Dismissal of Agent: Women First v. Harris
The Baltimore Medical Malpractice Lawyer Blog, a trusted source for issues in Maryland medical malpractice cases, presents a significant case in this post. We delve into the issue of employer liability when the plaintiff has given a dismissal of the agent with prejudice. The case in focus is the Court of Special Appeals reported opinion in Women First Ob/Gyn Assocs. LLC v. Harris, 232 Md. App. 647 (2017).
Factual Background
The plaintiff filed a complaint for medical malpractice in the Circuit Court for Montgomery County. The claim was against an OB/GYN and her practice group. It alleged the doctor negligently performed a laparoscopic hysterectomy and caused a ureter injury. The parties then filed a stipulation that the doctor was an employee of the group. Also, she was acting within the scope of her employment. (Op. at 1).
At trial, the plaintiff told the court that they were giving a dismissal of the doctor agent with prejudice. The plaintiff’s lawyer also repeated the stipulation and added that the group was responsible for the doctor’s actions. Counsel agreed that the court would instruct the jury that the doctor acted as the group’s agent. The court did not make any ruling. A docket entry, however, stated that the plaintiff made an oral motion, which the court granted. (Id. at 2-3).
At the close of the plaintiff’s case, the defense moved for judgment, arguing that the dismissal of the doctor with prejudice released the group. (Id. at 4). The circuit court denied the motion. On the plaintiff’s request, the court made a new docket entry, amending the prior entry that the motion/stipulation is a dismissal without prejudice. (Id. at 5).
The jury found for the plaintiff and awarded $426,079 in damages. The group appealed. (Id. at 7-8).
Court of Special Appeals
The Court of Special Appeals conducted a thorough review of the argument de novo, ensuring that the circuit court’s decision was not made in error. The plaintiff did not receive any compensation for the dismissal, raising the question of whether the voluntary dismissal with prejudice operated as an adjudication on the merits against the doctor. This was a question that Maryland had not addressed before, and the CSA’s review was comprehensive and meticulous.
The CSA’s decision was informed by a comprehensive review of many cases nationwide that have arrived at different results. The CSA concluded that the better view is that dismissal with prejudice against an agent does not necessarily make the vicarious liability claim against the employer nonviable. When the plaintiff gives no consideration and the parties have not litigated the merits against the agent, vicarious liability remains. In the instance here, the dismissal with prejudice was merely a procedural mechanism to remove the agent as a defendant when it was unnecessary to sue the agent anyway.
Commentary by Baltimore Medical Malpractice Lawyer Mark Kopec on Dismissal of Agent
This case is another unfortunate example of a defense counsel trying to avoid a just result based on a technicality that had no basis in law. The interesting question is when the defense counsel decided they would try to evade liability by arguing for a release. Was it when the plaintiff’s lawyer first announced that the dismissal would be with prejudice? At that time, defense counsel agreed that the court would ultimately instruct the jury that the doctor was acting as an agent of the group. If the defense counsel knew then that they would argue release, their statement concerning the jury instruction was of questionable candor toward the court.
Why would the defense counsel not immediately say they would argue release at the end of the plaintiff’s case? Because the plaintiff would have corrected the situation immediately. By waiting, the defense counsel could then argue that the dismissal could not be undone at that point and after prior entry on the docket.
Thankfully, both the circuit court and the Court of Special Appeals upheld the integrity of the legal process. They recognized that the defense’s argument on dismissal of the agent was contrary to the parties’ intention and sound law and also would have resulted in an injustice. The CSA rejected the technicality and upheld the jury’s verdict, ensuring that the defendant was held liable for the malpractice it committed.
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.