Dismissal Revision: Women First v. Harris 2
The Baltimore Medical Malpractice Lawyer Blog presents analysis of significant issues in Maryland medical malpractice cases. In this post, I delve into the question of how a circuit court can cause a revision of a dismissal that it has entered in a medical malpractice case, specifically using the Court of Special Appeals reported opinion in Women First Ob/Gyn Assocs. LLC v. Harris, 232 Md. App. 647 (2017) as a case study. In part 1 of the post on this case, I explored the issue of employer liability when the plaintiff had dismissed the employee. In part 3, I examine the issue of rebuttal expert testimony.
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 specifically 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 and acting within the scope of her employment. (Op. at 1).
At trial, the plaintiff told the court that they were dismissing the doctor with prejudice. The plaintiff’s lawyer also repeated the stipulation and added that the group was responsible for the doctor’s actions. Counsel then agreed that the court would instruct the jury that the doctor acted as the group’s agent. However, 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. The circuit court, however, denied the motion. On the plaintiff’s request, the court entered a new docket, making a revision the prior entry as a motion/stipulation that is a dismissal without prejudice. This ruling, which was in favor of the plaintiff’s request, was a crucial step in the case.
The circuit court, asserting its power, amended the plaintiff’s motion to dismiss with prejudice to without prejudice. This action, which was within the court’s authority, was a significant move in the case. The court directed the clerk to make a new, separate docket entry, effectively altering the course of the case. Importantly, there was no written order of dismissal.
The jury found for the plaintiff and awarded $426,079 in damages. The group appealed. (Id. at 7-8).
Court of Special Appeals
In a case of first impression, the CSA first concluded 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 do not litigate the merits against the agent, vicarious liability remains. (Id. at 32).
The CSA then addressed the circuit court’s use of its revisory power. The defense argued that the plaintiff did not move to dismiss the claim. Still, instead, the parties presented a stipulation of dismissal. The defense added that the plaintiff did not file the required written motion under Rule 2-535(b). Even if the plaintiff had filed a written motion, the defense contended that the plaintiff was not entitled to revisory relief. (Id. at 35-36).
The CSA stated that since it already determined that the dismissal did not release the group, the court’s revision became irrelevant. In addition, Rule 2-535(b) was inapplicable because it governs the revision of a final judgment. Here, there was no final judgment. The circuit court revised an interlocutory oral ruling approving the dismissal. That action was proper under Rule 2-602(a)(3), demonstrating the court’s commitment to following the correct procedures. (Id. at 36-38).
The CSA then addressed the issue that there was no separate document for the dismissal as required by Rule 2-601(a). The CSA found that the parties waived the requirement. There was a docket entry for the dismissal, the separate document failure was inadvertent, and the parties did not object. (Id. at 38-39).
Commentary by Baltimore Medical Malpractice Lawyer Mark Kopec on Revision of a Dismissal
As with the first issue, the CSA and the circuit court again applied well-established law to give place to the parties’ intentions. Unfortunately, in an attempt to avoid answering for its negligence, the defendant asserted an argument under an inapplicable rule.
Fortunately, the CSA applied the correct rule. In doing so, it placed substance over form to effectuate the parties’ intentions and uphold the jury’s finding of malpractice on the defendant’s part.
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.