with her right shoulder prior to the accident. Petitioner acknowledged, however, that, in 1984, she had hernia repair surgery. As to the accident on October 14, 2011, Petitioner testified that, when the SUV in which she was a passenger was rear-ended, she "was thrust forward, sideways[,]" she hit her head, and she recalled her "shoulder or something hitting [her right] shoulder or grabbing [her] shoulder and [her] left knee." Petitioner testified that, the evening of the accident, she began experiencing pain in her lower back and her left knee, and she went to Mercy the next morning. As to her abdomen, Petitioner testified that, after the accident, "[i]t started feeling weak[,]" she noticed she could not "move things or pick things up[,]" and "then [she] started feeling a protrusion." According to Petitioner, as a result of the protrusion and upon "realiz[ing] what it could be[,]" she went to see Dr. Kumar, who performed surgery to repair a hernia. Petitioner testified that, between the accident and when she first started noticing problems with her abdomen, she had not experienced any other traumatic event to her stomach or abdominal area.

As to her right shoulder, Petitioner testified that after the accident she began experiencing right shoulder pain that "got progressively worse." According to Petitioner, she was unable to pick up her grandchildren, lift pots and pans, or stretch too high because her right shoulder pained her and would "lock in place." Petitioner testified that she did not seek immediate medical treatment for her right shoulder because she had moved in with her parents, and her mother was already providing care to her stepfather, who had undergone full knee replacement surgery. Petitioner testified that, in December 2014,...