 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
James v. Butler12/18/2003
hich shall have the force of law until rescinded, changed or modified by the Court of Appeals or otherwise by law."
Not unexpectedly, the respondent takes the opposite position. Not only does he argue that § 10-104 applies to the case sub judice, but he asserts that its appropriate application to the facts and circumstances herein presented requires an affirmance of the judgment of the Court of Special Appeals. As he did in the intermediate appellate court, see James, 135 Md. App. at 201, 761 A. 2d at 1039, the respondent submits:
"The legislative history of Annotated Code of Maryland, Courts and Judicial Proceedings § 10-104 ... clearly demonstrates that the Maryland General Assembly has never intended a procedure which would permit the introduction of medical bills or records at trial without a physician's testimony in either istrict or circuit court cases in which the amount in controversy exceeded the jurisdictional limits of the istrict court. Once the trial court in the present case allowed [the petitioner] to change the "amount in controversy" from his original ad damnum of $25,000 to the jury verdict of $310,340.91, that is precisely what occurred. The trial court's decision to allow a Rule 2-341 amendment of the ad damnum under the facts of this case constitutes a failure to acknowledge and apply the clear intent of this statute."
As indicated, the respondent relies on the legislative history of § 10-104. Of particular importance, in that regard, he insists, citing Department of Legislative Reference Bill Summary, was the fact that, as originally proposed and enacted, in 1996, the relaxed standard for the admission of medical records and bills was intended to apply only in the District Court. The statute was amended the next year. The respondent points out that the amendment originally proposed, see H. B. 423, would have permitted the use of the § 10-104 procedure in "a proceeding in the District Court or a Circuit Court" to admit medical records or writings "offered in the trial of a civil action in the District Court or a Circuit Court," without regard to the amount in controversy; H. B. 423, like the recently enacted § 10-104, which had no need for it, did not then contain a provision prescribing a limitation on the amount in controversy. However, as enacted the respondent emphasizes that the bill not only contained a provision limiting the cases to which it applied to those involving an "amount in controversy in the action in the circuit court [that] does not exceed the amount specified in § 4-401 of [the Courts] article for that type of action," but it required the action to have been filed in the District Court and been transferred to the Circuit Court. Finally, while acknowledging its inapplicability to the case sub judice, the respondent notes that as a result of the 1999 amendment to § 10-104, filing in the District Court is no longer a prerequisite to the use of § 10-104, but that the amount in controversy limitation remains one; effective October 1, 1999, see § 10-104 (b) (2) (ii), its use is permitted in " circuit court if the amount in controversy does not exceed the amount specified in § 4-401 of [the Courts] article for that type of action."
Viewing § 10-104 from its inception to its 1998 form, the respondent maintains, buttresses his interpretation of the statute. He posits:
"The original statute was intended as a boon to the plaintiffs' bar by allowing cases of limited value to be litigated in the istrict court in such a manner that the costs of trial would not be prohibitive. In order to eliminate that benefit, the defense bar could force the plaintiff to incur the cost of proving medical causation and damages by demanding
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.
|
|