General Assembly Website:
Find your elected representatives:
Mark G. Hranicka v. Chesapeake Surgical, Ltd., et al. No. 83, September Term, 2014
In this case, the Court of Appeals rejected the argument that an electronically submitted claim form was insufficient to preserve the statute of limitations where a hard copy claim form and signed medical authorization were not received by the Workers’ Compensation Commission until after limitations had expired. MDC’s amicus brief argued that an electronic submission is merely a “provisional filing” and is not an actual claim filing under the regulations. The Court found that there is nothing in either the statute or the regulations (COMAR) that allowed the Commission to “relate back” an untimely hard copy filing to a timely electronic submission. Both an electronic submission and the hard copy documents must be received by the Commission within the limitations period or the claim will be rejected as untimely.
University of Maryland Medical System Corporation v. Guiseppina Muti, et al.
MDC’s brief argues that in a wrongful death case, a plaintiff’s failure to join as parties plaintiff all known statutory beneficiaries should cause the action to be dismissed with prejudice, in order to protect the integrity of the judicial process and prevent unfair prejudice to the defendant and the “missing” plaintiffs.
D.R.D. Pool Service, Inc. v. Thomas Freed, et al.
In this case the Court of Appeals rejected a challenge to the constitutionality of the cap on non-economic damages. MDC joined fellow amici Medical Mutual, MedChi and the American Medical Association in arguing for the constitutionality of the state’s cap on non-economic damages in serious personal injury cases. The plaintiffs argued that the statute is unconstitutional because it violates the equal protection clauses of the United States Constitution and the Maryland Declaration of Rights, as well as the right to jury trial and the doctrine of separation of powers.
Kelly Green, a minor, etc. et al. vs. N.B.S., Inc., et al.
MDC’s amicus brief addressed and refuted the plaintiffs’ argument that Maryland’s statutory cap on noneconomic damages is a “special law” in violation of the Maryland Constitution. MDC’s brief analyzed the entire body of Maryland precedents concerning “special law” challenges, as well as cases from other states, and argued that the cap cannot be considered an unconstitutional special law. The Court of Appeals agreed, and found the cap to be consistent with the Maryland Constitution.
Briefs and Links
Practice Group Links
Employment and Labor Law
Other Useful Sites
Maryland Defense Counsel, Inc.
Contact Us »
|©2018 Maryland Defense Counsel, Inc. All Rights Reserved.|