Baltimore, MD

Telemedicine pre-COVID-19 was largely for the convenience of the patient/clinician or to provide inexpensive care. Today it has moved into the realm of protective medicine that can help avoid the spread of the virus to other patients and health care providers.

A recent holding by Maryland’s Court of Special Appeals reaffirms the principle previously set forth by the same court that, despite the alleged foreseeability of harm from defective replacement parts that are made or manufactured by others, an entity generally is liable only for harm caused by products that it manufactured or otherwise introduced into the stream of commerce.

Maryland Court of Appeals Upholds the Frye-Reed “General Acceptance” Test for Admissibility of Expert Testimony

Trial courts could view the recent decision by the Maryland Court of Appeals as a convincing directive to deny admission of an expert’s testimony based on the mere existence of scientific or medical literature stating an opposing proposition, especially when the expert is the author of that literature. This finding will be particularly relevant in cases where parties seek to introduce expert opinions regarding novel or experimental procedures and techniques.

On July 9, 2013, the Court of Appeals of Maryland upheld the long-standing contributory negligence doctrine. If Maryland were to transition to a comparative fault system, several statutory provisions would need to be changed, along with many statutes that refer to or hinge on contributory negligence. The judiciary cannot repeal or amend these statutes; hence, the court has agreed that the task is best left to the legislature.

Foreseeability alone may not be sufficient to trigger a duty to warn, especially in cases involving manufacturers and suppliers of asbestos-containing products. Now, courts will need to consider the feasibility and burden of providing warnings to household members.

The Bloomberg Law newsletter, Product Safety and Litigation Reporter, has published an article written by David Ross that examines the U.S. Supreme Court’s divided opinions on personal jurisdiction.

Foreign defendants should keep abreast of developing case law stemming from J. McIntyre Machinery, Ltd. v. Nicastro, which may clarify what activities are most likely to give rise to personal jurisdiction under the still developing precedent.