Opinion ID: 2279398
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: The Certificate and the Report

Text: We now turn to the parties' arguments regarding the Certificate and the attesting expert's report. Carroll does not challenge the existence of the condition precedent requirement discussed, supra. Instead, she presents arguments of definition, i.e., that nothing in the statutory scheme defines the words certificate or attesting, that the statute does not require a specific format, and that the words certify and attest do not actually have to appear in the certification or report. She also contends that the plain meaning of the word attest, is to affirm to be true or genuine, [16] and that Dr. Simmons-Clemmons submitted a document in which she attested to her professional opinions in accordance with this definition. In addition, Carroll asserts that the plain meaning of the word certify only requires an affirmation in writing. [17] Therefore, according to Carroll, the court erred when it dismissed the case based on a lack of formal attestation or certification. Furthermore, according to Carroll, there is no stated requirement in § 3-2A-04 that the initial certification and report actually set forth that the expert is a qualified expert or that those qualifications have to be explained in the certificate. She also argues that there is no requirement in § 3-2A-04 that the expert use the words proximate cause, or reasonable degree of certainty. She contends that even though Dr. Simmons-Clemmons did not use either of those terms, the certification makes clear that the lack of communication by appellees to Carroll concerning the removal of the catheter was the cause of her injuries. Lastly, Carroll contends that all of Drs. Konits and Imoke's assertions fail because they are not supported by the plain language of the statute. Appellees argue that Dr. Simmons-Clemmons's documentation was deficient under the pertinent provisions the Health Care Malpractice Claims Statute for a multitude of reasons, any one of which justified the Circuit Court's dismissal of Carroll's claim. They contend that neither of the submissions from Dr. Simmons-Clemmons certified that she had clinical experience in the field practiced by Drs. Konits and Imoke within five years from the date of the alleged negligence, as is required by § 3-2A-02(c)(2)(ii)(A), and that both letters failed to certify that Dr. Simmons-Clemmons is Board Certified in the same or related specialty as Drs. Konits and Imoke, as required by § 3-2A-02(c)(2)(ii)(B). [18] Drs. Konits and Imoke also argue that Dr. Simmons-Clemmons failed to provide any reference to her training, education, professional experience, practice area, field of specialty, and Board Certifications; her letters merely contained the initials M.D. after her signature. Dr. Konits avers that [t]he facial deficiencies of [Dr. Simmons-Clemmons's] letter/certificate are only exacerbated by the failure of [Carroll] to file an expert report from the certifying doctor as mandated by [§ ] 3-2A-04(b)(3). . . .  [19] Dr. Konits also argues that neither of Carroll's letters identified the health care professional(s) against whom her claims applied. Dr. Konits notes that the letters reference five physicians  Dr. Konits, Dr. Imoke, Dr. Ohio, an unidentified cardiologist, and an unidentified primary care physician. Furthermore, according to Dr. Konits, both letters failed to articulate opinions to a reasonable degree of medical probability, as is required by Maryland law. Dr. Konits contends that Dr. Simmons-Clemmons's letter is not an appropriate Certification or Attestation of expert opinions but, instead, was an informal letter addressed to Carroll's attorney from Dr. Simmons-Clemmons. Dr. Konits further contends that Carroll's initial letter from Dr. Simmons-Clemmons was deficient because the physician failed to state the amount of professional time spent in testimonial activities for personal injury claims and Dr. Imoke also asserts that the initial letter was deficient because Dr. Simmons-Clemmons failed to attest to the departures from the standards of care.