 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Lerman v. Heemann11/29/1996
ther than that they are more than a required jurisdictional amount.
(c) Establishing liability of health care provider. -- In any action for damages filed under this subtitle, the health care provider is not liable for the payment of damages unless it is established that the care given by the health care provider is not in accordance with the standards of practice among members of the same health care profession with similar training and experience situated in the same or similar communities at the time of the alleged act giving rise to the cause of action.
(d) Maryland Rules of Procedure applicable. -- Except as otherwise provided, the Maryland Rules of Procedure shall apply to all practice and procedure issues arising under this subtitle.
(Emphasis added.)
Appellant posits that Dr. Heemann asserted a "claim" against him when he filed his Rule 2-614 motion; that the claim, as between Dr. Heemann and Dr. Lerman, has never been arbitrated in the HCAO; that the amount now claimed by Dr. Heemann was more than the concurrent $20,000 jurisdiction of the District Court and, therefore, the dictates of section 3-2A-02 prevent Dr. Heemann from asserting his claim for contribution in the circuit court. Appellant maintains that Dr. Heemann's only choice under the circumstances is to file a new claim for contribution at the in order to comply with the explicit requirements of the [Health Claims Arbitration Act]. In its posture before the trial court, appellee's "claim" was merely an attempt to circumvent the statutory framework that the General Assembly put in place for the timely assertion of cross-claims and the resolution of claims for medical injury such as the present. Accordingly, the trial court should have denied appellee's Motion.
The term "claim" as used in section 3-2A-02(a) of the Courts Article is "to be broadly interpreted to mean 'aggregate of operative facts giving ground or occasion for judicial action, as distinguished from a cause of action.'" Adler v. Hyman, 334 Md. 568, 573, 640 A.2d 1100 (1994) (quoting Group Health Ass'n v. Blumenthal, 295 Md. 104, 112, 453 A.2d 1198 (1983)). Under this definition, Dr. Heemann's claim is indeed subject to the provisions of the Health Claims Malpractice Act ("the Act"), and Dr. Lerman can be liable for contribution only if Dr. Heemann has proven that he and Dr. Lerman are joint tortfeasors, i.e., presents proof that the negligence of both caused injury to the original plaintiff. Adler, (supra) , 334 Md. at 574. As appellant points out, the issue of his medical malpractice must first be resolved in arbitration under the Act. Id. This avails appellant nothing, however, because here the issue of Dr. Lerman's malpractice was first resolved in arbitration.
The General Assembly did not intend to require that the issue of a health case provider's negligence be twice submitted to the HCAO for arbitration. The goal of the Act was to lower the cost of litigation involving allegations of medical malpractice. As stated in Group Health Association v. Blumenthal, (supra) , 295 Md. at 113-114 (1983):
The legislative intent may be gleaned from the Medical Malpractice Insurance Study Committee Report to the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House. This report delineates the primary object of the Committee's proposal (id. at 3, emphasis added):
"The basic proposal of the Committee is the requirement that all health care malpractice claims over $5,000 shall be submitted to arbitration prior to the filing of suit."
The goal of the Committee's proposals was to establish a "mechanism to screen malpractice claims to the filing of suit." Report at 3. In the Committe
Page 1 2 3 4 5 Maryland Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|