## Facts

- Sheila D. Nagle Spivey underwent an intravenous pyelogram (IVP) after her physician referred her to radiologist Dr. David D. Golub.
- The IVP showed inflammation and dysfunction of Spivey’s left kidney, but Golub reported the study as normal.
- Relying on the negative report, Spivey’s treating physicians did not provide immediate treatment; by the time the problem was discovered in spring 1980, Spivey had permanent left-kidney damage from an untreated infection.
- Spivey filed a medical malpractice claim in Maryland’s Health Claims Arbitration Office (HCAO) against Golub and two other physicians.
- The arbitration panel chair issued a scheduling order requiring the parties to identify expert witnesses by a set deadline (the other physician-defendants did so; Golub did not).
- Three days before the arbitration hearing, Spivey filed a motion in limine to bar Golub from offering expert testimony because he failed to comply with the expert-identification order.
- Golub opposed the motion, asserting he intended to call the same experts previously identified by his co-defendants, and he asked the panel to continue the hearing.
- The panel granted Spivey’s motion in limine and denied Golub’s continuance request.
- At the arbitration hearing, Spivey dismissed the other two physicians and proceeded against Golub alone; the panel entered an award for Spivey of $150,000.
- Golub rejected the award and the case proceeded in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City, where a jury returned a $150,000 verdict for Spivey and judgment was entered.
- On appeal, Golub challenged the panel’s expert-preclusion ruling and denial of a continuance, and also argued the circuit-court proceedings should have been dismissed based on asserted timing defects in Spivey’s post-arbitration filings.

## Issues

1. Did the HCAO arbitration panel abuse its discretion by precluding Golub from presenting expert testimony for failure to meet the expert-identification deadline and by denying his last-minute request for a continuance?
2. After Golub rejected the HCAO award and the case proceeded in circuit court, did the trial court err by denying Golub’s motions to dismiss and for summary judgment based on alleged untimeliness or procedural noncompliance in Spivey’s post-arbitration filings?

## Decision

- The Court of Special Appeals of Maryland affirmed the circuit court’s judgment for Spivey.
- The court held the arbitration panel acted within its discretion in enforcing its expert-identification order by precluding Golub’s undisclosed expert testimony.
- The court held the panel did not abuse its discretion in denying Golub’s continuance request made immediately before the hearing after his failure to identify experts on time.
- The court held Spivey’s post-arbitration circuit-court filings and steps were timely and procedurally sufficient under the Health Care Malpractice Claims Act and applicable Maryland Rules, so dismissal or summary judgment was not warranted.

## Legal Principles

- HCAO arbitration panels may issue scheduling and disclosure orders, including deadlines for identifying expert witnesses, and may enforce those orders to ensure orderly proceedings.
- When a party fails to identify expert witnesses by a clear deadline without adequate justification, the panel may preclude that party from presenting expert testimony as an evidentiary sanction.
- A party cannot avoid an expert-identification deadline by waiting until the eve of hearing to announce an intention to use another party’s identified experts, where that approach defeats the purpose of advance disclosure and would unfairly surprise the opponent.
- Whether to grant a continuance lies largely within the tribunal’s discretion; a continuance request tied to a party’s own noncompliance and made shortly before the scheduled hearing may be denied.
- After an HCAO award is rejected and the matter proceeds in circuit court under the statutory scheme and implementing rules, courts assess timeliness and procedural compliance based on the governing triggers and deadlines; minor or technical objections will not justify dismissal where the claimant substantially follows the prescribed process and the defendant shows no meaningful prejudice.

## Conclusion

Golub v. Spivey affirmed a malpractice judgment where the HCAO panel enforced an expert-identification order by barring a noncomplying defendant’s expert testimony and denying a last-minute continuance, and the appellate court also rejected the defendant’s effort to undo the circuit-court case on technical timing grounds after the arbitration award was rejected.


Golub v. Spivey, 520 A.2d 394 (1987)