- Free Consultation: 800-604-0704
Plaintiff’s Forum: UM v. Kerrigan
The Baltimore Medical Malpractice Lawyer Blog is dedicated to exploring the intricate legal issues that surface in Maryland medical malpractice cases. In this post, we unravel the complex issue of the plaintiff’s choice of forum, and transferring a medical malpractice case for convenience, also known as forum non conveniens. Our focus is on the Court of Appeals’ reported opinion in the University of MD Med. Sys. Corp. v. Kerrigan, 456 Md. 393 (2017), a case that presents a fascinating legal puzzle.
Factual Background on Plaintiff’s Forum in Medical Malpractice
The plaintiffs, residents of Talbot County, brought a medical malpractice case and chose the Circuit Court for Baltimore City as the forum against three corporate defendants and four individual doctors. The fifteen-year-old plaintiff had shortness of breath and dry coughing. Following an x-ray, the doctor diagnosed the plaintiff with pneumonia and prescribed antibiotics. (Op. at 1-2).
The plaintiff’s symptoms continued. The defendants then diagnosed the plaintiff with heart failure and septic shock. Four months later, the plaintiff received a heart transplant. (Id. at 2).
The defendants motioned to transfer the venue to Talbot County under Rule 7-237(c). The circuit court held a hearing and applied the forum non conveniens factors. The judge concluded that the factors weighed heavily and strongly favored transfer. (Id. at 3).
The plaintiffs appealed, and the Court of Special Appeals reversed. Then, the defendants appealed. (Id. at 5).
Court of Appeals Majority
The standard of review was an abuse of discretion. (Id. at 6). Rule 2-327(c) provides:
On motion of any party, the court may transfer any action to any other circuit court where the action might have been brought if the transfer is for the convenience of the parties and witnesses and serves the interests of justice.
It was undisputed that the medical malpractice plaintiffs could have chosen as their forum Baltimore City or Talbot County. The circuit court must give deference to the plaintiff’s choice of court. The deference shrinks if that forum is not the plaintiff’s residence. (Id. at 11).
The court may only transfer the case if it finds that the factors strongly weigh in favor of transfer. A tie requires no transfer. (Id. at 19). The inquiry is fact-driven, and there are few generalizations. (Id. at 20).
The circuit court found that transfer would be convenient for most of the ten parties. Seven were in Talbot County. The judge concluded that this case was one of the strongest for transfer. (Id. at 23-24). Although plaintiffs submitted a list of over 500 potential witnesses, the circuit court found that the primary and key witnesses were in Talbot County. The CA could not find that the circuit court’s analysis was unreasonable. (Id. at 25).
The CA also concluded that the circuit judge reasonably found that the public interest of justice weighed in favor of transfer. The caseload burden was higher in Baltimore City than in Talbot County. (Id. at 26-27). Accordingly, the CA reversed the CSA. (Id. at 28).
Dissent
Three of the seven judges dissented. The dissenters did not believe that the medical malpractice plaintiff’s choice of forum receives less deference if they do not live there. (Dis. at 1). In addition, much of the negligent conduct occurred in Baltimore, and many damage witnesses were in Baltimore. (Id. at 2).
The court should not hold a plaintiff’s residence against them. Plaintiffs are entitled to select a venue that they find convenient. When three defendants located in Baltimore moved to transfer the case to Talbot County, the circuit court did not deny it because they were not in Talbot County. (Id. at 5-6).
The dissent also believed that the interests of justice factor did not weigh in favor of either jurisdiction. The plaintiffs alleged multiple torts in both jurisdictions. (Id. at 6-9).
Commentary by Baltimore Medical Malpractice Lawyer Mark Kopec on Plaintiff’s Forum
One of the main differences between the majority and the dissent was how to treat the plaintiffs’ right to choose the forum. In addition, the opinions in this case show how different judges can seize on various facts and apply factors differently in reaching their conclusion.
Eleven judges grappled with the transfer question in this case, resulting in six ruling against transfer and five in favor. The contentious nature of this case underscores the complexity of forum non-conveniens transfer questions and the significant role of judicial interpretation in such matters. Each judge’s interpretation of the facts and application of the transfer factors played a crucial role in the final decision.
As a result, the future of forum non-conveniens transfer questions will likely continue to be highly fact-driven and significantly depend on the judge conducting the analysis or reviewing the analysis on appeal. This case sets a precedent that will shape the legal landscape for similar cases in the future, underlining the profound impact of the Court of Appeals’ decision.
The Real Issue
You may be confused if you have been paying attention to the parties’ arguments. The plaintiffs who lived in Talbot County chose Baltimore City as their forum. Baltimore City defendants then moved to transfer the case to Talbot County. If this transfer concerns the parties’ convenience, why did everyone try to move the case to a faraway court?
It is because the choice of forum was not about convenience. Generally, urban juries are more favorable to medical malpractice cases than rural juries. That explains why the plaintiffs wanted the case in Baltimore City, and the defendants wanted the case in Talbot County. They were all willing to travel to get what they wanted. All parties then argued that convenience factors favored the result they wanted. This strategic maneuvering sheds light on the complex tactics involved in legal battles, and it also explains why they fought this issue through two appeals that lasted over two years.
The court docket shows that the defendants won the trial in Talbot County, which not only signifies the end of this particular legal battle but also serves as a practical example of how the forum non-conveniens doctrine can be applied in Maryland medical malpractice cases.
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.