In early February, the Maryland Court of
Appeals held that materials relied upon by an expert witness that are “disclosed
to a jury” are also considered “admitted into evidence” provided that they are:
1) trustworthy; 2) unprivileged; 3) reasonably relied upon by the expert in
forming his/her opinions; and 4) necessary to illuminate the expert’s testimony.
The Court considered this issue in the
context of a motor vehicle accident arising out of Baltimore City. In October of
2011, the Petitioner was rear-ended while on her way to a family wedding. The
Petitioner chose not to seek medical treatment at the scene of the accident,
but over the course of the next several weeks, developed upper and lower back
pain, hip pain, arm and shoulder pain, abdominal pain, and multiple forms of
emotional distress. She underwent surgeries for a hernia and a rotator cuff
tear.
In September of 2014, the Petitioner filed
suit against the Respondent seeking compensation for her medical injuries. At
trial, the Respondent introduced Dr. Louis Halikman as a defense expert witness
in orthopedic surgery. Relying on four sets of post-accident medical records,
Dr. Halikman testified that the Petitioner’s surgeries were not causally
related to the October 2011 accident. Over the Petitioner’s objections, the
court admitted the medical records that Dr. Halikman had relied upon, into
evidence. At the conclusion of trial, Petitioner requested the jury for an
award between $50,000.00 - $150,000.00. The jury returned a verdict for
$9,926.05 in medical bills and $650.00 for pain and suffering, for a total
award of $10,576.05.
The Petitioner appealed her award to the
Court of Special Appeals, which affirmed the circuit court’s judgment. The
Petitioner then appealed to the Court of Appeals, arguing that the circuit
court erroneously admitted the records that Dr. Halikman relied upon, without
the appropriate authentication or foundation establishing the truthfulness of
the records.
Under Maryland law (Md. Rule 5-703(b)),
courts may disclose to the jury, materials that expert witnesses rely
upon, if the materials are: 1) trustworthy; 2) unprivileged; 3) reasonably
relied upon by the expert in forming his/her opinions; and 4) necessary to
illuminate the expert’s testimony.
In this case, the Court evaluated whether
the term “disclosed” in the Rule, also means “admitted into evidence,” and
concluded that it does, if the evidence satisfies the aforementioned four
factors. The Court reasoned that the Rule does not distinguish between
“disclosure” and “admission of evidence” because its language does not limit
the definition of “disclosure.” Had the legislature meant to limit the term, it
would have specified so in the Rule. Further, the Court adopted the Court of
Special Appeals’ rationale, stating that for a jury to use the materials and thereby
evaluate the expert’s credibility, the jury must also be able to read those
materials. The Court noted that nothing in the Rule prohibits giving the
materials to the jury just as if the materials had been admitted into evidence.
The Court concluded by holding that even if the circuit court erroneously
admitted the medical records, that error was harmless because nothing had
indicated that the jury had placed any undue weight on the records.
This decision sets a notable precedent
because it allows for any facts, data, and materials (relied upon by an expert
witness) that are properly disclosed to a jury (under Md. Rule 5-703(b)) to
also be automatically admitted into evidence at trial.
