|
|
|
Federal Court Not Bound by Maryland Health Care Malpractice Claims Act Procedures
(March 2011) By Colleen K. O’Brien
For more information, contact Paul Farquharson.
Willever v. USA,
No. RWT 09cv3072 (U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland, Mar. 4, 2011) |
View pdf
The issue in this case resulted from a clash between the
Maryland Health Care Malpractice Claims Act (HCMCA) and the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure. The underlying case involved a medical malpractice claim that
was controlled by the HCMCA. The HCMCA establishes certain conditions precedent
for filing state malpractice claims. At issue in this case was the HCMCA
requirement that a defendant file a certificate of defendability and report of a
qualified expert no later than 120 days after the claimant files its certificate
of merit of a qualified expert. Because the government failed to timely file the
necessary expert certificate and report, the Plaintiffs moved for summary
judgment against the government on the issue of liability, pursuant to the
HCMCA.
The Court disagreed with the Plaintiffs, and concluded that
HCMCA’s requirements concerning the defendant’s filing of an expert certificate
and report directly conflicted with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2),
37(c) and 55(d), which relate to a party’s obligation to provide expert
discovery and consequences for failing to do so. Where there was a direct
conflict, the Federal Rules controlled. The Court further held that even if the
Federal Rules and HCMCA did not conflict, because the HCMCA requirement was
procedural, rather than substantive, the Court would not apply it under
Erie R.
Co. v. Thompson, 304 U.S. 64 (1938) and Hanna v. Plumer, 380 U.S. 460 (1965)
which hold that a federal court sitting in diversity will apply state
substantative law and federal procedural law.
Moreover, the Court concluded that the United States’
sovereign immunity prevented it from being subject to HCMCA’s certificate
requirements. Finally, the Court concluded that even if the United States
was required to file an expert certificate and report under HCMCA, the Court
would not exercise its discretion to sanction the government by precluding
it from challenging liability. For all of those reasons, the Court denied
the Plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment.
|
|
|
Top
