slide 1 to 4 of 4

CQE Extension Right: Dunham v. UMD 2

Kopec Law Firm

The Baltimore Medical Malpractice Lawyer Blog examines issues in Maryland medical malpractice cases. In this post, I discuss the right to a filing extension and the timing requirements for a Certificate of Qualified Expert (CQE). The case is the Court of Special Appeals published opinion in Dunham v. University of MD Med. Ctr., 237 Md. App. 628 (2018). This post is Part 2 of a Blog series on this case. In Part 1, I discussed the issue of naming agents in the CQE.

Factual Background

The plaintiffs filed suit against two related hospitals, alleging the failure to prevent and then treat pressure ulcers. (Op. at 1). The defendants filed a motion to strike the plaintiffs’ CQE for failing to identify individual medical providers. (Id. at 6). The plaintiffs opposed the motion and also, in the alternative, asked for their right to an extension to file an amended CQE. (Id. at 6-7). The circuit court then granted the motion to strike, declined to give an extension, and dismissed the case. The statute of limitations had expired by this time. (Id. at 8-9 & n.5)

Before filing an appeal, the plaintiffs filed a motion in HCADRO to extend the time to file a CQE using the same claim number. (Id. at 9-10). HCADRO granted a 60-day extension. (Id. at 11).

CQE Extension Right
CQE Extension Right

The plaintiffs filed a second CQE with HCADRO and then filed a complaint in the circuit court. The defendants moved to strike, arguing that the case was on appeal and the circuit court no longer had jurisdiction. (Id. at 12). The circuit court refused to stay the case and dismissed it. (Id. at 13).  The plaintiffs appealed both cases, and the Court of Special Appeals consolidated them. (Id. at 14).

Court of Special Appeals on Right to CQE Extension

CJP § 3-2A-04(b)(1)(ii) states, in pertinent part: 

(ii) In lieu of dismissing the claim or action, the panel chairman or the court shall grant an extension of no more than 90 days for filing the certificate required by this paragraph, if: 

1. The limitations period applicable to the claim or action has expired; and 

2. The failure to file the certificate was neither willful nor the result of gross negligence.

The CSA held that the right to CQE extension is mandatory where:

  1. The limitations period has expired.
  2. There is no finding of gross negligence and willful failure by the plaintiff.
  3. At most, 180 days have passed since the filing of the claim.

The CSA found that all were present in this case. (Id. at 29). As a result, the circuit court erred in failing to grant a 90-day extension and dismissing the case. Accordingly, the CSA vacated the order and instructed the circuit court to grant an extension. (Id. at 30-31).

The CSA then turned to the question of how long the extension should be. Starting from the date the plaintiffs filed their claim in HCADRO, the 180 period had not expired when the circuit court dismissed the first filing. The dismissal prevented the plaintiffs from filing an amended CQE. Accordingly, the CSA directed that the plaintiffs now have 35 days to file an amended CQE. That is the number of days that remained in the 180 days on the date the circuit court dismissed the first filing. (Id. at 31-32).

Second Filing

The CSA also stated that the plaintiffs’ second filing using the same claim number was ineffective. Once the court dismissed the matter, the plaintiffs’ remedy was to re-file in HCADRO. Even if the court had not dismissed the case, the plaintiffs’ filing of the second CQE was untimely because it was on day 192, past 180 days. This decision underscores the importance of timely and effective filings in medical malpractice cases.

Because the CSA gave the plaintiffs relief in the appeal from the first filing, the plaintiffs’ appeal from the second filing was moot. This decision highlights the procedural complexities that can arise in medical malpractice cases, and the importance of understanding and adhering to the relevant timing requirements.

Commentary by Baltimore Medical Malpractice Lawyer Mark Kopec on the Right to an Extension for a CQE

Dunham is another example of the intricate nature of the CQE requirements, a challenge that both lawyers and courts have grappled with. In this instance, the complexity revolved around the timing of filing the CQE and the availability of an extension. Other cases have delved into the content requirements of the CQE and the qualifications of who can sign one. For more in-depth discussions on these issues, refer to the Blog posts under expert testimony.

In Dunham, the circuit court’s ruling was significant. The judge recognized that the appellate courts have held that an insufficient CQE is the same as not filing one. However, the judge’s rationale did not distinguish those cases. Instead, it appears the judge made a contrary ruling because of a disagreement with those cases. This ruling underscores the profound impact of judicial decisions on the outcome of cases.

One interesting aspect of the CSA opinion is the time left on the extension. The CSA chose the date the court dismissed the first filing, which allowed the plaintiffs 35 more days. The plaintiffs already have their second CQE. However, in other cases, the plaintiffs may not.

For any plaintiff who has a rejected CQE, the message is clear: prompt action is crucial. It’s important to pursue an acceptable CQE without delay, especially during the pendency of a motion for the right to a CQE extension. This urgency is a key factor in navigating the legal process effectively.

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.

What Our Clients Say About Us

At the Kopec Law Firm, we are grateful that satisfied clients express their appreciation!

Mark is a knowledgeable and empathetic lawyer who speaks directly and concisely to evaluate your problem. He doesn't use attorney jargon that confuses people, rather he talks clearly. Although he couldn't help me with my situation, the consultation I had was productive because he answered my questions and gave me some clarity.

Shahnaz in Ellicott City

Dear Mark, I just wanted to express my gratitude for your dedication to my case. As you know, it has been a long and upsetting process for me, which would have been a great deal longer had it not been for the hours you put in helping me with this emotional roller coaster. Thank you again.

Shannon T. in Anne Arundel County

Dear Mark, thank you so much for your help and kindness. You provided the guidance and assistance we needed to obtain some understanding in loss of our child. We will never forget the professional and personal service provided. If anyone is in need of legal representation, I will certainly send them your way. God bless.

Kim C. in Cecil County

I wanted to say thank you for spending time with me regarding my questions about legal issues. Mere words cannot really express my gratitude. You seem to truly care about people.

Client in Baltimore City

Dear Mr. Mark, I’m truly grateful to have had you work on my son’s case. You were up front at all times and were on key every step of the way. I will always recommend your firm. Thank you so much for helping my son. P.S. Every time my son sees you on TV, he says “Mom, that’s my lawyer, Mr. Mark.” 🙂 Thank you again. You did an excellent job on the...

K.N. in Baltimore City

Dear Mark, we want to thank you for all the hard work and time your firm put in our case. You took the time to listen to us and research our case. You were honest and up front regarding the case. You responded to questions and concerns quickly. We would highly recommend your firm and services to anyone who is in need of legal representation. We...

Rebecca T. in Prince George’s County

Super Awesome team and staff! Worked with them for a case they handled for my grandchild about 10yrs ago! Would definitely use them again! I recommend them to everyone I know. Could never thank them enough! Very thorough and knowledgeable! Always kept us in the loop throughout the entire process!!!!

Letha C. in Prince George’s County

Mark explained everything in detail and brought clarity to all of my concerns.

Doris in Edgwater

I am very happy and thankful for your help. You responded very quickly. I am very happy to recommend you.

Linda in Chevy Chase
  1. 1 Free Consultation
  2. 2 Talk to a Lawyer
  3. 3 No Fee Unless You Win
Fill out the contact form or call us at 800-604-0704 to schedule your consultation.

Send Us a Message