Md.App. 631, 853 A.2d 813 (2004)—both of which are more similar factually to the present case and allowed discovery revelations to invalidate "facially valid” certificates. In Witte, the defendant chai lenged a Certificate based on deposition testimony that showed the attesting expert did not meet the twenty percent rule. See Witte, 369 Md. at 523, 801 A.2d at 163. In D’Angelo, the plaintiff filed Certificates that did not name individually the defendant physicians but instead stated that "I have concluded that the foregoing medical providers failed to comply with the standards of care and that such failure was the proxima g that dismissal without prejudice was the appropriate remedy for failure to attach the expert report to the Certificate); Carroll, 400 Md. at 201, 929 A.2d at 39-40 (<HOLDING>); Oxtoby v. McGowan, 294 Md. 83, 91, 447 A.2d
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 holding that a physicians negligence need only be a proximate cause not the proximate cause of plaintiffs injury 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 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 negligence must be the proximate cause of injury