Brenda Smith v. Delaware North Companies, et al., 449 Md. 371

Summary

The Maryland Court of Appeals held that Health Occupations Article § 14-410 generally bars admission of a Maryland Board of Physicians consent order in a civil or criminal action, and that the prohibition is not limited to medical malpractice cases. The court concluded that admitting portions of a physician’s consent order to impeach an expert witness in a workers’ compensation appeal was legal error. The judgment was addressed in the context of the trial court’s admission of the order and denial of the plaintiff’s motion for a new trial.

Holdings

1. HO § 14-410 generally bars admission of a Board of Physicians consent order in a civil or criminal action, including admission to impeach a physician who testifies as an expert. A physician’s agreement to the terms of a consent order does not constitute the express stipulation and consent required by the statute for admission in another civil or criminal action.
2. HO § 14-410 is not limited to tort actions for medical malpractice; it applies to the civil action seeking judicial review of the Workers’ Compensation Commission’s decision in this case.
3. The fact that a consent order is designated a public document, or that general licensure information may be disclosed under HO § 14-411(c), does not make the consent order admissible in a civil or criminal action.
4. Admission of the consent order was prejudicial because defense counsel repeatedly emphasized the inadmissible disciplinary evidence and urged the jury to reject Smith’s expert on that basis; a new trial was therefore warranted.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Maryland Health Occupations Article § 14-410 bars admission of a Maryland Board of Physicians consent order to impeach a physician testifying as an expert.
2. Whether the privilege and evidentiary bar in HO § 14-410 are limited to medical malpractice actions or apply to a civil action reviewing a Workers’ Compensation Commission decision.
3. Whether admission of the consent order was prejudicial and warranted a new trial.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded