Rosebrock v. Eastern Shore Emergency Physicians, LLC

108 A.3d 423 (2015)

From our private database of 46,400+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Rosebrock v. Eastern Shore Emergency Physicians, LLC

Maryland Court of Special Appeals
108 A.3d 423 (2015)

Facts

In November 2003, Judith Phillips slipped and fell at work. Paramedics immobilized Phillips on a backboard and transported her to a hospital (defendant) run by Shore Health System, Inc. (Shore) (defendant). Dr. Deborah Davis (defendant), an emergency-department physician, diagnosed Phillips with knee and hip contusions. There was no spinal examination noted in Phillips’s chart. Phillips was discharged, but her condition worsened. Doctors subsequently discovered that Phillips had a back fracture. Phillips underwent spinal fusion surgery but experienced complications that left her in a persistent vegetative state. In May 2009, Phillips’s guardian, Sean Rosebrock (plaintiff), brought a medical-malpractice action in Maryland state court against Davis, the hospital, and Shore. At trial, Davis testified that she had no memory of treating Phillips. However, the court allowed Davis to testify about how she typically examined patients on backboards. Davis testified that she saw 5,000 to 6,000 patients per year, that she treated several patients on backboards every shift, and that she conducted spinal examinations on those patients before removing them from the backboards “every single time, every day” at work. The jury ultimately found that Davis had not been negligent in treating Phillips. Phillips died on June 12, 2011. The following day, Rosebrock’s counsel filed a timely notice of appeal of the trial court’s judgment. The appeal asserted, among other things, that the trial court had improperly allowed Davis to present uncorroborated and prejudicial habit testimony regarding Davis’s patient-examination routine. Davis, Shore, and the hospital moved to dismiss the appeal, asserting that Rosebrock and his counsel did not have authority to file an appeal on Phillips’s behalf after her death. Rosebrock asserted that he had authorized counsel to notice the appeal prior to Phillips’s death. Counsel had then noticed the appeal within hours after Phillips’s death but before counsel received notice of her death.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Woodward, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 832,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,400 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 46,400 briefs - keyed to 994 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership