October 2026 Maryland Certiorari Grants

The Supreme Court of Maryland today granted review in five civil appeals.

Muluget Gebrehawariat v. Omar Dibba – No. 35, September Term, 2026 (Unreported ACM Opinion by Judge Ripken)
Issue – Courts & Judicial Proceedings – 1) Did the Appellate Court err in extending the patient-therapist privilege under Courts & Judicial Proceedings Article §9-109 to communications made during a child-forensic interview, where the psychologist was retained by counsel solely to conduct a forensic assessment rather than to provide diagnosis or treatment?

State of Maryland, et al. v. Cameron Cunningham – No. 36, September Term, 2026 (Reported ACM Opinion by Chief Judge Wells)
Issue – Torts – Did ACM err in determining that the Maryland Tort Claims Act’s three-year deadline for bringing suit is subject to minority tolling, where complying with that deadline is a condition precedent to the State’s waiver of sovereign immunity?

Pro-Football, LLC t/a The Washington Commanders, et al. v. Curtis Brooks – No. 37, September Term, 2026 (Unreported ACM Opinion by Judge Berger)
Issues – Workers’ Compensation – 1) Is an employee “regularly employed” in Maryland under Labor & Employment Article § 9-203(a)(2) based solely upon an employment contract contemplating possible future work in Maryland when any future Maryland work depended upon the employee first surviving a competitive roster-reduction process? 2) Did ACM depart from Pro-Football, Inc. v. McCants, 428 Md. 270 (2012), and Pro-Football, Inc. v. Tupa, 197 Md.App. 463 (2011), by replacing their fact-dependent inquiry into the regularity of an employee’s Maryland employment with a categorical “ongoing employment relationship” test satisfied by the mere existence of an employment contract?

ASAP Roofing & Exteriors, Inc. v. Myers Management, LLC, et al. – No. 38, September Term, 2026 (Unreported ACM Opinion by Judge Reed)
Issues – Civil Procedure – 1) Whether the Court of Special Appeals’ (now known as the Appellate Court of Maryland) decision in Abrishamian v. Washington Medical Group, P.C., 216 Md.App. 386, 408, 86 A.3d 681 (2014) which broadly permits disqualification of counsel alleged to be a necessary witness a) without a hearing and b) “to any aspect of the litigation the circuit court deems appropriate” should be reconsidered by this court. 2) Whether disqualification of a party’s chosen counsel in a civil case requires sworn testimony and an evidentiary hearing when facts are contested and which party bears the burden of proof. 3) Whether the circuit court applied the proper standing in refusing to award Petitioner attorneys’ fees regarding the disqualification dispute given that Petitioner was awarded all of the relief it sought; Petitioner had the contractual right to recover all of its “costs of collection;” and all of Petitioner’s claims were based on a common core of facts.

CoreLife Management Services, Inc. v. Calvert Health System, Inc., et al. – No. 39, September Term, 2026 (Unreported ACM Opinion by Judge Berger)
Issues – Civil Procedure – 1) Did ACM err in holding that CoreLife failed to preserve for appellate review its challenges to the default judgment? 2) Did ACM err in holding that the circuit court properly entered a default judgment against CoreLife and dismissed CoreLife’s counterclaims under Rule 2-613 as a sanction for noncompliance with a scheduling order? 3) Did ACM err in upholding the circuit court’s damages award?