Printer Friendly

JAMES E. WOOD v. TARIQ NAYFEH, ET AL.

Byline: Daily Record Staff

Torts -- Medical malpractice -- Expert testimony

This appeal arises out of an incident between two doctors appellant, Dr. James E. Wood, and appellee, Dr. Tariq Nayfeh that occurred during a simultaneous bilateral knee replacement surgery. On May 13, 2016, Dr. Wood filed a complaint against Dr. Nayfeh in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City, alleging that Dr. Nayfeh's negligence in operating a surgical instrument caused "severe and permanent damage" to his dominant left arm, thus ending his career as an orthopedic surgeon. Following an eight-day trial, a jury found that Dr. Nayfeh was not negligent.

Dr. Wood noted a timely appeal, and presents four questions for our review, which we have rephrased as follows: 1. Did the trial court abuse its discretion by excluding a critical eyewitness from Dr. Wood's case in chief and rebuttal when he disclosed the witness's identity and proffered testimony as soon as he determined the witness had personal knowledge of facts material to this case? 2. Did the trial court abuse its discretion when it admitted expert witness testimony that was both materially different from the expert's deposition testimony and lacked a factual basis? 3. Did the trial court err in giving the jury an instruction that Dr. Wood assumed the risk when there was no testimony that he understood the risk of an existing danger and voluntarily encountered that danger? 4. Did the trial court abuse its discretion when it denied Dr. Wood's motion for new trial based on "new evidence" that was discovered during trial?

Read the opinion

Copyright {c} 2019 BridgeTower Media. All Rights Reserved.

COPYRIGHT 2019 BridgeTower Media Holding Company, LLC
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
Copyright 2019 Gale, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.

Article Details
Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Publication:Daily Record (Baltimore, MD)
Date:Feb 22, 2019
Words:266
Previous Article:Cybersecurity much more than an IT issue.
Next Article:WARREN SAVAGE v. STATE OF MARYLAND.
Topics:

Terms of use | Privacy policy | Copyright © 2020 Farlex, Inc. | Feedback | For webmasters