Case Title: Franch v. Ankney

Citation: 341 Md. 350

Docket Number: 39/95

State: maryland

Court: Maryland Supreme Court

Date: 1996-01-29T00:00:00Z

Document:
William A. Franch et al. v. Lottie L. Ankney et vir. - No. 39, 1995
Term
WORKERS' 
COMPENSATION 
-- 
If 
claimant 
receiving 
Workers'
Compensation settles third party tort suit without knowledge of, or
approval of, employer/insurer, employer/insurer is entitled to a
credit reimbursement for the amount of the settlement, as well as
for any proven prejudice.
EVIDENCE - Expert Witness -- Testimony of expert witness in
attorney malpractice case may be excluded if based on an incorrect
interpretation of law.
  
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND
No. 39
  September Term, 1995
___________________________________
WILLIAM A. FRANCH et al.
v.
LOTTIE L. ANKNEY et vir.
___________________________________
Murphy, C.J.
Rodowsky
Chasanow
Karwacki
Bell
Raker
Smith, Marvin H.
 (Retired, specially assigned)
JJ.
___________________________________
Opinion by Chasanow, J.
Bell, J., dissents
___________________________________
      Filed: January 29, 1996      
           
     Mrs. Ankney's husband, Walter J. Ankney, was a co-plaintiff
1
in the action against Franch, but his status does not affect this
appea
The question presented in this appeal is whether the trial
judge abused his discretion in striking the testimony of two expert
witnesses in an attorney malpractice case on the ground that the
experts' opinions were based on an erroneous interpretation of
Maryland law.  We hold that the judge's ruling did not constitute
an abuse of discretion.
I.
This appeal stems from an attorney malpractice action brought
in the Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County in 1988 by Respondent
Lottie Ankney (Ankney) against William A. Franch (Franch),
Petitioner, alleging negligence in Franch's representation of
Ankney in a workers' compensation claim. tna's knowledge ... and
1
without Aetna's approval....  Are you saying that that evidence was
irrelevant to the -- to the issues?
[ARNOLD]: To the final issues in the case,
yes. *** I think that the end result in the
case was that Aetna was entitled to a credit
for the net amount received by Mrs. [Ankney]
against any future [c]ompensation award and
nothing more.
-2-
     Unlike Arnold, DuBois was not as explicit that Aetna would
2
be entitled only to a credit equal to the amount of the third-
party settlement.  DuBois did, however, testify that it was
irrelevant whether Aetna knew about or consented to the
settlement. This testimony carried essentially the same meaning
as Arnold's testimony because, were it truly irrelevant whether
Aetna consented to the settlement, Aetna would have been entitled
to the same credit as if it had consented, i.e., an amount equal
to the amount of the settlement.  See LE § 9-902(e).  Hence,
Dubois's testimony was based on the same legal interpretation as
Arnold's t
* * *
[DEFENSE COUNSEL]:
*** [I]sn't it the law in
Maryland that Aetna could argue, we have been
prejudiced by this unapproved settlement and
... [w]e are entitled to more than a credit,
we're entitled to the -- to a credit for the
extent of our prejudice, not for the extent of
what was actually paid?
* * *
[ARNOLD]: No, sir."
The second expert, Dubois, gave a similar opinion as to the effect
of the unauthorized settlement.  He testified that whether Ankney
had settled the case without Aetna's consent was irrelevant, since
Aetna would be entitled only to a credit. mony.2
2