Paula Szyjka v. Peter Vandermeer
Filing
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:12-cv-02834-RDB. Copies to all parties and the district court. [999572798].. [14-1439]
Appeal: 14-1439
Doc: 48
Filed: 04/28/2015
Pg: 1 of 5
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-1439
ROMAN SZYJKA, Individually;
Husband and Wife,
ROMAN
AND
PAULA
SZYJKA,
As
Plaintiffs - Appellants,
v.
PETER VANDERMEER, M.D.; ADVANCED RADIOLOGY, P.A.; BALTIMORE
WASHINGTON MEDICAL CENTER, INC.,
Defendants - Appellees,
and
MIB PARTNERSHIP, LLP,
Defendant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore.
Richard D. Bennett, District Judge.
(1:12-cv-02834-RDB)
Submitted:
April 16, 2015
Decided:
April 28, 2015
Before NIEMEYER and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
James O’C Gentry, Emily C. Malarkey, SALSBURY, CLEMENTS, BEKMAN,
MARDER & ADKINS, LLC, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellants.
Andrew E. Vernick, Matthew J. Chalker, VERNICK & ASSOCIATES,
Appeal: 14-1439
Doc: 48
Filed: 04/28/2015
Pg: 2 of 5
LLC, Annapolis, Maryland; John T. Sly, Nicole M. Deford, WARANCH
& BROWN, LLC, Lutherville, Maryland, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
Appeal: 14-1439
Doc: 48
Filed: 04/28/2015
Pg: 3 of 5
PER CURIAM:
Appellants
Roman
medical-malpractice
others,
alleging
Szyjka
action
that
and
Paula
against
Dr.
Dr.
Szyjka
Peter
Vandermeer
brought
Vandermeer
improperly
identify an abnormality in Mr. Szyjka’s brain.
resulted in a defense verdict.
failed
this
and
to
A jury trial
We affirm.
Appellants first challenge the district court’s ruling that
one of their experts, Dr. Joseph Landolfi, a neurologist and
neuro-oncologist, could not testify regarding the standard of
care
for
radiologists.
The
district
court
found
that
Dr.
Landolfi’s testimony was barred by Md. Code Ann., Cts. & Jud.
Proc. § 3-2A-02(c)(2)(ii) (2013), and lacked foundation.
We
review a district court’s decision to exclude expert testimony
for abuse of discretion.
390
(4th
Cir.
establish
its
2014).
United States v. Garcia, 752 F.3d 382,
“The
admissibility
proponent
by
a
of
the
testimony
preponderance
of
must
proof.”
Cooper v. Smith & Nephew, Inc., 259 F.3d 194, 199 (4th Cir.
2001); see Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc., 509 U.S. 579,
597 (1993) (noting that “[Fed. R. Evid.] 702 . . . assign[s] to
the trial judge the task of ensuring that an expert’s testimony
both rests on a reliable foundation and is relevant to the task
at
hand”).
parties
on
Our
appeal
review
leaves
of
us
the
joint
without
appendix
doubt
that
filed
the
by
the
district
court did not abuse its discretion in finding that the Szyjkas
3
Appeal: 14-1439
Doc: 48
Filed: 04/28/2015
Pg: 4 of 5
failed to establish an adequate foundation for admitting Dr.
Landolfi’s testimony regarding the standard of care. ∗
Appellants also challenge the district court’s instruction
to the jury regarding its review of a doctor’s conduct.
See
East v. United States, 745 F. Supp. 1142, 1149 (D. Md. 1990).
“Although we review a district court’s refusal to give a jury
instruction for abuse of discretion, we conduct a de novo review
of any claim that jury instructions incorrectly stated the law.”
United States v. Mouzone, 687 F.3d 207, 217 (4th Cir. 2012)
(citations omitted).
law
and
does
erroneous.”
not
“So long as the charge is accurate on the
confuse
or
mislead
the
jury,
it
is
not
Hardin v. Ski Venture, Inc., 50 F.3d 1291, 1294
(4th Cir. 1995).
“While the content of jury instructions in a
diversity case is a matter of state law, the form of those
instructions is governed by federal law.”
conclude
that,
taking
the
jury
Id. at 1293.
instructions
as
a
whole,
We
the
district court’s nonpattern instruction was permissible as it
correctly stated Maryland law and did not confuse or mislead the
jury.
See Hetrick v. Weimer, 508 A.2d 522, 529 (Md. Ct. Spec.
App.
1986)
(approving
jury
∗
instruction
stating
that
Because Dr. Landolfi’s testimony regarding the standard of
care lacked adequate foundation, we do not reach the question of
whether Md. Code Ann., Cts. & Jud. Proc. § 3-2A-02(c)(2)(ii)
also bars this testimony. See Creekmore v. Maryview Hosp., 662
F.3d 686, 690 (4th Cir. 2011).
4
Appeal: 14-1439
Doc: 48
Filed: 04/28/2015
reasonableness
of
doctor’s
Pg: 5 of 5
actions
is
determined
based
on
“circumstances as they then existed at the time of the treatment
. . . rather than [on] hindsight”), rev’d on other grounds, 525
A.2d 643 (Md. 1987).
Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court.
We
dispense
contentions
with
are
oral
argument
adequately
because
presented
in
the
facts
and
the
materials
legal
before
this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
5
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?