Plaintiffs filed a Complaint against Dr. Wong alleging medical malpractice, lack of informed consent, and loss of consortium in the Circuit for Baltimore City. Dr. Wong treated Plaintiff's eye condition from 2001 to 2003 in Baltimore City; however, Dr. Wong ceased his practice in the city in 2003. Dr. Wong filed a Motion to Dismiss for Improper Venue arguing, pursuant to § 6-201(a), that he did not reside, nor carry on, regular business in Baltimore City. Section 6-201(a) states:

(a) Civil actions. – Subject to the provisions of §§ 6-202 and 6-203 and unless provided by law, a civil shall be brought in a county where the defendant resides, carries on a regular business, is employed, or habitually engages in a vocation.

After hearing arguments, the Honorable Judge Pierson transferred the action to the Circuit Court for Baltimore County. Plaintiffs appealed and the Court of Special Appeals, in an unreported decision, held that the proper time period for determining whether the defendant "carries on" business or "habitually engages in a vocation" is the time when Complaint is filed.

The Court of Appeals granted certiorari to determine whether Dr. Wong's medical privileges at Mercy Medical Center and teaching privileges at the University of Maryland School of Medicine were insufficient to confer venue in Baltimore City because those privileges had not been used since 2003 and the late 1990s, respectively.

Venue focuses on the geographical nexus related to the appropriate county in which an action may proceed. Plaintiffs argued that under § 6-201(a), venue should be determined at the time of the alleged negligence, rather than the time the suit was brought. Plaintiffs argued that at the time of the alleged negligence, 2001 to 2003, Dr. Wong practiced medicine in Baltimore City. Additionally, Dr. Wong examined approximately fifty patients per month during those years, maintained medical privileges at Johns Hopkins University, and a volunteer appointment as a Clinical Assistant Professor at the University of Maryland School of Medicine.

Dr. Wong countered by relying on the legislative history of § 6-201(a) and Nodeen v. Sigurdsson, 408 Md. 167, 178 (2009), which held, that for the purposes of determining venue, the word "resides" mandates a consideration of residency at the time the suit is brought.

The Court first noted that the statute is cast entirely in the present tense. "The use of the words, ‘carries' and ‘engages,' coupled with the phrase, ‘a civil action shall be brought,' evinces the intent of the Legislature to establish a time requirement in the present for determining the proper venue." See Burnside, No. 4, slip op. at 29. Accordingly, the Court held that the proper time to determine venue, dependent on where the defendant carries on business or habitually engages in a vocation, is at the time the suit is brought. For Dr. Wong, venue was proper in Baltimore County. Furthermore, having staff privileges or hospital privileges is insufficient to be considered doing business. Also, although Dr. Wong maintained teaching privileges at the University of Maryland Medical School, he had not used them since 1997. Merely listing those affiliations is insufficient to be deemed "regular business" or "habitually engage[ing] in a vocation." Accordingly, the Court affirmed the transfer of venue from Baltimore City to Baltimore County.