Cases Pending Before The Court of Appeals

NOTE: Cases are added to this table when they are scheduled for oral argument. Note that oral argument dates may change at any time. After oral arguments, a link to the archived video recording is added. Cases are removed when the mandate issues (or, for attorney disciplinary matters, approximately 30 days after the opinion was filed).

Click on the column title to sort by that column.

Case No. Year Petitioner Respondent Cert. Granted Oral Arguments Opinion Filed Issues
001 Misc.
2019 Application of G.L.F.     2019-09-06
[Oral Arguments]
  In the Matter of the Application of G.L.F. for Admission to the Bar of Maryland
 
030 Misc.
2018 Brown, Bottini & Wilson State   2019-09-10
[Oral Arguments]
  Certified Question from the Court of Special Appeals

Questions - 1) Does the authority granted to the courts by Criminal Law Article § 5-609.1 to modify mandatory minimum sentences for certain drug-related offenses extend to cases in which the sentences were imposed as the result of binding plea agreements and the State does not consent to modification? 2) Does the authority granted to the Courts by § 5-609.1 to modify such sentences extend to cases in which the sentences were imposed as the result of binding plea agreements in which the defendant waived his or her right to seek a modification of sentence? 3) Does § 5-609.1 require the circuit court to hold a hearing before granting or denying a motion to modify a sentence filed pursuant to the statute? 4) When does the Court of Special Appeals have jurisdiction to consider an appeal from an order denying a § 5-609.1 motion to modify a sentence?
003 Misc.
2019 Plank Cherneski   2019-12-05
[Oral Arguments]
  Certified Question from the Court of Special Appeals

Questions - 1) May minority members of an LLC (a) bring a stand-alone cause of action for breach of fiduciary duty against the managing member of the LLC (b) premised on allegations that the managing member was engaged in unlawful actions that placed at risk the investments of the minority members? 2) If so, is such a claim (a) limited to allegations that would support another viable cause of action, (b) limited to allegations that would not also support another viable cause of action, or (c) not limited by whether or not there is another viable cause of action to address the same conduct?
 
026
2019 In re: O.P.   2019-07-12 2019-12-06
[Oral Arguments]
  Courts & Judicial Proceedings – 1) Is the preponderance of the evidence standard adopted by the intermediate appellate court inconsistent with the plain language and protective purpose of the shelter-care statute? 2) Did CSA err in finding that the juvenile court did not commit error and abuse its discretion when it denied the local department’s petition to place in shelter care an infant who had suffered unexplained brain injuries consistent with non-accidental trauma and whose parents had delayed seeking medical treatment for four full days after the infant had stopped breathing for several minutes? 3) Does the appellate court have jurisdiction over a State appeal from an order denying a request for shelter care? 4) Given the fundamental, Constitutional right that parents and children have to an intact family free from unwarranted governmental interference, must the juvenile court apply a clear and convincing or preponderance of the evidence standard of proof, rather than a mere reasonable basis standard, during a shelter care hearing, where the State seeks to separate children from their parents due to an alleged need to prevent serious, immediate harm?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 2877, Sept. Term, 2018 [Opinion]
030
2019 Barclay Castruccio 2019-08-26 2019-12-10
[Oral Arguments]
2020-06-30
[Opinion]
Torts – 1) Did the trial court err when it ruled that the cause of action for intentional interference with an expectancy is not a cause of action under Maryland law? 2) Did Petitioner adequately plead facts to succeed on a claim of intentional interference with an expectancy?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 2488, Sept. Term, 2017 (unreported)
031
2019 Podieh State 2019-08-26 2019-12-10
[Oral Arguments]
  Criminal Law – 1) When the plain language of the immigration statutes is clear, must counsel correct a client’s known erroneous belief regarding the availability of immigration defenses following a plea to an aggravated felony? 2) Does the Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution apply to immigration advice obtained to assist in evaluating a plea offer? 3) Did CSA wrongly overturn the post-conviction court’s findings of facts and misapply the third prong of the Mickens v. Taylor, 240 F.3d 348 (4th Cir. 2001)(en banc), aff’d 535 U.S. 162 (2002), test governing conflict of interest claims?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 560, Sept. Term, 2017 (unreported)
044
2019 Lewis State 2019-09-09 2020-01-09
[Oral Arguments]
  Criminal Law – 1) Did CSA err in concluding that the odor of marijuana on a person, without more, constitutes probable cause to arrest? 2) When a majority of a CSA panel concludes that its decision “will result in injustice,” should the court exercise its discretion under Maryland Rule 8-131 and address a constitutional question, which the parties fully briefed in the absence of a preservation challenge, about whether incontrovertible body-camera evidence demonstrates the “seizure” or a person without probable cause?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 1115, Sept. Term, 2017 [Opinion]
008 AG
 
064 AG
2018

2018
Attorney Grievance Smith-Scott   2020-01-10
[Oral Arguments]
2020-06-29
[Opinion]

2020-01-10
[PC Order]
Attorney disciplinary matter.
040
2019 Steamfitters Local No. 602 Erie Insurance 2019-09-09 2020-01-10
[Oral Arguments]
  Torts – 1) Do Landowners owe their neighbors a duty of care to protect against potential fires starting in normal, harmless areas of their property, such as landscape mulch, caused by third persons over whom they have no control? 2) Does a Plaintiff need to provide expert testimony as to reasonable, standard and effective measures to prevent such fires? 3) Under the facts and circumstances of this case, was the spoliation instruction unfairly prejudicial to the appellants? 4) Was is proper for the trial court to enter summary judgment on an indemnity agreement where the contention was that the negligence was that of third parties whose activities were related to the indemnitor and where there were questions of fact with regard to whether the contract had expired?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 1142, Sept. Term, 2017 [Opinion]
041
2019 Pizza Di Joey Mayor & City Cncl. of Balt. 2019-09-09 2020-02-06
[Oral Arguments]
  Local Code – Does Baltimore City Code, Art. 15, Section 17-33 violate Article 24 of the Maryland Declaration of Rights?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 2411, Sept. Term, 2017 [Opinion]
045
2019 State Frazier 2019-09-27 2020-02-06
[Oral Arguments]
  Criminal Law – 1) Should this Court reconsider the rule articulated in State v. Lancaster, 332 Md. 385 (1993), and hold that where two offenses are deemed the same for purposes of merger, a court may impose a sentence based on the offense that carries the greater penalty? 2) If the Court permits a sentencing court to impose a sentence available pursuant to a lesser-included offense, even if it provides the greater penalty, was Respondent’s sentence legal?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 344, Sept. Term, 2018 (unreported)
050
2019 Amer. Radiology Reiss 2019-10-17 2020-02-06
[Oral Arguments]
  Torts – 1) Did CSA err in interpreting and extending Copsey v. Park, 453 Md. 141 (2017), to require a medical malpractice defendant arguing non-party negligence to present standard-of-care expert testimony where the defendant is not asserting non-party negligence as an affirmative defense? 2) Assuming arguendo that it was error for the trial court to submit the question of non-party negligence to the jury, did CSA err in concluding that the error was prejudicial based solely on an initially incorrectly completed juror questionnaire that was promptly corrected?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 1570, Sept. Term, 2017 [Opinion]
047
2019 Rochkind Stevenson 2019-10-09 2020-02-07
[Oral Arguments]
  Torts – 1) Was it error for the trial court to allow Plaintiff’s medical causation expert to testify that Plaintiff has attentional and behavioral injuries without providing a reliable method for attributing those injuries to lead exposure when Plaintiff had already been diagnosed with ADHD? 2) Was it error for the trial court to allow Plaintiff’s medical expert to render specific causation opinions based on general epidemiological studies? 3) Should the Court adopt the standard for admitting expert testimony under Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993)? 4) Was Plaintiff’s medical causation expert’s specific causation opinion admissible in this case under Rule 5-702, applying the standard set forth in Daubert?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 199, Sept. Term, 2019 (pending)
048
2019 Hemming State 2019-10-09 2020-02-07
[Oral Arguments]
2020-06-26
[Opinion]
Criminal Law – 1) Does a trial court have discretion under Md. Rule 4-253 to bifurcate separate counts between judge and jury in a single trial? 2) Did the trial court mistakenly believe that it had no authority under Rule 4-253 to bifurcate separate counts between judge and jury in a single trial and, as a result, fail to exercise its discretion under the rule? 3) Assuming, arguendo, that the trial court recognized and exercised its discretion, was the court’s refusal to bifurcate the counts charging possession of a regulated firearm by a disqualified person and possession of ammunition by a disqualified person from the remaining counts of the indictment an abuse of discretion under the circumstances of this case?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 624, Sept. Term, 2018 (unreported)
056
2019 State Morrison 2019-12-10 2020-03-05
[Oral Arguments]
  Criminal Law – Was the evidence sufficient to permit a rational trier of fact to find that Respondent was guilty of involuntary manslaughter and reckless endangerment in the death of her infant beyond a reasonable doubt?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 1859, Sept. Term, 2017 (unreported)
061
2019 Motor Vehicle Admin. Geppert 2019-12-10 2020-03-09
[Oral Arguments]
  Transportation – 1) Did CSA lack jurisdiction to consider Respondents challenge to Petitioner’s refusal to issue him a learner’s permit where Md. Code (2014) §10-223(a) of the State Government Article excluded from that court’s jurisdiction cases “aris[ing] under Title 16 of the Transportation Article” - the Article governing issuance of learner’s permits? 2) Did CSA err in concluding that a circuit court possess the authority to order an executive agency to perform an act that is directly contrary to Maryland law?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 715, Sept. Term, 2018 (unreported)
055
2019 Vigna State 2019-11-06 2020-03-09
[Oral Arguments]
 
  Criminal Law – 1) Did CSA err by contradicting the majority of other jurisdictions in holding that appropriate interaction with children is not a pertinent character trait under Md. Rule 5-404(a)(2)(A)? 2) Did CSA err when it failed to recognize that denying Petitioner the ability to introduce relevant character evidence, while at the same time allowing Respondent to introduce non-criminal “bad acts” character evidence, denied him the right to a fair trial under the Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 1327, Sept. Term, 2017 [Opinion]
057
2019 Franklin State 2019-12-10 2020-03-10
[Oral Arguments]
 
  Criminal Law – 1) Is it ineffective assistance of counsel for defense counsel to include in a timely filed motion for modification of sentence a request for a hearing accompanied by a request that the matter be held sub curia but to never secure an actual hearing on that motion in court in the ensuing five years as required by Md. Rule 4-345(e) in order to have the sentence actually modified? 2) Is a finding that it does not constitute ineffective assistance inconsistent with CSA’s decision in Moultrie v. State, 240 Md.App. 408 (2019)?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 1759, Sept. Term, 2017 (unreported)
060
2019 Aleman State 2019-12-10 2020-03-10
[Oral Arguments]
2020-06-30
[Opinion]
Criminal Procedure – 1) Did CSA err in holding that Md. Code (2018 Repl. Vol.) §3- 112 of the Criminal Procedure Article, which requires the commitment to the Department of Health of a defendant found not criminally responsible, does not apply to a defendant who is in Maryland under the Interstate Agreement on Detainers (“IAD”), Md. Code (2017 Repl. Vol) §8-401 et seq. of the Correctional Services Article? 2) Did CSA err in holding that the IAD requires that Petitioner, who was found not criminally responsible by a Maryland jury, must be returned to the sending state to complete a sentence in that state? 3) Did CSA err in holding that § 8-408 of the IAD, which states that “[n]o provision of this Agreement. . . shall apply to any person who is adjudged to be mentally ill,” was not triggered by the jury’s verdict that Petitioner was not criminally responsible?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 823, Sept. Term, 2018 [Opinion]
005 AG
2019 Attorney Grievance Markey & Hancock   Request to Waive Oral Argument Granted. 2020-06-26
[Opinion]
Attorney disciplinary matter.
065
2019 Portillo Funes State 2020-01-10 2020-05-11
[Oral Arguments]

These oral arguments were held remotely by videoconference. All seven incumbent judges of the Court of Appeals participated in oral arguments. Due to the videoconferencing platform used, not all participants are visible.
2020-06-30
[Opinion]
Criminal Law – 1) Did the trial court err in denying Petitioner’s motion to exclude the chemical breath test, where Spanish-speaking Petitioner was advised of his right to decline the test in English? 2) Did the trial court err in denying Petitioner’s motion to exclude the standardized field sobriety tests, where Petitioner was a Spanish speaker but the tests were performed in English?

Circuit Court for Montgomery County, No. 135651C.
058
2019 In Re: R.S.   2019-12-10 2020-05-12
[Oral Arguments]

These oral arguments were held remotely by videoconference. All seven incumbent judges of the Court of Appeals participated in oral arguments. Due to the videoconferencing platform used, not all participants are visible.
  Family Law – 1) Did CSA err in interpreting the Interstate Compact on the Placement of Children, Md. Code (2019 Repl. Vol.) § 5-601 – 5-611 of the Family Law Article (“ICPC”), and invalidating COMAR 07.02.11.28, based on the holding that the ICPC does not apply to out-of-state parents, even those unknown to the child and local department or who have abused or neglected a child, and therefore the ICPC cannot be used in a CINA proceeding to assist juvenile courts in protecting a child’s best interests where a parent resides in another state? 2) Did CSA err in reversing both the juvenile court’s order that R.S. was a CINA and the award of joint custody of R.S. to her father and paternal grandparents, based on the holding that the juvenile court should not have ordered an investigation under the ICPC of a non-custodial father who had never met the two-year old child?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 3205, Sept. Term, 2018 [Opinion]
066
2019 7222 Ambassador Rd. Nat. Center on Insts. and Alts. 2020-01-10 2020-05-12
[Oral Arguments]

These oral arguments were held remotely by videoconference. All seven incumbent judges of the Court of Appeals participated in oral arguments. Due to the videoconferencing platform used, not all participants are visible.
  Civil Procedure – Did CSA err when it affirmed the trial court’s ruling excluding all of Petitioner’s witnesses in the absence of the complaining party having filed any motion to compel or any motion for sanctions and when the trial court failed to consider or address any prejudice to the complaining party?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 2541, Sept. Term, 2017 (unreported)
007 AG
2019 Attorney Grievance Hoerauf   Request to Waive Oral Argument Granted. 2020-06-26
[Opinion]

2020-04-24
[PC Order]
Attorney disciplinary matter.
008 AG
2019 Attorney Grievance Collins   Request to Waive Oral Argument Granted. 2020-06-08
[Opinion]
Attorney disciplinary matter.
067
2019 State Day 2020-01-10 2020-05-13
[Oral Arguments]

These oral arguments were held remotely by videoconference. All seven incumbent judges of the Court of Appeals participated in oral arguments. Due to the videoconferencing platform used, not all participants are visible.
2020-07-10
[Opinion]
Criminal Procedure – 1) Must a criminal defendant seeking a belated motion for modification or reduction of sentence pursuant Md. Rule 4-345(e), based on ineffective assistance of counsel under the Sixth Amendment, establish in the post-conviction court that he or she specifically directed trial counsel to timely file that motion? 2) Did CSA err when it reversed, as clearly erroneous, the post-conviction court’s finding that Respondent had failed to provide competent evidence that he had asked his trial counsel to file a motion for modification or reduction of sentence on his behalf?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 2729, Sept. Term, 2018
059
2019 75-80 Properties RALE, Inc. 2019-12-10 2020-05-12
[Oral Arguments]

These oral arguments were held remotely by videoconference. All seven incumbent judges of the Court of Appeals participated in oral arguments. Due to the videoconferencing platform used, not all participants are visible.
  General Provisions – 1) On a petition for judicial review of land use approvals, must the reviewing court evaluate an ex parte violation through the narrow lens of “procedural error”, as expressly prescribed by Md. Code (2014) §§ 5-859 and 5-862 of the General Provisions (“GP”) Article? 2) On a petition for judicial review, may a court vacate county approvals, including an executed Development Rights and Responsibilities Agreement (“DRRA”), based solely on the County’s violation of GP §5-862, when the statute expressly provides that the only remedy in the land use context is remand? 3) Does zoning estoppel apply where developers, acting in good faith, substantially relied on, and partially performed under, fully-vetted county approvals and an executed DRRA, and the misconduct stems solely from the government’s actions?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 1689, Sept. Term, 2017 [Opinion]
010 Misc.
2019 Berry & State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Queen   2020-05-28
[Oral Arguments]

These oral arguments were held remotely by videoconference. All seven incumbent judges of the Court of Appeals participated in oral arguments. Due to the videoconferencing platform used, not all participants are visible.
  Certified Question from the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland

Question - Whether the Maryland Uninsured Motorist statutory provision of Md. Code Ann. Ins. § 19-509(e)(1), and the provisions of Title 17 of the Transportation Article and Title 20 Subtitle 6 of the Insurance Article incorporated therein, require an insurer to pay benefits for loss of use of a vehicle damaged by an uninsured driver, regardless of any limitations or omissions that may exist in the applicable policy of insurance.
063
2019 Maryland Insurance Admin. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. 2019-12-10 2020-05-28
[Oral Arguments]

These oral arguments were held remotely by videoconference. All seven incumbent judges of the Court of Appeals participated in oral arguments. Due to the videoconferencing platform used, not all participants are visible.
  Insurance – Does the Maryland Uninsured Motorist statutory provision of Md. Code (2017) § 19-509(e)(1) of the Insurance Article, and the provisions of Title 17 of the Transportation Article and Title 20 Subtitle 6 of the Insurance Article incorporated therein, require an insurer to pay benefits for loss of use of a vehicle damaged by an uninsured driver, regardless of any limitations or omissions that may exist in the applicable policy of insurance?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 1622, Sept. Term, 2019 (pending)
002 AG
2019 Attorney Grievance Frank   2020-05-28
[Oral Arguments]

These oral arguments were held remotely by videoconference. All seven incumbent judges of the Court of Appeals participated in oral arguments. Due to the videoconferencing platform used, not all participants are visible.
  Attorney disciplinary matter.
021 AG
2019 Attorney Grievance Yi   2020-06-10
[Oral Arguments]

These oral arguments were held remotely by videoconference. All seven incumbent judges of the Court of Appeals participated in oral arguments. Due to the videoconferencing platform used, not all participants are visible.
  Attorney disciplinary matter.
071
2019 Johnson Md. Dept. of Health 2020-02-11 2020-06-10
[Oral Arguments]

These oral arguments were held remotely by videoconference. All seven incumbent judges of the Court of Appeals participated in oral arguments. Due to the videoconferencing platform used, not all participants are visible.
  Health – General – 1) Did Respondent impermissibly decide issues of competency in violation of the U.S. Constitution and the Maryland Declaration of Rights when it used an administrative process to forcibly medicate Petitioner for competency restoration based on a statute that omits language authorizing involuntary medication for that purpose? 2) Did Respondent violate the U.S. Constitution and Maryland Declaration of Rights, which guarantee a criminal defendant certain due process and trial rights, when it forcibly medicated Petitioner after an administrative proceeding that prohibited him from asserting affirmative defenses related to his competency to rebut Respondent’s case and denied him meaningful access to his criminal defense attorney?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 1688, Sept. Term, 2019 (pending)
20 AG
2019 Attorney Grievance Riely   2020-09-10   Attorney disciplinary matter.
 
073
2019 Wise State 2020-03-11 2020-09-10   Criminal Law – 1) Did CSA err in affirming the admission of a statement by a witness with memory loss as a prior inconsistent statement, in conflict with Corbett v. State, 130 Md.App. 408, cert. denied, 359 Md. 31 (2000)? 2) Did CSA err in expanding the circumstances under which hearsay is admissible under Rule 5-802.1(a) to include statements containing a “material” inconsistency with the witness’s testimony?


Court of Special Appeals, No. 2206, Sept. Term, 2018 [Opinion]
062
2019 St. Luke Institute Jones 2019-12-10 2020-09-10   Health General – 1) Does Petitioner have standing to raise the constitutional right of privacy on behalf of a mental health patient? 2) If Petitioner has the requisite standing, must the court first determine whether the constitutional right of privacy of the person whose records are sought has been superseded prior to any release of mental health records or can the court immediately proceed to the question of release without first finding that the right of privacy has been superseded? 3) If the constitutional right of privacy is required to be ruled upon by the court to determine if it has been superseded, then what are the standards to be applied by the court when a private party litigant rather than a state agency is making the request? 4) If the determination is made that records may be released, does the party requesting the release of mental health records have the burden of identifying to the court the nature of the information being sought for release from the mental health records prior to the court undertaking its in camera review?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 3331, Sept. Term, 2018 [Opinion]
015 Misc.
2019 Application of Jefferson     2020-09-11   In the Matter of the Application of Antonette Yvonne Jefferson for Admission to the Bar of Maryland
 
068
2019 Anne Arundel Cnty. Reeves 2020-02-11 2020-09-11   Torts – 1) As a matter of first impression does Md. Code § 11-110 of the Courts & Judicial Proceedings Article limit the amount of damages recoverable for negligently causing the death of a pet? 2) Did CSA err in finding sufficient evidence of gross negligence?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 1191, Sept. Term, 2018 (unreported)
064
2019 State Wilson 2020-01-10 2020-09-14   Issues – Criminal Law – 1) Regardless whether a collusive marriage confers spousal testimonial privilege, is evidence that the defendant-spouse arranged to marry in order to suppress the witness-spouse’s testimony under the cloak of privilege sufficient to satisfy the “corrupt means” element of the obstruction of justice and witness tampering statutes? 2) As a matter of first impression in Maryland, is a party to a collusive marriage precluded from invoking the spousal testimonial privilege? 3) If Respondent’s convictions are affirmed, does his conviction and sentence for witness tampering merge into his conviction and sentence for obstruction of justice, where both convictions are predicated upon one act – marrying his longtime girlfriend and the mother of his two children?  

Court of Special Appeals, No. 436, Sept. Term, 2018 [Opinion]
069
2019 Montgomery Cnty. Cochran & Bowen 2020-02-11 2020-09-14   Workers’ Compensation – 1) Did CSA err in holding that, when calculating a claimaint’s hearing loss under Md. Code § 9-650(b)(3) of the Labor & Employment Article, the decibels deducted from the total average hearing loss should be calculated by counting the number of years between the date the claimant turned 50 and the date the claimant retired? 2) Did CSA err in reversing a factual finding of the Workers’ Compensation Commission as to whether Respondent Bowen suffered a “disablement” given that 1) the Commission’s factual finding is “presumed to be correct”; 2) the issue of whether the claimant suffered a disablement was not raised at the Commission hearing; and 3) there was no evidence put on by Petitioner before the trial court to disturb the Commission’s finding?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 662, Sept. Term, 2018 [Opinion]
075
2019 Montague State 2020-03-11 2020-09-14   Criminal Law – Is artistic expression, in the form of rap lyrics, that does not have a nexus to the alleged crime relevant as substantive evidence of guilt?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 2033, Sept. Term, 2017 [Opinion]
074
2019 State Carter 2020-03-11 2020-09-15   Criminal Law – 1) Does the Maryland Transit Administration’s (“MTA”) practice of fare inspection on the Light Rail comply with the Fourth Amendment? 2) If fare inspection does not comply with the Fourth Amendment, did the discovery of an open warrant for Respondent’s arrest nevertheless attenuate the violation under Utah v. Strieff, 136 S.Ct. 2056 (2016), where any unconstitutionality of the MTA’s fare inspection practice was not previously established?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 478, Sept. Term, 2018 [Opinion]
070
2019 Chaplin Univ. Of Md. Medical Sys. 2020-02-11 2020-09-15   Torts – 1) Does the exception to the board certification requirement in the Health Care Malpractice Claims Act, Md. Code § 3-2A-02(c)(2)(ii)(B)(2)(B) of the Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article, which excuses board-certification at § 3-2A-02(c)(2)(ii)(B) for an attesting health care provider who has “taught medicine in the defendant’s specialty or a related field of health care,” require the attesting health care provider to have “taught medicine” to students who are “in the defendant’s specialty?” 2) Does the board certification requirement at § 3-2A-02(c)(2)(ii)(B) apply when the defendant is not a natural person? 3) Does a claim for absence of informed consent when made in the same proceeding with a claim for malpractice require compliance with the certificate requirements in the Act, including the board-certification provisions (and its exceptions) at § 3-2A-02(c)(2)(ii)(B) and (2)(B)?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 317, Sept. Term, 2018 (unreported)