In Univ. of Maryland Med. Sys. Corp. v. Waldt, 411 Md. 207, 232, 983 A.2d 112 (2009), the defendant--physician utilized a device, the "neuroform stent," to treat an aneurysm in the injured plaintiff's brain. Id. at 214. During the procedure, an artery was perforated, causing the injured plaintiff, Rebecca Waldt ("Ms. Waldt"), to sustain a stroke. Id. The plaintiffs filed a complaint, alleging that the defendants failed to properly obtain the injured plaintiff's informed consent before performing the procedure. Id. at 213. During trial, the plaintiffs called an expert witness, Gerard Debrun, M.D. ("Dr. Debrun"), to testify regarding the issue of informed consent. Id. The trial court excluded Dr. Debrun's testimony, finding that he lacked sufficient experience with the neuroform stent to be qualified as an expert. Id. The defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing that without expert testimony on the informed consent issue, there was no question for the jury. Id. The court agreed, and granted the defendants' motion. Id. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision. Id. at 237. Dr. Debrun testified that he traditionally utilized a balloon procedure, and that he never used the neuroform stent because it was not approved for use until after he retired from active practice. Id. at 232. The Court held that the trial court evaluated Dr. Debrun's testimony and his qualifications, and correctly based its ruling on his inexperience with the neuroform stent. Id. at 232.