Related Specialty: Reid v. BACE
This Baltimore Medical Malpractice Lawyer Blog post is the first in a three-part series. These explore the implications of a Maryland appellate decision that provides guidance for medical malpractice cases. In the reported opinion of Edwina Reid, et al. v. Baltimore Ambulatory Center for Endoscopy, LLC, et al., filed on February 27, 2026, the Appellate Court of Maryland discussed a question under the Health Care Malpractice Claims Act. When is a medical expert witness qualified to testify against a defendant who is board-certified in a different specialty? Specifically, the Court looked at the “same or related specialty” requirement. It is a common hurdle for lawyers dealing with the complexities of expert witness qualifications. This case involves care after a procedure and cross-disciplinary medical responsibilities.
Factual Background: A Routine Procedure with Tragic Consequences
In October 2015, a 76 year old patient had a routine upper endoscopy. It was at an outpatient surgical facility in Baltimore County. A board-certified gastroenterologist performed the procedure. Because the procedure required sedation, a certified registered nurse anesthetist (CRNA) gave sedative medications under the gastroenterologist’s supervision.
Following the short procedure, they moved the patient to a recovery room. A licensed practical nurse (LPN) monitored him there for approximately 30 minutes. The patient’s medical history involved morbid obesity, diabetes, and hypertension. He also was coming out of anesthesia. Despite these facts, the gastroenterologist approved the patient for discharge at 7:28 a.m. The gastroenterologist will be part of the relate specialty issue.
While walking to his car in the parking lot after discharge, the patient fell on the sidewalk. He suffered a severe injury to his back. Although initial X-rays showed no fractures, his pain got worse over the next ten days. This continued until he was unable to move. Subsequent imaging revealed unstable fractures in his vertebrae. Despite emergency surgery, the patient died approximately two weeks after the fall from complications related to the spinal fracture.
The patient’s family filed a medical malpractice and wrongful death action. They alleged that the healthcare providers failed to identify the patient as a “severe fall risk” and breached the standard of care by discharging him without a wheelchair or proper assessment. To support their claims against the gastroenterologist, the plaintiffs relied on the expert testimony of a board-certified anesthesiologist, whom they believed was in a related specialty to the gastroenterologist.
The Court’s Holding: Defining an Expert’s “Related Specialty”
The central legal hurdle for the plaintiffs was the Health Care Malpractice Claims Act. It requires that an expert testifying against a board-certified defendant must be “board certified in the same or a related specialty”. The gastroenterologist moved for summary judgment, arguing that he did not share a “related specialty” with an anesthesiologist. The circuit court initially agreed, finding no “overlap” between the two fields of doctors in the context of post-operative discharge.
Factors In Determining If An Expert Is In A Related Specialty
However, the Appellate Court of Maryland reversed this ruling. The Court clarified that two specialties are “related” if there is an overlap in the treatment or procedures at issue in the case. The Court’s holding noted several key principles for determining if an expert is qualified under the “related specialty” provision:
- Focus on the Specific Procedure at Issue: The Court noted that in an ambulatory surgery center, gastroenterologists and anesthesiologists (or anesthetists) collaborate closely. While their primary roles differ, they share common responsibility for post-procedure care.
- Identical Standards of Care: The expert anesthesiologist provided testimony stating that the standard of care for post-operative management and discharge assessment is “identical” for both gastroenterologists and anesthesiologists in this clinical setting.
- Experience in the Clinical Setting: The Court emphasized that the expert had extensive experience with the same type of procedure performed in the same clinical setting. This made him well-qualified to opine on the discharge process, regardless of his different board certification.
- Overlap of Expertise: The Court held that two specialties are related when the treatment rendered is performed by both specialists and is within the overlap of expertise of both board specialty areas. In this case, the assessment of fall risk after anesthesia is a cross-disciplinary task that both types of specialists are expected to perform.
Commentary By Baltimore Medical Malpractice Lawyer Mark Kopec
By reversing the summary judgment, the Appellate Court ensured that the claims against the gastroenterologist could proceed. This ruling prevents defendants from using narrow specialty definitions to disqualify qualified experts who possess the relevant clinical experience for the specific care at issue.
The Appellate Court’s analysis reveals that this was a straightforward decision under the related specialty factors. While the plaintiff was likely to ultimately prevail, the choice of an anesthesiologist to critique a gastroenterologist is often going to prompt the defense to take a stab at exclusion. This is true even if the law does not support them. Although it cannot always be accomplished, choosing experts in the same specialty can help avoid the defense’s delaying tactics.
Stay tuned for part two of this series, where we will examine the Court’s analysis of the jury verdicts and the “likelihood of prejudice” resulting from the trial court’s errors.
You can read additional Blog posts on expert testimony issues, including posts on the related specialty issue:
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.