 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
James v. Butler12/18/2003
: JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS; JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS ARTICLE §4-401; JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS ARTICLE §10-104(c); EVIDENCE; JURY VERDICT; JURISDICTIONAL LIMIT
A plaintiff, having taken advantage of the evidentiary shortcut provided by § 10-104 (c), is precluded from recovering more than $25,000.00, the jurisdictional limit of the District Court, as prescribed by Maryland Code (1973, 1998 Replacement Volume) § 4-401 of the Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article, notwithstanding the fact that the case was removed from the District Court and tried in the Circuit Court.
Opinion
Maryland Code (1973, 1998 Replacement Volume) § 10-104 (b) and (c) of the Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article, for certain purposes, see subsection (b) (1) and (2), permits the admission into evidence at the trial of a civil action in the District or Circuit Court of "a writing or record of a health care provider," provided that advance notice of the intention to offer the writing or record into evidence is given and a copy of the writing or record is supplied to the opposing party. The issue in this case involves whether compliance with § 10-104 has an impact on the amount that a plaintiff who prevails following a trial in the Circuit Court may recover. Or in other words, whether that plaintiff, having taken advantage of the evidentiary shortcut provided by § 10-104 (c), is precluded from recovering more than $25,000.00, the jurisdictional limit of the District Court, as prescribed by Maryland Code (1973, 1998 Replacement Volume) § 4-401 of the Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article, notwithstanding the fact that the case was removed from the District Court and tried in the Circuit Court. The Circuit Court for Prince George's County concluded that Clarence James, the plaintiff and the petitioner herein, was not so limited, and it entered judgment, consistent with the jury's verdict, accordingly. Addressing the appeal filed by Nathaniel Lee Butler, the defendant and respondent herein, the Court of Special Appeals disagreed. Butler v. James, 135 Md. App. 196, 761 A.2d 1036 (2000). It "interpret § 10-104 ... to require that, once a plaintiff has introduced medical records pursuant to the statute, recovery is limited to $25,000." Id. at 206, 761 A.2d at 1041-42. In addition to explaining that, " o allow a post-trial amendment of the ad damnum clause to conform to the verdict would defeat this requirement," id. at 206, 761 A. 2d at 1042, the intermediate appellate court held "that, by proceeding pursuant to § 10-104, independent of the statutory limitation ...,[the petitioner] is estopped from pursuing damages in excess of that allowed under § 4-401." Id. at 211, 761 A. 2d at 1044. We issued the writ of certiorari at the petitioner's request, to consider the correctness of those decisions. James v. Butler, 362 Md. 624, 766 A2d 147 (2001). We shall affirm. Because we agree with the Court of Special Appeals as to its first ground of decision, we do not reach the estoppel issue.
The petitioner sued the respondent in the District Court of Maryland, sitting in Prince George's County, hoping to recover damages for injuries he allegedly suffered in an automobile accident, for which he contended the respondent was at fault. The ad damnum of that complaint prayed $25, 000.00, the maximum amount allowed for actions of that kind in the District Court. The respondent prayed a jury trial, thus removing the case to the Circuit Court for Prince George's County.
Thereafter, pursuant to § 10-104, the petitioner filed notice of his intention to introduce medical records and bills and a wage and salary verification form, without a testimonial predicate being provided by a medical
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Maryland Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
By using the system, you agree to TERMS OF SERVICE
|