 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
James v. Butler12/18/2003
made by the legislature.").
The clear and unambiguous language of § 10-104 (b) (2) leaves no doubt as to its meaning, to provide an evidentiary shortcut for the introduction of, and, thus, a more inexpensive way of proving, medical records and bills. Medical records and bills may be admitted into evidence without a testimonial predicate only when § 10-104 (c) is complied with and the amount in controversy does not exceed the jurisdictional amount of the District Court.
There can be no question that under subsection (b) (2) (i), proceedings in the District Court that remain, and are concluded, in that court can result only in a recovery within the jurisdiction of that court. Subsection (b) (2) (ii) is similarly clear. By its clear and express terms, "the provisions of this section [10-104] apply to a proceeding" that meets the requirements of subsection (b) (2). Under that subsection, medical records and bills, in the category of cases to which §10-104 relates, see subsection (a), are admissible, pursuant to subsection (b) (3), in a Circuit Court case that originated in the District Court and in which the amount in controversy does not exceed the amount specified in § 4-401 of the Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article for that type of action. Thus, in order to be able to take advantage of the evidentiary shortcut offered by § 10-104 (c), the proceeding must be one that either is tried in the District Court or, if tried in the Circuit Court, originated in the District Court, but transferred to the Circuit Court, and involves a recovery that does not exceed the jurisdictional limit of the District Court.
The converse likewise must be true: a proceeding that does not satisfy the requirements prescribed by subsection (b) (2) does not qualify for the evidentiary shortcut. If it were otherwise, § 10-104 (b) would be of little, or no, effect. Consequently, before the amendment of § 10-104 in 1999, the evidentiary shortcut could not be utilized, whatever the amount in controversy, in a case originating in the Circuit Court.
The legislative history of § 10-104 confirms this interpretation. As indicated, the statute was enacted in 1996. At that time, there was no doubt that it applied only in cases in which the amount in controversy was within the jurisdictional limit of the District Court, for the medical records and bills had to be offered in a trial in the District Court. Section 10-104 (b) (1) then provided:
"(1) A medical, dental, or hospital writing or record described in this section is admissible under this section if:
"(i) The writing or record is offered in the trial of a civil action in the district court; "(ii) At least 30 days, except as provided in paragraph (2) of this subsection, before the beginning of the trial, the party who intends to introduce the writing or record files with the clerk of the District Court and serves on all other parties as provided under Maryland Rule 1-321: "1. Notice of the party's intent to introduce the writing or record without the support of a physician's, dentist's, or hospital employee's testimony; and "2. A copy of the writing or record; and "(iii) The writing or record is otherwise admissible."
When § 10-104 was amended the next year, the General Assembly did not simply provide for the admission of medical records and bills in the Circuit Court action, as the amendment, as introduced, proposed to do. Rather, it required that the action originate in the District Court and be transferred to the Circuit Court, and it inserted the requirement that the amount in controversy not exceed the jurisdictional limit of the District Court. Although not applicable to the case herein, we have seen yet
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.
|
|