Incomplete Records: Hawkins v. Ajmera 1
The Baltimore Medical Malpractice Lawyer Blog examines Maryland appellate opinions in medical malpractice cases. This is the first post in a series on an unreported opinion by the Appellate Court of Maryland. The case is Hawkins v. Ajmera, No. 1343 (January 27, 2026). Medical malpractice cases rely heavily on accurate documents. This opinion highlights how document production before a case begins can drastically alter a lawsuit. This post examines the issues surrounding initial incomplete medical records and expert opinions in a medical malpractice case.
Factual Background on Incomplete Records in Medical Malpractice Case
A paralyzed patient received medical treatment at a regional health center on two separate occasions in 2021. During the first stay, the patient sought care for a seizure disorder. The second stay involved treatment for dehydration, a urinary tract infection, and renal failure. Following these stays, family members noticed severe physical injuries. The injuries included bedsores, skin abrasions, facial bleeding, and an IV line left in the arm upon discharge.
Seeking answers, the patient’s family requested complete medical records from the hospital prior to filing suit. The hospital delivered a response containing under 200 pages. Relying entirely on this initial production, the plaintiff retained a physician as an expert witness. The expert reviewed the partial file and wrote a report detailing standard of care deviations. Specifically, the expert concluded that attending doctors failed to implement basic wound prevention protocols.
The plaintiff subsequently filed a medical malpractice action against the treating physicians. However, during formal discovery, the defense produced the complete medical file. This comprehensive file exceeded 1,000 pages. The larger record revealed that medical providers had actually implemented the required wound care protocols during the hospitalizations.
Document Comparison
- Pre-Litigation Request: Yielded under 200 pages. Relying on this partial file, the plaintiff’s expert found clear deviations from the standard of care.
- Discovery Production: Yielded over 1,000 pages. This complete file directly contradicted the factual foundation of the expert’s primary report.
As trial approached, the plaintiff faced significant hurdles scheduling the expert for a deposition. After delays and a last-minute cancellation, the court ordered the expert to appear. Rather than producing the witness, the plaintiff filed interlocutory appeals and challenged the newly disclosed records.
Parties’ Arguments
The plaintiff moved to exclude the 1,000-page record from trial. Counsel argued that the defense manufactured these documents to defeat the expert’s conclusions. Because the pre-litigation request yielded a smaller packet, the plaintiff asserted that the additional records lacked authenticity. The plaintiff insisted that the trial court should limit the defense to using only the original 200-page file.
The defendants countered that they properly produced the full medical file during discovery. They noted that the plaintiff offered no tangible evidence of fraud or fabrication. Furthermore, the defendants argued that striking the expert witness was appropriate because the plaintiff repeatedly failed to produce the witness for a deposition. They asserted that without a valid expert opinion supported by actual facts, summary judgment was warranted.
The Court’s Ruling
The Appellate Court of Maryland affirmed the trial court’s decisions. The court held that denying the motion to exclude the full medical record was entirely proper. It emphasized that the plaintiff presented zero factual evidence showing that the hospital manufactured records. Merely demonstrating a discrepancy in document volume between pre-litigation requests and formal discovery does not prove deliberate falsification.
Additionally, the court noted that the defense provided the full file nearly a year and a half before trial. This timeframe gave the plaintiff adequate opportunity to re-evaluate the claims. Because the missing factual foundation undermined the expert’s primary theory, and because the expert was not produced for court-ordered depositions, the trial court properly struck the witness. Consequently, summary judgment in favor of the defense was affirmed.
Commentary by Baltimore Medical Malpractice Lawyer Mark Kopec on Incomplete Records
It is quite unusual to read an appellate opinion focusing heavily on pre-litigation medical record production. However, the underlying scenario encountered by the plaintiff happens constantly in medical malpractice litigation. Hospitals frequently provide incomplete files when patients request records prior to filing a lawsuit. Plaintiffs should not have to face this administrative failure, but incomplete initial production remains a regular reality in medical injury cases.
We cannot determine exactly why the document gap occurred here. The volume of omitted records was substantial. It remains possible that the initial request did not broadly encompass the entire file. Alternatively, the facility may have simply failed to compile the complete record before litigation began.
An experienced legal team carefully scrutinizes initial record batches. Based on experience, a seasoned team can identify missing categories instantly. They recognize when specific nursing logs, flowsheets, or physician notes must exist given the treatment rendered.
This case demonstrates the critical importance of getting comprehensive records before filing suit. Obtaining the complete file is essential before an expert renders a formal opinion. When new records surface during a case, they can destroy the factual foundation of a case. If the factual basis disappears, the expert opinion can fall apart completely.
Attempting to exclude defense records produced during formal discovery rarely succeeds. Courts will not bar relevant discovery documents without clear evidence of actual fraud. Pre-litigation record omissions must be addressed through thorough verification rather than late evidentiary motions.
Additional Reading
You can read additional Blog posts on related issues:
- Discovery issues
- Exclusion of Evidence: Arrow v. Cade
- Medical Records Cost: Hollabaugh v. MRO; Records Search Fee: Hollabaugh v. MRO 2
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.