 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Kelly v. Baltimore County1/31/2005
BR>
Two cases cited by the parties that address the necessity of expert medical testimony are helpful in resolving the procedural question before us: American Airlines Corporation v. Stokes, 120 Md. App. 350 (1998); and S.B. Thomas, supra, 114 Md. App. 357. Although the claimant prevailed in S.B. Thomas, and the employer prevailed in American Airlines, the difference in the outcomes is explained not by this Court's ruling regarding the need for expert medical testimony in those particular cases, but rather by an analysis of the more fundamental question of how a claimant may meet the burden of production of evidence.
The appeal to this Court in S.B. Thomas also focused on whether the causation of the claimant's back injury was a complicated medical question. Addressing the issue, this Court concluded that if a complicated medical question was involved, whether expert medical testimony was needed to establish a legally sufficient prima facie case depended on which party bore the burden of production at the de novo trial. 114 Md. App. at 361. If it is determined that the case involves a complicated medical question, "the focus then will turn to whether expert medical testimony is required to establish a legally sufficient, prima facie case of, depending on the allocation of the burden of production, either 1) a causal relationship or 2) the absence of a causal relationship between an earlier traumatic event and the subsequent herniation." Id. (Emphasis added.)
In S.B. Thomas, the claimant was the prevailing party before the Commission, and in the circuit court he was able to satisfy his burden of producing a prima facie case by simply relying on the presumption of correctness of the Commission's ruling. As stated previously:
In such a case, the decision of the Commission is, ipso facto, the claimant's prima facie case and the claimant runs no risk of suffering a directed verdict from the insufficiency of his evidence before the circuit court.
114 Md. App. at 366-67. We further noted that, because the claimant prevailed before the Commission, he "no longer bore any obligation to prove causation; that had become a `given' in the case." Id. at 368. We emphasized this point, stating:
The [claimant] was not required to prove anything. He had no burden of production. Even on the question of ultimate persuasion, had the case gone that far, he could have offered nothing and simply relied on the failure of the [appealing employer] to rebut the presumption of correctness of the Commission's earlier ruling.
114 Md. at 369.
In the instant case, Kelly was the prevailing party before the Commission. Accordingly, the favorable ruling from the Commission was, to paraphrase S.B. Thomas, ipso facto, Kelly's prima facie case, and he ran no risk of suffering an adverse summary judgment based upon the insufficiency of his evidence before the circuit court. As the successful claimant before the Commission, and as the non-moving party on appeal, Kelly had no burden of production in the circuit court proceedings.
The County, however, had the burden of establishing a legally sufficient prima facie case that the Commission was wrong to find a causal relationship between Kelly's surgery and the October 2002 employment-related accident. As the party appealing the Commission's decision, the County was required to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that Kelly was not entitled to the award made by the Commission. See S.B. Thomas, 114 Md. App. 385 (non-prevailing party has "burden of proving, from the ground up, an affirmative case" with respect to causation).
The result would have been just the opposite if Kel
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Maryland Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|