- Free Consultation: 800-604-0704
Entry of Judgment: Scott v. Universal 2
This Maryland Medical Malpractice Blog discusses other Maryland personal injury cases that involve issues that also come up in medical malpractice. The Appellate Court of Maryland issued an unreported opinion in Scott v. Universal Protection Service, LLC (October 20, 2023). In Part 1 of this blog series, I addressed the issue of the number of joint tortfeasors in a settlement to determine the amount owed by a party that did not settle. In Part 2, I address the issue of entry of judgment.
The plaintiff brought a case in the Circuit Court for Howard County after she tripped and fell at a mall on a floor mat that was allegedly misplaced. She broke her femur. (Op. at 1). The plaintiff then sued the mall, management, janitor, and security. The mall, management, and janitor settled with the plaintiff. (Id. at 1-2).
The plaintiff then went to trial against the security company and obtained a $750,000 jury verdict. The plaintiff contended three joint tortfeasors, and security contended four. The circuit court found there were four and entered judgment accordingly. However, it declined to predate the judgment to the date of the verdict. (Id. at 4).
Entry of Judgment
The procedure for entry of judgment is in Rule 2-601. The Appellate Court stated:
“Section (a) of which, captioned in part “Prompt Entry,” provides, in relevant part, that, upon a verdict of a jury allowing recovery of a specified amount of money, ‘the clerk shall forthwith prepare, sign, and enter the judgment unless the court orders otherwise.’”
The jury returned its verdict on May 27, 2022. However, the circuit court still had to decide the disputed issue of how many tortfeasors, which would determine how much money the court would enter in its judgment. The circuit court decided the entry of judgment issue on June 20, 2022. (Id. at 8).
A circuit court is entitled to enter a judgment nunc pro tunc to the verdict date to commence the post-judgment interest running. See Mona v. Mona Electric, 176 Md. App. 672, 730-31 (2007) and Aronson v. Fetridge, 181 Md. App. 650, 683-687 (2008).
The Appellate Court also stated:
“Apart from resolving a post-judgment motion filed by Allied, which was denied, the one-month delay in this case was for the legally required determination of an appropriate reduction in the verdict due to the existence of other joint tortfeasors, and we see no reason why appellant should be denied post-judgment interest because of that necessary delay. The only way to achieve that result – a fair and permissive result – is to date the judgment nunc pro tunc from the date of the verdict.” (Id. at 9).
Commentary By the Baltimore Medical Malpractice Lawyer
The Appellate Court’s rationale on entry of judgment is persuasive and helpful to medical malpractice plaintiffs. Maryland has a 10 percent post-judgment interest rate. CJP 11-107. Interest rates have been low for over two decades, and the 10% post-judgment interest rate has significantly benefited plaintiffs who must wait for payment pending post-trial motions or appeals.
It significantly adds up on appeals. An appeal to the Appellate Court of Maryland can take one and a half years to complete. For a $1,000,000 medical malpractice verdict, 10% for 18 months totals $150,000.
The Maryland medical malpractice lawyer should specifically use these authorities to ensure the circuit court enters judgment as of the verdict date. Suppose the circuit court has entered judgment on a later date. In that case, the lawyer can file a motion to alter or amend judgment within ten days of the entry of judgment. Rule 2-534. Alternatively, the lawyer also can file a motion for the circuit court to exercise its revisory power. Rule 2-535.
When it is time for the defense to pay the judgment, the medical malpractice lawyer should convey to the defense the amount of post-judgment interest, including the per diem amount. The lawyer should also state that the defense must pay interest through the date the lawyer receives the check, or the lawyer will only provide an order of satisfaction once the defense does.
Mark Kopec is a top-rated Baltimore medical malpractice lawyer. Contact us at 800-604-0704 to speak directly with Attorney Kopec in a free consultation. The Kopec Law Firm is in Baltimore and helps clients throughout Maryland and Washington, D.C. Thank you for reading the Baltimore Medical Malpractice Lawyer Blog.