Expert Exclusion: Jurado v. BGE

The Baltimore Medical Malpractice Lawyer Blog examines issues in personal injury cases from Maryland appellate court opinions. In this post the issue is whether a trial court properly ordered exclusion an expert witness for discovery violations and whether res ipsa loquitur can save a complex negligence claim without expert testimony. The case is Jurado v. Baltimore Gas & Electric, No. 1159, September Term, 2025 (filed September 21, 2026). The Appellate Court of Maryland issued this unreported opinion.

Factual Background on Expert Exclusion

A worker was injured during a city water main replacement project. While working on site, an underground explosion occurred nearby. The blast blew a heavy manhole cover high into the air. The falling metal cover struck the worker, causing severe bodily injuries that required extensive medical treatment.

The injured plaintiff filed a personal injury lawsuit in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City. Over time, the plaintiff amended the complaint to name six different corporate and city entities as defendants. These entities included the local gas utility, the city, general contractors, utility locating companies, and a telecommunications provider. The plaintiff alleged that a gas leak went into an unmarked, abandoned underground vault. According to the complaint, pressure built up until a fireball travelled through underground conduits, causing the explosion that launched the manhole cover.

To prove these complex allegations, expert witness disclosures were necessary. The trial court established an initial scheduling order setting specific discovery deadlines. The plaintiff initially designated a primary engineering expert. However, that expert unexpectedly passed away early in the litigation. The plaintiff subsequently substituted a new primary expert witness.

Despite securing extensions of the discovery deadline, the plaintiff failed to provide substantive opinions or reports from the new expert. Months passed while defense counsel repeatedly requested complete discovery responses. The trial court issued orders compelling discovery. Eventually, after the plaintiff missed multiple deadlines, the defendants moved for discovery sanctions of expert exclusion. The trial court granted the motion and excluded the plaintiff’s expert witness. Because the plaintiff possessed no expert testimony on standard of care or causation, the defendants moved for summary judgment.

Parties’ Arguments

On appeal, the plaintiff challenged both the exclusion of the expert and the grant of summary judgment. Regarding the discovery sanction, the plaintiff argued that the trial court abused its discretion. The plaintiff maintained that the delay was justified by the unexpected death of the original expert. The plaintiff asserted that counsel acted with diligence to secure a replacement. Furthermore, the plaintiff contended that complete exclusion was an overly harsh penalty and that the court should have considered lesser sanctions.

Regarding summary judgment, the plaintiff argued that expert witness testimony was unnecessary. The plaintiff asserted that the legal doctrine of res ipsa loquitur applied. Under this doctrine, negligence may be inferred simply from the occurrence of an unusual event. The plaintiff argued that manhole covers do not launch into the air absent negligence, comparing the event to a classic example like a falling barrel of flour or a surgeon amputating the wrong limb.

Conversely, the defendants argued that the trial court acted well within its discretion. The defendants pointed out that the plaintiff knew about the original expert’s death long before the operational deadline. The core issue was not the identity of the replacement, but the failure to disclose any substantive opinions for over a year. The defendants demonstrated that they suffered severe prejudice because they could not depose the expert or prepare rebuttal witnesses.

Additionally, the defendants maintained that res ipsa loquitur could not apply to complex underground infrastructure. They argued that determining standard of care and causation among six different utility entities required specialized technical knowledge. Furthermore, because multiple entities managed different components, no single defendant exercised exclusive control over the instrumentality.

Court’s Ruling

The Appellate Court of Maryland affirmed the trial court’s judgment in full. First, the appellate court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by the expert exclusion. The court highlighted a critical procedural flaw: the plaintiff had failed to file a timely written opposition to the joint motion for sanctions in the trial court, thereby waiving appellate review.

Even on the merits, the appellate court concluded that sanctions were appropriate under the five-factor balancing test established in Taliaferro v. State. The court noted that:

• The discovery violation was substantial rather than technical.
• The ultimate disclosure occurred long after discovery closed.
• The death of the initial expert did not justify a year-long failure to provide substantive opinions.
• The defense suffered uncurable prejudice.
• Prior court orders compelling discovery had been ignored.

Second, the appellate court affirmed the grant of summary judgment. The court held that res ipsa loquitur is inapplicable to technical, professional matters beyond the common knowledge of lay jurors. Underground gas migration, electrical conduit dynamics, and municipal excavation standards require expert explanation. Moreover, the plaintiff could not satisfy the exclusive control element required for res ipsa loquitur while suing six separate entities for distinct acts of negligence. Without expert testimony to establish the professional standard of care or medical and physical causation, the claims failed as a matter of law.

Commentary by Baltimore Medical Malpractice Lawyer Mark Kopec on Expert Exclusion

This decision offers lessons for personal injury litigators across Maryland. While this case involved an industrial explosion, the core legal principles also apply directly to medical malpractice litigation, where standard of care and causation almost always require qualified expert testimony.

Key Takeaways from the Case

1. Procedural Defaults Waive Appellate Rights: The most immediate takeaway is a warning regarding motion practice. The plaintiff failed to file a written opposition to the defendants’ joint motion for sanctions in the trial court. Under established Maryland precedent, failing to oppose a motion waives the right to challenge the resulting order on appeal. Attorneys must track response deadlines for every motion filed by opposing counsel.
2. Expert Identification is Not Expert Disclosure: Identifying an expert witness by name and address is only the first step. Under Maryland Rule 2-402 and scheduling orders, a party must timely disclose the substance of the expert’s findings, the specific opinions held, and the factual grounds for those opinions. Waiting until after discovery closes to attach an expert report to a motion for reconsideration can be a fatal error.
3. Res Ipsa Loquitur Is Narrowly Applied: Plaintiffs often view res ipsa loquitur as a safety net when evidentiary proof falls short. However, Maryland courts strictly limit the doctrine. When a case involves complex machinery, professional standards, or technical systems, lay jurors cannot simply infer negligence. If specialized knowledge is required, expert testimony is needed.
4. Multiple Defendants Undermine Exclusive Control: To rely on res ipsa loquitur, a plaintiff must prove that the injury-causing instrumentality was in the exclusive control of the defendant. When a plaintiff names numerous defendants with distinct roles—such as utilities, contractors, and municipalities—proving exclusive control becomes virtually impossible.

How Practitioners Can Avoid This Result

To avoid expert exclusion and subsequent summary judgment, law firm teams should implement management protocols:

• Maintain Active Expert Timelines: When an expert witness unexpectedly dies or becomes unavailable, immediately secure a replacement and seek an explicit modification of the scheduling order for producing the replacement’s report. Do not assume that substituting a name satisfies your discovery obligations.
• Draft Comprehensive Interrogatory Answers: Ensure that expert designations include detailed summaries of expected testimony, complete preliminary findings, and the precise methodology used by the expert.
• Differentiate Standard of Care and Causation Experts: Always evaluate whether separate experts are needed for the standard of care and causation.
• Respond Promptly to Discovery Motions: Never leave a motion for sanctions or a motion to compel unanswered. Even a brief response explaining effort or asking for a hearing may preserve the record for appellate review.

You can read other Blog posts on issues involving Discovery and sanctions, including:

• Discovery Sanction: Alliance v. Abedi
• Dismissal Sanction: Bowers v. Retina Group
• Scheduling Order Sanctions: Little v. Hyde
• Discovery Violation: Bland v. Emcor

Mark Kopec is a top-rated Baltimore medical malpractice lawyer. Contact us at 800-604-0704 to speak directly with Attorney Kopec in a free consultation. The Kopec Law Firm is in Baltimore and helps clients throughout Maryland and Washington, D.C. Thank you for reading the Baltimore Medical Malpractice Lawyer Blog