Maryland Federal Court Denies TCPA Class Certification in ExamWorks Prerecorded Call Case

Case Snapshot

• Case: Smith v. ExamWorks, LLC, et al.
• Court: U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland
• Case No.: 8:21-cv-02746-PX
• Judge: Paula Xinis
• Decision Date: September 21, 2026
• Law: Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. § 227
• Key Issue: Class certification involving prerecorded appointment reminder calls and prior express consent
• Outcome: Motion for class certification denied

A federal court in Maryland has denied class certification in a Telephone Consumer Protection Act lawsuit involving prerecorded calls made by ExamWorks LLC in connection with medical examinations for insurance claims involving GEICO.

In Smith v. ExamWorks, LLC, plaintiff Michael Smith sought to represent a class of insurance claimants who received prerecorded appointment reminder calls on their cellphones. U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis denied the class-certification motion on September 21, 2026.

The decision addressed several class-certification issues, including whether individuals who provided their phone numbers to ExamWorks could be included in the proposed class. In discussing that question, the court examined what constitutes prior express consent under the TCPA.

Lawsuit Involves Prerecorded Medical Examination Reminders

The case concerns prerecorded calls made by ExamWorks, which schedules independent medical examinations, or IMEs. The calls were directed to people pursuing insurance coverage for injuries arising from automobile accidents and were intended to remind recipients about examination appointments.

Smith was not a GEICO insured. He had made an injury claim after being a passenger in a vehicle driven by a GEICO-insured driver. According to the court, the insured submitted Smith’s claim through GEICO’s online system and supplied one of Smith’s cellphone numbers. Smith maintained that he had not given that number to the insured.

Smith filed his TCPA lawsuit against ExamWorks and GEICO in October 2021, alleging violations arising from nonconsensual, non-emergency prerecorded calls.

Court Examines What Constitutes Express Consent

A significant part of the latest decision concerned people who may have supplied their phone numbers directly to ExamWorks during the appointment-scheduling process.

Smith argued that providing a telephone number alone was insufficient because the individual would also have to agree specifically to receive prerecorded calls.

The court disagreed with that interpretation of the TCPA.

Judge Xinis concluded that the statutory language concerns prior express consent to receive the call, rather than separate consent to the particular technology used to deliver it. The court explained that providing a telephone number can therefore indicate consent to calls made for the particular purpose associated with providing that number.

The court pointed to decisions from other federal courts involving circumstances in which consumers provided telephone numbers in connection with particular transactions or services.

Consent Remains Connected to the Purpose

The decision should not be read as establishing that providing a phone number creates unrestricted consent for any future automated or prerecorded communication.

The court framed consent around the particular purpose for which an individual supplied the telephone number. Its opinion cited precedent stating that, for the prior-express-consent exception to apply, a call must relate to the reason the person provided the number in the first place.

This difference narrows the practical significance of the ruling. The analysis concerns whether providing a number can demonstrate consent to related calls, not whether possession of a consumer’s number alone authorizes unrelated robocalls.

Class Definition Creates Consent Questions

The proposed class covered people who received prerecorded ExamWorks calls on cellular numbers provided to ExamWorks by GEICO, but who had not themselves provided the called number to ExamWorks.

The record, however, showed that ExamWorks sometimes obtained telephone numbers during scheduling communications. That created questions about whether some individuals identified as potential class members had actually provided their numbers and therefore potentially consented to related calls.

The court’s consent discussion arose in evaluating those class-certification issues.

The court denied certification on several grounds. ExamWorks’ records did not reliably show which claimants had confirmed their phone numbers directly with its schedulers, making the proposed class difficult to identify without individual review. 

Smith’s own claim also turned on unusual facts, including a dispute over which of his two numbers was supplied and his attorney’s withdrawal of consent for direct contact. The court found him atypical and inadequate as a class representative and concluded that individual consent questions would predominate.

Decision Adds to TCPA Consent Discussion

The ruling provides another federal court interpretation of what “prior express consent” can mean when consumers provide telephone numbers in connection with a transaction or service.

For organizations using prerecorded calling technologies, the decision highlights the continuing importance of how a number was obtained, why it was provided, and whether subsequent calls relate to that original purpose.

These questions can become particularly important as businesses expand their use of automated voice technologies. At the same time, the case is a class-certification decision tied to its specific factual record rather than a blanket authorization to place prerecorded calls whenever a business possesses a consumer’s phone number.