Skip to main content

Medical malpractice evidence

Hawkins v. Ajmera

Updated Nov 12, 2026

In brief

Where it stands
Dismissed

Petition denied.

What it’s about
Hawkins and other plaintiffs said Maryland courts violated their rights to fair process and equal treatment by excluding their medical expert and ending their case against Kunal Ajmera and other doctors after records they called false were added shortly before trial.
Who it affects
The order ended the plaintiffs' request for Supreme Court review but did not decide whether their due-process or equal-protection rights were violated.

Summary: written with AI from the case record.

Illustration for Roxanne Hawkins, et al., Petitioners v. Kunal Ajmera, et al.
Conceptual illustration · AI-generated

What it's about

The U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear the case (denied review), leaving the claims undecided.

Hawkins and the other plaintiffs said records that conflicted with hospital records they had obtained were added six days before trial, after their expert had prepared an opinion based on the earlier records.

The dispute arose from how Maryland courts handled evidence and expert testimony in the plaintiffs' medical-malpractice case.

Question presented

When the Supreme Court of a State upholds lower courts’ decisions to strike Plaintiffs’ Medical Expert and grant summary judgment to Defendant-Doctors based thereon despite {i} “manufactured” (i.e., false) medical records being allowed into the case six days before trial, {ii} the “manufactured” medical records being verified by them countering the original hospital medical records acquired by Plaintiffs pursuant to statutory-mandated guidelines before proceeding to court, {iii} Plaintiffs’ expert’s rational refusal to attend a post-deadline deposition with the “manufactured” medical records he never reviewed prior to issuing his opinion, an opinion that relied 100% on the authentic hospital medical records provided to him over a year earlier, and {iv} the allowance of the lower state courts’ decisions to undermine the entire pre-litigation-statutory process in Maryland 1 , hence enabling medical providers and their attorneys to cheat the process established to prevent frivolous litigation against medical professionals and enable due process and equal protection of the laws for victims of below-standard-of-care, has Petitioners’ due process and equal protection rights been denied.

Documents

1

Docket activity

6
  • New analysis added

    Nov 12, 2026 · Court records

  • AI analysis generated: Case Briefing

    Nov 12, 2026 · Generated

  • AI analysis generated: Decision Record

    Nov 12, 2026 · Generated

  • Case data updated: summary, question_presented, generation_metadata

    Nov 12, 2026 · Court records

  • Case data updated: question_presented, extraction_metadata

    Nov 11, 2026 · Court records

Show 1 more
  • Brief added: Petition

    Jul 17, 2026 · Court records

More questions

1
Did the Supreme Court decide whether the records were false?
No. The Court's order did not decide whether the records were false; that was part of the plaintiffs' allegations.

Sources

Primary materials plus reporting. Best-effort analysis: this explainer relies on a mix of primary materials and trusted secondary sources. Official filings and opinions remain authoritative.

Checked Nov 12, 2026Methodology

Court records and filings

Reporting and analysis