In Dorsey v. Nold, 362 Md. 241, 256, 765 A.2d 79 (2001) the Court of Appeals reversed the circuit court's exclusion of a witness's testimony as a sanction for violation of a scheduling order requiring all expert witnesses to be identified by a specified date. The Court held that the circuit court's classification of the excluded witness as an expert whose opinion was developed in preparation for litigation was inaccurate. Id. The Court reasoned that, because the witness in question, although a medical expert, had developed his opinion regarding the cause of death while performing an autopsy on the petitioners' deceased child without the consideration of future litigation, the petitioners' failure to inform the respondent that they wished to call the witness by the date listed in the scheduling order for compliance with Maryland Rule 2-402(e)(1) was not a violation of the scheduling order. Id. at 245, 259-60. Although "sanctions are available for the violation of directives in scheduling orders," the Court of Appeals determined it inappropriate for the circuit court to impose sanctions in that case. Id. at 256, 260. In Dorsey, 362 Md. at 253, the Court explained the scope of Maryland Rule 2-402(e)(1) as follows: Maryland Rule 2-402(e)(1), deals with experts intended to be called as witnesses, and discovery of the findings and opinions of such experts, otherwise discoverable and "acquired or developed in anticipation of litigation or for trial." The Court of Appeals held that a trial court did not abuse its discretion when it failed to admit evidence that a defendant physician had failed a board certification exam. Id., supra, at 250-51. The Court noted that "although a physician's failure to pass a board certification examination has been held admissible when the physician testifies as an expert, as being relevant to his or her qualifications as an expert, the general rule is that a physician's inability to pass a medical board certification exam has little, if any, relevance to the issue of whether the physician complied with the standard of care required in his or her treatment of a patient." Id., supra, at 250. The Court concluded that "the fact of failure of a board certification examination makes it neither more nor less probable that the physician complied with or departed from the applicable standard of care in the diagnosis or treatment of a particular patient for a particular condition." Id., supra, at 250-51.