cause of the injuries to Claimant, Vincent D’Angelo.” See D’Angelo, 157 Md.App. at 637, 853 A.2d at 817. In both of these cases, a challenge to the Certificate was allowed, pursuant to CJ § 3-2A—04(b)(3)(ii), "because it was based upon a statutory prerequisite for a valid certificate and only examined the circumstances in existence at the time of the Certificate's filing." Debbas, 389 Md. at 384, 885 A.2d at 814. Because the issue in the present case is one regarding the statutory prerequisites of the Certificate and circumstances in existence at the time the Certificate was filed (i.e., that Dr. Burt was an anesthesiologist attesting to the standard of care of a vascular surgeon), Dr. Breslin's arrow falls short of the mark. 25 . See e.g., Kearney, 416 Md. at 668-69, 7 A.3d at 616-17 (<HOLDING>); Walzer, 395 Md. at 585, 911 A.2d at 440
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 proper remedy for failure to exhaust is dismissal of the claim without prejudice holding expert report requirement fulfilled in claim against nurse by providing expert report of nurse as to standard of care and expert report of medical doctor as to causation holding that dismissal of a pro se complaint for failure to state a claim should generally be without prejudice but if the plaintiff has been given an opportunity amend his complaint and fails to do so the dismissal may be with prejudice holding that dismissal without prejudice is required when a plaintiff fails to meet the requirement of attaching a proper expert report to the certificate