The case involved a medical malpractice lawsuit by Joao Barbosa and his wife against Dr. Tanisha Osbourne, alleging that the doctor negligently cut Mr. Barbosa's bile duct during gallbladder removal surgery. Dr. Osbourne raised a contributory negligence defense based solely on Mr. Barbosa's delay in seeking treatment for his symptoms before receiving any care from her or other providers. The Court of Special Appeals held that the trial court erred in allowing this defense, in instructing the jury on contributory negligence, and in using a special verdict sheet that included it, because a patient's pre-treatment conduct is irrelevant to whether a physician breached the standard of care. The court further ruled that these errors were not harmless and required reversal, remanding the case for further proceedings.
This case involved charges against Donte Graham for possession and attempted distribution of cocaine in Baltimore City. After Graham requested discovery regarding drug testing records from the Baltimore City Crime Lab in District Court and the case was transferred to Circuit Court upon his jury trial demand, the circuit court dismissed the charges on the trial date due to the State's failure to provide the requested discovery. The Court of Special Appeals of Maryland ruled that while the circuit court had discretion to impose sanctions for the discovery violation under Maryland Rule 4-262, it abused that discretion by choosing the drastic remedy of dismissal instead of a less severe sanction like a continuance, and therefore vacated the judgments and remanded the case.
Curtis Maurice Lopez entered Alford pleas to the robbery and first-degree murder of Jane McQuain and the kidnapping and first-degree murder of her eleven-year-old son William. He received multiple sentences including two consecutive life terms without parole. On appeal, Lopez argued that the State failed to provide adequate notice under Maryland Rule 4-342(d) of the evidence it planned to present at sentencing and that the court erred in allowing a victim-impact music and video slideshow depicting the victims' lives. The Court of Special Appeals held that the State's disclosure was inadequate but caused no unfair prejudice to Lopez at sentencing, and that the sentencing court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the video. The court therefore affirmed the judgments.
Jan Crystal sued Midatlantic Cardiovascular Associates, St. Joseph Medical Center, and Dr. Mark Midei for medical malpractice, intentional misrepresentation against Dr. Midei, and fraudulent concealment against SJMC, alleging that a stent implanted in his left anterior descending coronary artery was unnecessary. The circuit court granted summary judgment to the defendants on the fraud claims for lack of supporting evidence and then dismissed the malpractice claims as time-barred under the statute of limitations, since the fraud allegations did not toll the period. The Court of Special Appeals affirmed, concluding that Crystal presented no evidence of fraudulent statements or concealment that could sustain the fraud claims or extend the limitations period for malpractice.
The case involved Kevin Collini, who was convicted by a jury in the Circuit Court for Harford County of first- and second-degree assault arising from a physical altercation with his neighbor. On appeal, Collini challenged the trial court's remedy for a Batson violation during jury selection—seating a properly struck prospective juror rather than the improperly struck one—and raised a sentencing issue regarding consideration of his invocation of the Fifth Amendment right to silence. The Court of Special Appeals reversed the convictions, holding that the trial court erred in its chosen remedy for the Batson violation. The court reasoned that alternative remedies were available, such as seating the improperly struck juror, restarting the jury selection process, or impaneling a new venire, and that seating a properly struck juror impaired the defendant's right to exercise peremptory strikes, constituting reversible error. This ruling rendered the sentencing issue moot.
The case concerned whether CashCall, Inc. and its president operated as a 'credit services business' under the Maryland Credit Services Business Act (MCSBA) by marketing, facilitating, and ultimately purchasing high-interest loans for Maryland consumers from out-of-state banks. The Commissioner of Financial Regulation investigated consumer complaints, determined that CashCall had arranged over 5,000 such loans without a required license and in violation of state interest rate limits, and issued a cease-and-desist order plus civil penalties. The circuit court reversed the Commissioner's order, but the Court of Special Appeals reinstated it. The appellate court reasoned that CashCall qualified as a credit services business because it assisted consumers with loan applications and received direct compensation through origination fees ultimately paid by those consumers, regardless of the intermediary bank structure used to originate the loans.