Late Designation: Williams v. Transdev
The Baltimore Medical Malpractice Lawyer Blog delves into issues that often surface in personal injury and medical malpractice cases. In this post, we dissect the court’s decision to allow a late expert witness designation in the case of Williams v. Transdev Services, Inc. (No. 1869), an unreported opinion by the Appellate Court of Maryland dated August 21, 2025.
Factual Background
This case involved an independent contractor who provided transportation services in an MTA program for individuals with disabilities. The plaintiff was legally blind. He fell stepping from the curb into the street to board a van and broke his wrist. He then sued the contractor in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City. (Op. at 1-2).
During discovery, the parties had disputes. Specifically, the defendant contended that the plaintiff did not identify all of his prior medical providers. The defendant did its own investigation and subpoenaed records from providers the plaintiff had not identified, including pain management records relating to an ankle injury from a prior car accident. (Id. at 3-4).
Initially, the defendant had designated an orthopedic surgeon as an expert witness. He would testify regarding the plaintiff’s injuries, their relationship to pre-existing conditions, the permanence of the injuries, and also his treatment. However, his report did not offer an opinion on the cause of the fall. (Id. at 5-6).
Late Designation
Two months after the close of discovery, two weeks before trial, and hours before the de bene esse deposition of the defendant’s expert, the defense served a late supplemental expert designation that included an opinion that the plaintiff’s “significant right foot injury, and triple arthrodesis with ongoing pain management, resulted in gait and ambulation problems, and may have contributed to the . . . fall.” The defense provided this supplement based on the medical records it had subpoenaed. Afterward, the plaintiff did not postpone the de bene esse deposition or seek a discovery deposition of the expert. (Id. at 6-7).
The expert testified that the plaintiff had knee instability, abnormal foot and ankle function, and a lack of feeling in his feet and ankles due to neuropathy, opining that all contributed to gait and ambulation problems and a heightened risk of falling. He opined that the plaintiff’s prior ankle injury and his gait and ambulation problems were contributing factors to his slip and fall. (Id. at 7).
Motion to Strike
The plaintiff moved to strike the defendant’s supplemental expert designation and exclude the expert’s opinion about the cause of his fall. At first, the court granted the plaintiff’s motion. But after hearing more about the history of the parties’ discovery dispute, the defendant’s discovery and subpoenas to medical providers that the plaintiff hadn’t disclosed previously, and its assertion that the expert had relied on records from the undisclosed providers to form new opinions, including records of ongoing pain management treatment for the ankle injury, the court struck its prior ruling and denied the motion. (Id. at 7-8).
The jury found that the defendant had been negligent. Still, it concluded that its negligence had not been the proximate cause of the plaintiff’s injuries. (Id. at 8).
Appellate Court of Maryland
On appeal, the defendant argued that if the plaintiff had disclosed all of his prior medical providers in his initial response to the interrogatories, the defendant would not have had to make a late supplemental expert designation. (Id. at 12). The Appellate Court found the defendant had a legitimate documented reason for the late supplemental disclosure. (Id. at 14).
The plaintiff also argued that the defense expert already had an operative report from the prior ankle injury and did not need the pain management records to arrive at the late opinion. The Appellate Court rejected that contention, stating the circuit court was allowed to accept the expert’s statement that he relied on the pain management records for the new opinions, without scrutinizing whether that was true. (Id. at 15).
The plaintiff complained of being surprised, which prejudiced him. The Appellate Court noted that the defense had offered to postpone the trial to allow for a discovery deposition and a redo of the de bene esse deposition of its expert. However, the plaintiff declined. (Id. at 16). The Appellate Court upheld the judgment. (Id. at 18).
Commentary by Baltimore Medical Malpractice Lawyer Mark Kopec on Late Expert Designation
This appeal was going to be hard for the plaintiff to win. It was an uphill battle due to the deferential standard of review that the appellate court uses – specifically, whether the trial court abused its discretion.
This case is a reminder that the courts are unlikely to have much sympathy for a party complaining about another party’s delay when the complaining party’s actions contributed to the delay. This decision sets a precedent for future cases, emphasizing the importance of timely and complete disclosure of information. It also serves as a cautionary tale for parties who may be tempted to delay or withhold information, as the court is unlikely to tolerate such behavior.
You can read other posts on expert testimony issues.
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.