See Debbas, 389 Md. at 368-69, 885 A.2d at 805-06. This Court held that discovery did not invalidate the Certificate because the revelations arose subsequent to filing of the Certificate. See Debbas, 389 Md. at 371, 885 A.2d at 807. In the present case, however, the invalidating circumstances—that Dr. Burt is an unqualified expert in the field of vascular surgery—existed at the time of filing. Furthermore, Dr. Breslin's argument ignores two cases distinguished by the Court in Debbas—Witte, and D’Angelo v. Si. Agnes Healthcare, Inc., 15 , 865 (1982) ("So strong is the public policy that this Court will, sua sponte, vacate judgment and order an action dismissed where the litigants have not followed the special statutory procedure.”); D’Angelo, 157 Md.App. at 652, 853 A.2d at 826 (<HOLDING>). 26 . Powell presents an argument in his brief
holding that the appropriate standard of review is abuse of discretion holding that dismissal without prejudice was appropriate where a plaintiff failed to name each of the persons alleged to have violated the appropriate standard of care holding summary judgment appropriate where plaintiff failed to establish product identification holding that de facto dismissal without prejudice was appropriate where a plaintiffs certificate failed to state with specificity that a defendant was the proximate cause of the plaintiffs injury holding that a review committee of the kansas board for discipline of attorneys had the authority to dismiss a complaint against an attorney with or without prejudice and when dismissal was ordered without specifying the nature of the dismissal the dismissal was without prejudice to the filing of later proceedings on the same matter