Citing references

Reiss, 470 Md. 555 (2020), also lend guidance on the required burdens of pleading and production -49- when a defendant seeks to alleviate its liability based on subsequent negligent medical treatment.

Reiss, 470 Md. 555, 579 (2020). To accomplish this, Maryland law requires that Plaintiff present expert testimony to establish a breach of the applicable standard of care and causation. Id.

Reiss, 470 Md. 555, 579 , 236 A.3d 518, 531 (2020) (citation omitted).

Reiss, 470 Md. 555, 580 , 236 A.3d 518, 532 (2020). As such, “expert testimony is required to establish negligence and causation.” Simmons, 85 F. App'x 322 , citing Meda v. Brown, 318 Md. 418, 428 , 569 A.2d 202, 207 (1990).

Reiss, 470 Md. 555, 579 (2020). It is well settled in Maryland that qualified expert testimony is necessary to establish two elements: (1) the breach of the standard of care; and (2) causation.

Reiss, 470 Md. 555, 589 (2020). The burden of showing prejudice “falls squarely on the complaining party.” Butler-Tulio v. Scroggins, 139 Md. App. 122, 135 (2001).

Reiss, 470 Md. 555, 580 , 236 A.3d 518, 532 (2020) (cleaned up).

Reiss, 470 Md. 555, 579 (2020) (quoting Armacost v. Davis, 462 Md. 504, 526 (2019)). “In a negligence claim against a provider of professional services, the professional is held to the standard of care of his or her profession.”

Reiss, 470 Md. 555, 562 (2020). Here, appellants proffered expert testimony to prove that WAH breached the standard of care when it discharged Ms.

Reiss v. Am. Radiology Servs., LLC, 241 Md. App. 316, 334 (2019) (quoting Karl v. Davis, 100 Md. App. 42, 51-52 (1994)), aff’d, 470 Md. 555 (2020).

Reiss, 236 A.3d 518, 531 (Md. 2020). “Generally, the applicable standard of care” is to “act[] reasonably as measured against a hypothetical ‘reasonable’ similar actor in similar circumstances.” Id. (quoting Armacost v.

Reiss, 470 Md. 555, 579 (2020).

Reiss, 470 Md. 555, 579 (2020). “Because of the complex nature of medical malpractice cases, . . . [plaintiffs must present expert testimony] to establish breach of the standard of care and causation.” Stickley v. Chisholm, 136 Md.

Reiss, 470 Md. 555, 584 (2020); Davis v. Armacost, 234 Md. App. 71, 86 (2017), rev’d on other grounds, 462 Md. 504 (2019); DeMuth, 205 Md. App. at 539 .

Reiss, 470 Md. 555, 580 , 236 A.3d 518 , 532 (2020) (citation omitted). An expert witness is not required to base his opinion upon a reasonable degree of medical certainty. Id.; see Rite Aid Corp. v. Levy-Gray, 162 Md.

Reiss, 470 Md. 555, 579 (2020)). “Because of the complex nature of medical malpractice cases, . . . [plaintiffs must present expert testimony] to establish breach of the standard of care and causation.” Frankel, 480 Md. at 699 (quoting Stickley v.

Reiss, 236 A.3d 518, 531 (Md. 2020)). Defendants contend summary judgment is appropriate for two reasons. First, they assert Charette cannot produce admissible evidence showing the standard of care owed by each Defendant. (See Defs.’ Mot. at 135–36).

Reiss, 470 Md. 555, 561 (2020) (expert testimony is needed to establish a prima facie case of medical negligence and malpractice, because the duty owed in a specialized expertise “may not be within the common knowledge of the average layperson juror”); Frankel

Reiss, 236 A.3d 518, 532 (Md. 2020) (“Juries are not permitted to simply infer medical negligence in the absence of expert testimony because determinations of issues relating to breaches of standards of care and medical causation are considered to be beyond

Reiss, 236 A.3d 518, 579 (Md. 2020) (A “physician is under a duty □□ use that degree of care and skill which is expected of a reasonably competent practitioner in the □ same class to which he [or she] belongs, acting in the same or similar circumstances.

Reiss, 236 A.3d 518, 531 (Md. 2020). See also Armacost v. Davis, 200 A.3d 859, 872 (Md. 2019) (characterizinga “medical malpractice tort” as a “traditional negligence claim”) (quoting Dehn v. Edgecombe, 865 A.2d 603, 610 (Md. 2005)).