Justia Maryland Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Everett Robinson was transferred to Canton Harbor Healthcare Center, a skilled nursing facility, for follow-up care after a stroke. During his stay, he developed pressure ulcers, which allegedly worsened after his transfer to other facilities, leading to his death. Felicia Robinson, his widow, and his surviving children filed a complaint against Canton Harbor, alleging negligence in allowing the pressure ulcers to develop and worsen, causing his wrongful death. They submitted a certificate of a qualified expert, signed by registered nurse Anjanette Jones-Singh, attesting that Canton Harbor breached the standard of care, causing the pressure ulcers.The Circuit Court for Baltimore City dismissed the complaint, ruling that as a registered nurse, Jones-Singh was not qualified to attest to the proximate cause of Robinson's pressure ulcers. The Robinsons appealed, and the Appellate Court of Maryland vacated the dismissal, holding that a registered nurse is not disqualified per se from attesting that a breach of nursing standards proximately caused pressure ulcers. The case was remanded for further proceedings.The Supreme Court of Maryland affirmed the Appellate Court's judgment. The court held that a registered nurse may attest in a certificate that a breach of nursing care standards at a skilled nursing facility proximately caused a pressure ulcer, provided the nurse relies on a pre-existing diagnosis and does not make a medical diagnosis. The court also held that a registered nurse meets the peer-to-peer requirement to attest to breaches of nursing care standards but not to the standards applicable to physicians. The case was allowed to proceed based on the certificate provided by Nurse Jones-Singh. View "Canton Harbor Healthcare v. Robinson" on Justia Law

In 2020, the Maryland General Assembly passed the Housing Opportunities Made Equal (HOME) Act, which added "source of income" to the list of prohibited considerations in housing rental or sale. The appellant, a housing voucher recipient, applied to rent an apartment in the appellee's complex. The appellee applied a minimum-income requirement, combining all sources of income to determine if the total exceeded 2.5 times the full gross rent. The appellant's combined income, including her voucher, did not meet this threshold, leading to the rejection of her application. The appellant sued, claiming the minimum-income requirement constituted source-of-income discrimination under § 20-705.The Circuit Court for Baltimore County granted summary judgment to the appellee, finding that the appellee's policy did not discriminate based on the source of income but rather on the amount of income. The court ruled that the appellee neutrally applied its income qualification criteria and rejected the appellant based on the amount of her income, not its source.The Supreme Court of Maryland reviewed the case and held that the appellee's counting of voucher income in the same manner as other income sources did not entitle it to summary judgment. The court found that this approach did not resolve the appellant's disparate impact claim, which asserts that a facially neutral policy has a disparate impact on a protected group without a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason. The court vacated the judgment of the circuit court and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion, emphasizing the need to address the disparate impact analysis. View "Hare v. David S. Brown Enterprises" on Justia Law

A married couple, with three young children, filed for divorce. The mother requested primary custody, pendente lite child support, and alimony, while the father requested primary custody and child support. A family magistrate found both parents capable of earning significant income and denied the mother's request for pendente lite child support and alimony, recommending shared custody and shared payment of the mortgage and utilities for the marital home.The Circuit Court for Howard County adopted the magistrate's recommendations and denied the mother's exceptions to the magistrate's report. The mother appealed, citing Md. Code Ann., Cts. & Jud. Proc. § 12-303(3)(v), which allows appeals from interlocutory orders for the payment of money.The Appellate Court of Maryland dismissed the appeal, holding that an interlocutory order denying pendente lite child support and alimony is not appealable under CJ § 12-303(3)(v) because it does not direct the payment of money. The mother then petitioned the Supreme Court of Maryland for a writ of certiorari.The Supreme Court of Maryland affirmed the Appellate Court's judgment, holding that CJ § 12-303(3)(v) authorizes appeals only from interlocutory orders that direct the payment of money, not from orders denying such requests. The Court concluded that the legislative history and case law support this interpretation, emphasizing that the statute's plain language does not permit appeals from orders denying the payment of money. View "Adelakun v. Adelakun" on Justia Law

The case involves a dispute over a parcel of land situated at the border of adjoining properties in Owings Mills, Maryland. Dr. Sharon Saunders owns one property, while Steven and Ellen Gilman own the neighboring property. The Gilmans claimed ownership of the disputed land through adverse possession, having maintained and used the land for several decades. In 2018, the Gilmans constructed a fence on the disputed property, prompting Dr. Saunders to commission a property survey and subsequently file a lawsuit to establish the boundary line and seek damages for trespass and other tort claims.The Circuit Court for Baltimore County ruled in favor of the Gilmans, declaring them the absolute owners of the disputed property by adverse possession. The court ordered the Gilmans to prepare and file an amended deed and plat reflecting their ownership. Dr. Saunders appealed the decision, but the Appellate Court dismissed the appeal, stating that the order was not a final judgment and did not fall under any exceptions allowing for an interlocutory appeal.The Supreme Court of Maryland reviewed the case to determine whether the Appellate Court erred in its decision. The Supreme Court held that the Circuit Court's order declaring the Gilmans as owners by adverse possession and directing the preparation of a deed was immediately appealable under Maryland Code, Courts & Judicial Proceedings Article §§ 12-303(1) and 12-303(3)(v). The Supreme Court reversed the Appellate Court's dismissal and remanded the case for further proceedings to address the merits of Dr. Saunders's appeal. View "Saunders v. Gilman" on Justia Law

Two former police officers, Mark Zukowski and Joshua Ruggiero, were injured in the line of duty and subsequently awarded both accidental disability retirement (ADR) benefits and workers' compensation benefits. The ADR benefits exceeded the workers' compensation benefits, resulting in an offset of the latter. The key issue in this case was whether attorney’s fees should be calculated before or after applying the statutory offset under Maryland’s Workers’ Compensation Act.The Maryland Workers’ Compensation Commission awarded Zukowski and Ruggiero workers' compensation benefits, but these were largely offset by their ADR benefits. The Commission calculated attorney’s fees based on the reduced, post-offset amount of workers' compensation benefits. Zukowski and Ruggiero argued that attorney’s fees should be calculated based on the total award before applying the offset, contending that the terms "compensation" and "benefits" in the relevant statutes should be interpreted differently.The Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County affirmed the Commission’s decision, agreeing that attorney’s fees should be calculated after applying the offset. The court found no distinction between "compensation" and "benefits" in this context and held that attorney’s fees are a lien on the compensation actually payable to the claimant.The Supreme Court of Maryland reviewed the case and affirmed the lower courts' decisions. The Court held that the terms "compensation" and "benefits" are interchangeable in this context, meaning that attorney’s fees should be calculated based on the amount of workers' compensation benefits payable after applying the statutory offset. The Court emphasized that the attorney’s fees are a lien on the compensation awarded, which is the amount actually payable to the claimant after the offset. The Court also rejected the argument that this interpretation was unconstitutional, noting that attorneys voluntarily enter into contingency fee arrangements and are aware of the statutory framework governing such fees. View "Zukowski v. Anne Arundel Cnty." on Justia Law

The case involves three consolidated appeals concerning the constitutionality of the Child Victims Act of 2023, which retroactively eliminated the statute of limitations for child sexual abuse claims. The plaintiffs, who are alleged survivors of childhood sexual abuse, filed lawsuits against various institutions, including the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Washington, the Board of Education of Harford County, and The Key School, Inc. The defendants argued that the 2023 Act unconstitutionally abrogated their vested rights by reviving claims that were previously time-barred.In the Circuit Court for Prince George’s County, the court denied the Archbishop’s motion to dismiss, determining that the relevant statute was a statute of limitations, not a statute of repose, and thus did not create vested rights. The Circuit Court for Harford County reached a similar conclusion regarding the Board of Education of Harford County. In the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, the court certified the question of the 2023 Act’s constitutionality to the Supreme Court of Maryland without ruling on The Key School’s motion to dismiss.The Supreme Court of Maryland held that the 2017 statute, which the 2023 Act amended, was a statute of limitations rather than a statute of repose. The court reasoned that the statute of limitations is a procedural device that does not create vested rights, whereas a statute of repose creates substantive rights that cannot be retroactively abrogated. The court concluded that the 2023 Act did not retroactively abrogate vested rights and was constitutional as applied to the defendants. The court applied heightened rational basis review and found that the 2023 Act bore a real and substantial relation to addressing the problem of delayed reporting of child sexual abuse and the need for justice for survivors. The judgments of the lower courts were affirmed, and the certified question was answered in the negative. View "Archbishop of Washington v. Doe" on Justia Law

A group of Baltimore City registered voters, led by Anthony J. Ambridge, filed a petition seeking judicial review of a proposed amendment to the Baltimore City Charter, known as "Question F," which was to appear on the 2024 general election ballot. The petitioners argued that the proposed charter amendment was not proper "charter material" and that the ballot language was not understandable. The Maryland State Board of Elections opposed the petition, arguing that the claims were barred by laches and that the judicial review mechanism used by the petitioners was inappropriate.The Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County ruled in favor of the petitioners, determining that the claims were not barred by laches and could be raised under the judicial review mechanism. The court found that Question F violated Article XI-A of the Maryland Constitution as it was not proper charter material and that the ballot language was not easily understandable by voters. The court ordered that the results of Question F should not be certified.The Supreme Court of Maryland reviewed the case and held that EL § 9-209(a) is not a proper mechanism to challenge whether a proposed charter amendment is proper charter material or whether the ballot language meets the standards for understandability. The Court also held that the petitioners' claims were barred by laches due to the unreasonable delay in filing the petition, which caused prejudice to the State Board, the City, and the electorate. The Court further concluded that the ballot language conveyed, with minimum reasonable clarity, the actual scope and effect of the measure, allowing voters to make an informed choice. The Supreme Court of Maryland reversed the circuit court's order and remanded the case for entry of judgment in favor of the appellants. View "State Bd. of Elections v. Ambridge" on Justia Law

Caruso Builder Belle Oak, LLC entered into a contract with Ronalda Sullivan on July 17, 2015, for the sale of a property in Prince George’s County, Maryland. The property was subject to deferred private water and sewer assessments, and Caruso provided a disclosure that was allegedly noncompliant with Maryland’s Real Property Article § 14-117(a)(3)(i). The parties settled on the contract on February 24, 2016. On February 22, 2019, Sullivan filed a complaint against Caruso seeking monetary penalties under § 14-117(b)(2)(i) for the noncompliant disclosure.The Circuit Court for Prince George’s County dismissed Sullivan’s complaint, ruling that her claim was barred by Maryland’s three-year statute of limitations, which began to run on the date of the contract, July 17, 2015. Sullivan appealed, and the Appellate Court of Maryland reversed the circuit court’s decision, holding that the statute of limitations began to run on the date of settlement, February 24, 2016, making Sullivan’s claim timely.The Supreme Court of Maryland reviewed the case and held that a seller’s violation of § 14-117(a)(3)(i) gives rise to a cause of action because the purchaser suffers an informational harm. The court determined that the statute of limitations began to run on the date of the contract, July 17, 2015, because Sullivan knew or should have known of the noncompliant disclosure at that time. Therefore, her claim filed on February 22, 2019, was barred by the three-year statute of limitations. The Supreme Court of Maryland reversed the Appellate Court’s decision and remanded with instructions to affirm the Circuit Court’s dismissal of Sullivan’s complaint. View "Caruso Builder Belle Oak v. Sullivan" on Justia Law

The case involves a historic Black burial ground in Montgomery County, Maryland, known as Moses Cemetery. The land, which contains the remains of many individuals, including formerly enslaved persons, was sold and developed into an apartment complex and parking lot in the 1960s. The development process desecrated the burial ground, and it is likely that human remains are still interred there. The current owner of the property is the Housing Opportunities Commission of Montgomery County (HOC). The plaintiffs, including descendants of those buried in Moses Cemetery and a local church, sought to challenge HOC's plan to sell the land to a developer.The Circuit Court for Montgomery County granted the plaintiffs' request for a preliminary injunction to prevent the sale and later issued a writ of mandamus compelling HOC to file an action under Maryland's Business Regulation Article § 5-505 before selling the property. The court found that there was overwhelming evidence of the burial ground's existence and that many bodies likely remain on the property.The Appellate Court of Maryland reversed the circuit court's decision, holding that § 5-505 is an optional procedure for selling burial grounds and does not impose a mandatory duty on HOC to file an action before selling the land. The Appellate Court reasoned that the statute is designed to allow certain burial grounds to be sold free from claims but does not require this procedure to be followed in all cases.The Supreme Court of Maryland affirmed the Appellate Court's judgment in part and reversed it in part. The Court held that the common law of burial places in Maryland provides an appropriate framework for disputes regarding burial grounds and that extraordinary relief in the form of a writ of mandamus was not appropriate. The Court remanded the case to the circuit court, allowing the plaintiffs to seek leave to amend their complaint to state a claim for relief based on an alleged violation of specific rights protected under the common law of burial places. The Court also held that § 5-505 does not abrogate the common law of burial places and provides an optional procedure for selling burial grounds. View "BETHESDA AFRICAN CEMETERY COALITION, v. HOUSING OPPORTUNITIES COMMISSION OF MONTGOMERY COUNTY" on Justia Law

A hospital and a physician entered into a settlement agreement to resolve a dispute over the suspension of the physician's clinical privileges. The agreement required the hospital to submit a report to a regulatory authority using specific language agreed upon by both parties. The hospital, however, selected codes for the report that generated additional text, which the physician claimed contradicted and was inconsistent with the agreed language. The physician sued for breach of the settlement agreement.The Circuit Court for Montgomery County granted summary judgment in favor of the hospital, ruling that the settlement agreement did not restrict the hospital's selection of codes for the report. The Appellate Court of Maryland disagreed, holding that a reasonable person would understand the hospital's obligation to report using specific language to preclude it from including contradictory and materially inconsistent language. The Appellate Court vacated the summary judgment, finding that whether the hospital breached its obligation was a question for the jury.The Supreme Court of Maryland reviewed the case and affirmed the Appellate Court's decision. The court held that the hospital's obligation to report using specific, agreed-upon language precluded it from including additional language that contradicted and was materially inconsistent with the agreed language. The court also affirmed that the physician's claim regarding the hospital's failure to provide a timely hearing was released in the settlement agreement. The case was remanded for further proceedings to determine if the hospital's actions constituted a breach of the settlement agreement. View "Adventist Healthcare v. Behram" on Justia Law