Katz, Abosch, etc., P.A. v. Parkway Neuroscience

* IN THE KATZ, ABOSCH, WINDESHEIM, * GERSHMAN & FREEDMAN, P.A., et SUPREME COURT al. * OF MARYLAND v. * No. 30 PARKWAY NEUROSCIENCE AND * SPINE INSTITUTE, LLC September Term, 2022 * ORDER WHEREAS, in an Opinion issued on August 30, 2023, joined by five Justices, the Supreme Court of Maryland held that “[t]he trial court, in its gatekeeping role under [Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993), and Rochkind v. Stevenson, 471 Md. 1 (2020)], acted within its discretion in analyzing the data and other inputs and assumptions that implicated the reliability of [Respondent’s proposed expert witness Meghan] Cardell’s methodology” but that “the court improperly considered Ms. Cardell’s June 2021 normalizing adjustments relating to trauma/on-call payments as reflecting on the reliability of Ms. Cardell’s methodology”; WHEREAS, the Court determined, in light of its holdings, that “the fair and prudent course of action” was “to order a limited remand to the circuit court under Maryland Rule 8-604(d)(1) so that the trial court may decide to admit or exclude Ms. Cardell’s testimony without consideration of her June 2021 normalizing adjustments as reflecting on the reliability of Ms. Cardell’s methodology”; WHEREAS, the Court directed that, on remand, “[t]he trial court may make that decision based on the existing record or, in its discretion, may allow further examination of Ms. Cardell and/or other witnesses before issuing a new ruling[,]” and further directed that, “[i]n the trial court’s discretion, it also may permit the parties to submit additional written and oral arguments prior to issuing its ruling”; WHEREAS, the Court further directed that “[t]he trial court should provide a written explanation of its decision”; WHEREAS, the Court further stated: “We shall retain jurisdiction over this case” and that, “[a]fter the trial court issues its decision on remand, we shall issue an appropriate Order”; WHEREAS, the mandate issued by Court stated: “JUDGMENT OF THE APPELLATE COURT OF MARYLAND VACATED; CASE REMANDED TO THAT COURT WITH THE DIRECTION TO REMAND THE CASE TO THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR HOWARD COUNTY, WITHOUT AFFIRMING OR REVERSING THE JUDGMENT OF THE CIRCUIT COURT, FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS CONSISTENT WITH THIS OPINION. COSTS TO ABIDE.”; WHEREAS, after the case was remanded to the Circuit Court for Howard County, the Honorable Richard S. Bernhardt, who had initially excluded Ms. Cardell’s testimony, conducted further proceedings, as directed by the Supreme Court of Maryland; WHERAS, Judge Bernhardt on remand permitted the parties to submit additional written and oral arguments, and the parties provided Judge