Golub v. Spivey

On the recommendation of her primary doctor, Sheila Spivey (defendant) saw Dr. David Golub (plaintiff) for a pyelogram to study her kidney functionality. The pyelogram revealed inflammation and kidney dysfunction, but Golub reported no issues. The negative report kept Spivey’s physicians from providing necessary treatment for her condition, and Spivey had suffered permanent kidney damage by the time the issue was discovered. Spivey filed a claim with the Health Claims Arbitration Office, naming Golub and two other physicians as defendants. The arbitration panel issued an order requiring all parties to submit the names of their expert witnesses by a specified date. The two other physicians timely submitted their experts’ names, but Golub did not identify anyone. Just prior to the arbitration hearing, Spivey filed a motion in limine to preclude Golub from presenting any expert testimony. Golub objected to the motion, claiming that he intended to call the same experts whose names the other two physicians had submitted. Golub further requested a continuance. The arbitration panel granted Spivey’s motion and denied Golub’s request for a continuance. At the arbitration hearing, Spivey dismissed the two other physicians as defendants in her claim. The arbitration panel found in favor of Spivey and rendered an award against Golub. A Maryland state court affirmed the award, and Golub appealed to the Maryland appellate court, claiming that the arbitration panel should not have granted Spivey’s motion or denied his continuance request.