Justia Maryland Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Decedent Elliott Multi died in March 2005. Plaintiffs were the widow of Decedent and the adult children of her marriage with Decedent. Plaintiffs filed a claim against the University of Maryland Medical Systems Corporation (Defendant), alleging medical malpractice and wrongful death. Defendant moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to join a necessary party, a stepson whom Decedent had adopted during a prior marriage. The circuit court dismissed Plaintiffs' wrongful death claims for failure to join the stepson as a "use" plaintiff. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that, under the totality of the circumstances, the circuit court abused its discretion in dismissing Plaintiffs' wrongful death claims as a sanction for the omission of the stepson as a use plaintiff, as there was no basis for inferring that the stepson was omitted for the purpose of hiding the litigation from him or in the hope that Plaintiffs would increase their recovery. Remanded. View "Univ. of Md. Med. Sys. Corp. v. Muti" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs were the widow of a decedent and the adult children of her marriage with the decedent. Plaintiffs asserted claims under the Wrongful Death Statute against University of Maryland Medical Systems Corporation (UMMSC). In their complaint, Plaintiffs did not identify or notify a stepson, Ricky Muti, whom the decedent had adopted during a prior marriage. The circuit court dismissed Plaintiffs' wrongful death claims arising from the failure to name Ricky as a "use" plaintiff in violation of Md. R. 15-1001. The court of special appeals held (1) Plaintiffs violated Rule 15-1001, and (2) the circuit court abused its discretion by denying Plaintiffs' leave to amend without first considering whether Ricky would be prejudiced by the denial. The Supreme Court vacated the judgment of the special court of appeals and remanded with instructions to reverse the judgment of the circuit court, holding that, under the totality of the circumstances, the circuit court abused its discretion in dismissing Plaintiffs' wrongful death claims as a sanction for the omission, where there was no basis for inferring that Ricky was omitted as a use plaintiff for the purpose of hiding the litigation from home or in the hope that Plaintiffs would increase their recovery. View "Univ. of Md. Med. Sys. Corp. v. Muti" on Justia Law

In McQuitty I, Dylan McQuitty, by and through his parents, successfully sued Ms. McQuitty's physician and his practice (collectively, Spangler) for having failed to obtain Ms. McQuitty's informed consent to treatment, which resulted in severe injuries to Dylan during his birth. In a series of post-trial motions following McQuitty I, Spangler moved to reduce the verdict in favor of the McQuittys. After the verdict but prior to resolution of the post-trial motions, Dylan died. The circuit court found that Dylan's death did not absolve the portion of the judgment allocated to Dylan's future medical expenses. The Court of Appeals held (1) the trial court properly denied Spangler's motions for post-trial relief; (2) the post-verdict death of Dylan did not absolve Spangler from the finality of the jury's award of future medical expenses; (3) the hospital, for which summary judgment was entered in its favor as to liability and damages during McQuitty I, was not a joint tort-feasor under Maryland's Uniform Contribution Among Tort-Feasors Act, such that its settlement release from the McQuittys did not entitle Spangler to a reduction of the judgment against them; and (4) post-judgment interest on the verdict accrued from the date of the original judgment. View "Spangler v. McQuitty" on Justia Law

The Board of Physicians sanctioned Petitioner, a medical doctor, upon finding that Petitioner violated several subsections of Md. Code Ann. Health Occ. 14-404 when he falsely indicated on an application for renewal of his medical license that he was not involved in a medical malpractice action. The circuit court and court of special appeals affirmed. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding (1) the Board did not err in either its interpretation of Md. Code Regs. 10.32.02.03.C(7)(d) or its application of that regulation to the statement of Petitioner's counsel that Petitioner would be in court on a date proposed to conduct an unrelated case resolution conference; (2) the Board properly decided that Petitioner violated section 14-404(1)(3) by failing to include on his application the pendency of the malpractice action; and (3) the Board did not err in determining that the term "willful" means intentional for purposes of section 14-404, and the record contained substantial evidence that Petitioner willfully made false statements in connection with his involvement in a medical malpractice action in his application for license renewal. View "Kim v. Bd. of Physicians" on Justia Law

Katherine Lewis filed a medical malpractice suit against her former psychiatrist, Dr. Jeremy Waletzky, for injuries she allegedly sustained as a result of medications he prescribed to her. Lewis did not comply with various administrative filing requirements set forth in the Health Care Malpractice Claims statute (the Act) before filing her complaint in the district court. Waletzky filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, arguing that Lewis was required to have complied with the Act's filing requirements. Lewis responded that she was not subject to the act because the injury occurred in Washington, D.C., and therefore, D.C. law governed her malpractice suit. The district court granted Waletzky's motion to dismiss after invoking the public policy exception to lex loci delicti. The Court of Appeals granted certification to answer whether Maryland recognizes the public policy exception to lex loci delicti based on the Act. The Supreme Court held (1) the filing provisions at issue in this case were procedural, mandating application of those requirements under Maryland choice-of-law principles, as the law of the forum; and (2) therefore, the doctrine of lex loci delicti did not apply under the circumstances. View "Lewis v. Waletzky" on Justia Law

At issue in this medical malpractice action was a requirement of the Healthcare Malpractice Claims Act (HCMCA) that a plaintiff in a medical malpractice action file a proper Certificate of Merit (Certificate), and whether, in this case, Respondent's filing of a Certificate that did not meet the requirements of Code Ann. Cts. & Jud. Proc. 3-2A-02 required dismissal, without prejudice, of the underlying claim rather than the grant of summary judgment to Petitioner. Here the circuit court granted summary judgment in favor of Petitioner. The court of special appeals reversed, holding that because Respondent filed a Certificate of an expert that did not meet the requirements of section 3-2A-02, dismissal without prejudice of the underlying claim was required. On appeal, Petitioner argued that because Respondent's attesting expert was not qualified to attest to the standard of care allegedly breached by Petitioner, summary judgment was proper. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the plain language of the HCMCA was clear and required dismissal without prejudice of the underlying claim for the filing of a non-compliant Certificate, regardless of the particular qualification or requirement the Certificate or its attestor failed to meet. View "Breslin v. Powell" on Justia Law