Source: http://marylandcourts.blogspot.com/2006/
Timestamp: 2017-04-26 13:40:26
Document Index: 605341724

Matched Legal Cases: ['§2000', '§1981', '§1981', '§1251', '§401', '§16', '§1631', '§523', '§523', '§1452', '§523', '§380']

Maryland Courts Watcher: 2006
Decided December 21, 2006--Opinion by Judge Richard D. Bennett (not approved for publication)Employment discrimination case alleging, inter alia, numerous violations of 42 U.S.C. §§2000e, et seq. and 42 U.S.C. §1981, as well as breach of contract and tort claims based on the law of the State of Maryland. Among the claims were a count asserting a cause of action for negligent supervision and a count claiming wrongful discharge, i.e., that the plaintiff's discharge violated Maryland public policy. The Court granted the defendant's motion to dismiss as to these claims.In order to prove a cause of action for either negligent hiring, supervision or retention, a plaintiff must establish that her injury was caused by the tortious conduct of a coworker, that the employer knew or should have known by the exercise of diligence and reasonable care that the coworker was capable of inflicting harm of some type, that the employer failed to use proper care in selecting, supervising or retaining that employee, and that the employer's breach of its duty was the proximate cause of the Plaintiff's injuries. Because negligent supervision claims "existed at common law" in Maryland, such claims therefore "may only be predicated on common law causes of action." Claims for racial discrimination under 42 U.S.C. §1981 did not exist at common law. Thus, the plaintiff's claim for negligent supervision must fail.To sustain a claim for wrongful discharge, the employee must show that (1) he was discharged; (2) the basis for his discharge violates some clear mandate of public policy; and (3) there is a nexus between the employee’s conduct and the employer's decision to fire the employee. See Wholey v. Sears Roebuck & Co., 803 A.2d 482, 489 (Md. 2002). Whether public policy considerations constitute a clear mandate of public policy is aquestion of law. Id. at 487 (citations omitted). Plaintiff's contention that she was improperly terminated for complaining that her supervisor failed to adequately address security concerns in connection with the conduct of a former employee does not jeopardize a clear mandate of public policy.The full opinion is available in PDF.
Decided December 20, 2006--Opinion by Judge J. Frederick Motz (not approved for publication)Pro se action for employment discrimination by an employee of the Social Security Administration. Defendants' Motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, for summary judgment, granted.Held:Director of the Office of Personnel Management has only discretionary authority to seek review of a decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board (the "MSPB"), which discretion may only be exercised if the Director concludes that "the Board erred in interpreting a civil service law, rule, or regulation affecting personnel management and that the Board's decision will have a substantial impact on a civil service law, rule, regulation, or policy directive."A challenge to a decision of the MSPB can only be brought in the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and a United States District Court has no jurisdiction over such claims.An adverse finding of the MSPB with respect to discrimination claims are required to be filed in a United States District Court within 30 days after the MSPB’s decision became final. She did not do so. If a review of an MSPB decision as to other claims is sought, that appeal must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit within 60 days after the MSPB's decision became final. The United States District Court cannot review a decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.Certain claims are barred if an employee does not appeal an adverse decision of the Social Security Administration to the MSPB.Any claim with regard to the issuance of a Performance Assessment Plan to an employee fails because the issuance of the Plan is not a "ultimate employment decision" of the type necessary to give rise to a discrimination claim.The full opinion is available in PDF.
Decided December 20, 2006--Opinion by Judge Richard D. Bennett (not approved for publication)Action brought by the federal government and State of Maryland for alleged violations of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. §§1251, et seq., the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899, 33 U.S.C. §§401, et seq., and Md. Code Ann. Envir. §16-202(a).Landowner (Costello) was granted emergency permits by Maryland to rebuild an erosion control structure, called a revetment, that had been destroyed by Hurricane Isabel. One condition of the permits was that the new revetment must have the same location and dimensions as the previously existing revetment. Costello retained PCI and Mielke, an engineer employed by PCI, to prepare permit applications and to design and construct the new revetment.In the process of constructing the revetment during those four months, the defendants used earth-moving equipment to discharge fill material, including rock, dirt, and sand, into Whitehall Creek without a permit. These discharges allegedly created an obstruction to the navigable waters of the United States. They also resulted in the filling of State wetlands without a license.The U.S. and the State of Maryland filed a Complaint in this Court alleging that defendants violated the Clean Water Act ("CWA"), the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 ("RHA"), and the provisions of Maryland's Code concerning permits to fill wetlands ("Maryland Wetlands Statute"), because the new revetment did not comply with the conditions of the emergency permit.The plaintiffs sought a variety of injunctive relief as well as civil penalties. The injunctive relief sought was to enjoin defendants "from discharging or causing the discharge of dredged or fill material or other pollutants into any waters of the United States except in compliance with the CWA and RHA" and "from placing any unauthorized structures or obstructions or performing any work waterward of the mean high water mark without first having obtained all requisite federal and state permits."PCI and Mielke filed the a motion to dismiss. They argued that injunctive relief should not be imposed against them and raised two arguments in support of their position. First, they argued that because they have no property rights to the site, they could not carry out any injunctions issued by this Court. Second, they argue that the injunctions would be moot, because "the alleged actions of these Defendants have all been completed, and these Defendants play no role in any current (or potential) alleged 'discharge' of pollutants, dredged or fill material."Held:The fact that PCI and Mielke do not have property rights in the site does not preclude this Court from issuing injunctive relief against them or any defendant to ensure compliance with environmental statutes.PCI's and Mielke's mootness argument was rejected because their "allegedly wrongful behavior" is not only "reasonably expected" to occur, but will undoubtedly occur until the structure is removed. The full opinion is available in PDF.
Filed December 21, 2006--Opinion by Judge J. Frederick Motz (not approved for publication)Defendant United States Army's motion to dismiss a non-tort monetary claim for lack of subject matter jurisdiction denied. Defendant suggested that transfer of the matter to the Court of Federal Claims would be inappropriate given the significant statute of limitations issues and motioned for dismissal by the District Court for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.The Court transferred the action to the Court of Federal Claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1631 based on the lack of subject matter jurisdiction and consequent impropriety for any District Court ruling on the statute of limitation issues.The opinion did not describe the precise nature of the claim.The full opinion is available in PDF
As of 4:17 P.M., December 21, 2006, the part of the Courts of Appeals that has the opinions delivered by the two courts is down.Premature adjudication: The Court of Appeals website was not down. What occurred was that when one goes to the opinions page here, by default the radio button for the most recent year is clicked on. Apparently, that page was revised today to show 2007 as the most recent year and, of course, there are not yet any opinions for that year. Thus, when clicking on the "Submit" button, one received an error message.Sorry for any inconvenience.
The Court of Appeals' opinion in Evans v. State has generated a good deal of weblog commentary. We have collected links to much of that commentary at the end of our posted synopsis of the case. We will be adding links as we discover them and hope to add links to any posting if the case elicits comments on the blogosphere.Of course, readers are encouraged to offer their own comments on any decision that we report on (which, of course, includes all decisions publicly available on the web) by posting comments at the end of any posting.
Filed December 20, 2006--Opinion by Chief Judge Robert M. BellThe Respondent was charged with violating a number of the Rules of Professional Conduct. Following a hearing, the Circuit Court for Baltimore County found that the Respondent did not respond to Bar Counsel's request for information in a timely manner and had withdrawn fees from her escrow account before they were earned. The hearing court rejected allegations that the Respondent had failed to communicate with her clients, charged an unreasonable fee, or fabricated her billing statements and did not actually perform the services for which she billed. The Respondent did not file any exceptions to the hearing court’s findings of fact or conclusions of law and, at argument, had expressly acknowledged her misconduct and made clear that she was not challenging that aspect of the case.The Attorney Grievance Commission took exceptions to the hearing court's failure to find violations of Rules 1.15 (b) and 1.16 (d) because the Respondent had acknowledged that she failed to send copies of her billing statement to her clients in response to a letter from them and that she was aware of an error in billing her clients and owed them a refund of $257.00 that had not yet been made.Because the lower court's findings also reflected that it found that a refund was in fact owed, the Court of Appeals sustained the exceptions. Finding that the misconduct that the Respondent had been found to have engaged in was quite serious but, also, that it was isolated and not likely to be repeated, the Court determined that a thirty-day suspension would protect the public interest and be appropriate.The full opinion is available in WordPerfect and PDF.
Filed December 19, 2006--Opinion by Judge Dale R. Cathell.Preliminary injunctions are designed as a preventative and protective remedy for actions which may occur in the future. The purpose of interlocutory injunctions is to maintain the status quo between parties engaged in litigation pending the resolution of such litigation. If the granting of a preliminary injunction would fail to prevent a future act or maintain the status quo between the parties, then it should not be granted.If the granting of an interlocutory injunction satisfies the above criteria, then the court will examine four factors: (1) the likelihood that the plaintiff will succeed on the merits, (2) the balance of convenience, (3) whether the plaintiff will suffer irreparable injury unless the injunction is granted, and (4) the public interest. See Department of Transportation v. Armacost, 299 Md. 392, 404-05, 474 A.2d 191, 197 (1984). The party seeking the injunction has the burden of proving the facts necessary to support each factor and must prove all four factors in order to receive preliminary relief. Should the plaintiff fail to prove even one of the factors, an interlocutory injunction will not be granted.Furthermore, as a precursor to analyzing the four factors, courts must balance the likelihood of irreparable harm to the plaintiff against the likelihood of irreparable harm to the defendant. Blackwelder Furniture Co. v. Seilig Manufacturing Co., 550 F.2d 189, 195 (4th Cir. 1977); Lerner v. Lerner, 306 Md. 771, 783-84, 511 A.2d 501, 507 (1986). If this "balance of hardships" weighs in favor of the plaintiff, then the likelihood of success on the merits factor is replaced with a more lenient standard: whether "the plaintiff has raised questions going to the merits so serious, substantial, difficult and doubtful, as to make them fair ground for litigation." Blackwelder, 550 F.2d at 195 (citations omitted) (quotations omitted).The plaintiff entered into an agreement with the defendant , effective, March 21, 2004 – prior to filing the complaint and initiating the pending controversy. Therefore, the 2004 agreement was freely negotiated before the complaint was filed, at which time the status of the parties was peaceable and non-contested. It is uncontroverted that the 2004 agreement would terminate by its own freely negotiated terms on December 25, 2004. That date that was before the date the lawsuit was filed. The termination had also been established prior to the date that the plaintiff alleged the defendant had committed the illegal actions that gave rise to the case.Under these circumstances, the plaintiff failed to establish its entitlement to a preliminary injunction.The full opinion is available in WPD or PDF.
Filed December 18, 2006 - Opinion by Chief Judge Robert M. Bell.Upon disciplinary referral from the Court of Appeals, the Circuit Court for Baltimore City found the following facts to be true:1. Respondent agreed to represent the complainant, an interested party in a unfiled decedent's estate, and took a retainer for such representation. The decedent had domiciled in Montgomery County, but Respondent agreed to pursue a claim of the decedent's estate in Anne Arundel County regarding decedent's real estate claims there involving a disputed debt and lien. Respondent failed to open an estate in Anne Arundel County, and ignored several notices from the Registrar of Wills and the Orphans' Court of that county including an adverse petition for judicial probate.2. Respondent represented to the complainant that he was able to proceed in Maryland or the District of Columbia without assistance of other counsel. Respondent did proceed to file a civil action in the District of Columbia with an attorney barred in that jurisdiction, but Respondent was not a barred attorney in the District of Columbia at any time relevant. 3. Respondent made a further false representation on his pro hac vice motion to the Superior Court of the District of Columbia, stating that he had no open disciplinary actions in Maryland when the Attorney Grievance Commission has opened and notified Respondent of a then-unresolved disciplinary proceeding approximately two months prior to his statement. Due to service of process issues, the civil action co-filed by Respondent was dismissed twice without prejudice, but Respondent falsely represented to the complainant on one such dismissal that the case had merely been continued, not dismissed. 4. The Orphans' Court for Anne Arundel County proceeded to transfer the related probate case to the Orphans' Court for Montgomery County, but Respondent failed to make many required estate filings in that court, prompting a threat of discharge of the complainant as personal representative of the decedent's estate and her discharge of Respondent as her counsel.5. During the period of Respondent's failure to act, the size of a disputed debt claim against the decedent's estate rose from approximately $50,000,00 to $57,000.00 and continued to grow with interest thereafter.The Circuit Court for Baltimore City found violations of Rules 1.1 (competence), 1.3 (diligence) (two such violations), 1.4 (a) (duty to keep client informed) and (b) (duty to explain for informed decision-making), 1.5(a) (fees commensurate with services) and 8.4 (misconduct and conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice.) Neither party took subsequent exception to these findings of fact or of Rule violations by the Circuit Court. The Court of Appeals accordingly accepted them as established for purposes of imposing a sanction. Respondent had already been suspended indefinitely by the Court of Appeals for the conduct giving rise to the disciplinary action identified in paragraph 3 above. In light of that aggravating factor and weighing the totality of Respondent's dishonest and unprofessional conduct in this matter, the Court of Appeals disbarred Respondent.The full opinion is available in WPD and PDF.
Decided December 12, 2006--Opinion by Chief Judge Duncan W. Keir.Where the issue of non-dischargeability is presented by application of 11 U.S.C. §523(a)(2),(4), (6), and (15) and for cases commenced prior to October 17, 2005, the federal court having jurisdiction over the bankruptcy case has exclusive jurisdiction to determine the dischargeability issue. The exclusive jurisdiction arises by operation of the effect of 11 U.S.C. §523(c) and Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 4007. If a complaint is not timely filed, the debt is discharged. After the closing of the bankruptcy case, the state court having jurisdiction over an action for the affected debt, has concurrent jurisdiction to determine whether or not that debt was dischargeable, or non-dischargeable and consequently was, or was not discharged by the discharge injunction granted in the bankruptcy case.A debtor, faced with a post-discharge collection action by a creditor can seek to remove that state action to the bankruptcy court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1452 and/or commence an adversary proceeding before the bankruptcy court seeking a restraining order against the creditor on the basis that the actions being taken by the creditor violate the discharge injunction. If the debtor does neither but instead permits the state court to determine the dischargeability other than pursuant to 11 U.S.C. §523(a)(2), (4), (6), and for pre-BAPCPA cases (15), the question may be preclusively determined by final order of the state court.The full opinion is available in PDF.
Filed December 14, 2006--Opinion by Judge Lynne A. Battaglia, with Judges Dale R. Cathell and Glenn T. Harrell, Jr. joining in the judgment only.Petitioner, J.P. Delphey Limited Partnership, sought review of the judgment of the Court of Special Appeals affirming the condemnation of Delphey's property by the City of Frederick and concluding that no ordinance specific to the property was required by Section 2(b)(24) of Article 23A of the Maryland Code (1957, 2001 Repl. Vol.) in order for the City to acquire the property by condemnation. The Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment of the Court of Special Appeals and held that the Aldermen's vote to condemn the Delphey property constituted a proper exercise of the authority vested in that legislative body by Section 2(b)(24) of the Article 23A and Section 173 of the City of Frederick Charter, and that no ordinance, or legislative act, specific to the property was required. The Court further determined that the Aldermen did not violate Section 10-508 (a)(3) of the Open Meetings Act, which provides an exception to the general prohibitions of Section 8 of Article 23A, when they voted to condemn the Delphey property in a closed session.The full opinion is available in WordPerfect or PDF format.
Decided December 13, 2006--Chief Judge Benson Everett Legg.Fourth Amendment, motion to suppress evidence. Defendant contended that a gun found as a result of a pursuit by Baltimore City detectives should not be admitted into evidence because it was the fruit of an illegal seizure under the Fourth Amendment.The defendant, when stopped by police officers, began to run. He was then taken into custody. After he was taken into custody, one of the police officers reported that he saw the defendant throw something away during the chase. Further investigation resulted in the recovery of a handgun. The defendant claimed that (i) the officers acted without probable cause when taking him into custody, (ii) that the seizure of the gun was the result of that arrest and was thus the fruit of an illegal seizure.The Court found that because defendant ran from the detectives, he did not submit to police authority and, therefore, there was no seizure under the Fourth Amendment. Since there was no seizure, the gun Defendant dropped during the pursuit was abandoned property and would be admitted as evidence.The full opinion is available in PDF.
Filed December 14, 2006--Opinion by Judge Dale R. Cathell. Dissenting opinion by Judge Glenn T. Harrell, Jr.In a legal malpractice case, the Court of Special Appeals, in reviewing a grant of a motion for summary judgment in favor of the defendant, ordered that the record on appeal be supplemented by material from the record in another case. Ultimately, the Court of Special Appeals did not consider this material in reaching its decision.Held: There is no requirement that an appellate court must consider portions of the record from a prior case that it (i.e., the appellate court) has ordered to be obtained as a supplement to the record in a subsequent case. The Court of Special Appeals did not abuse its discretion by doing exactly that in this case. In so holding, the Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment of the Court of Special Appeals that: (1) the Circuit Court for Wicomico County erred as a matter of law in finding that the plaintiff's claim was barred by the statute of limitations; (2) the Circuit Court for Wicomico County, in a summary judgment context, did not abuse its discretion in denying the defendant's motion based on judicial estoppel grounds; and (3) upon remand the defendant is free to assert the claims of limitations, judicial estoppel, and any other defenses.With respect to the statute of limitations defense, the Court of Appeals discussed the discovery rule in the context of a claim with respect to a contract executed by the plaintiff where part of the plaintiff's claim involves alleged negligence of the attorney with respect to the attorney's advice in the course of the negotiation and preparation of the contract.The full opinion is available in WPD or PDF.
civil appellate procedure,
Decided December 12, 2006--Opinion by Judge William D. Quarles, Jr.Patent-owner Akzenta filed suit against Unilin for infringing its patent. Akzenta later amended its complaint to allege infringement of a newly-issued continuation of the first patent. In answering the amended complaint, Defendant Unilin asserted unenforcability due to inequitable conduct as to the second patent and, allegedly for the first time, also as to the first patent. In its inequitable conduct defense, Unilin argued that Akzenta prosecuted the patents without disclosing information suggesting prior use, which would bear on patentability to the PTO.Akzenta submitted both patents at issue to the PTO for reexamination and moved to stay the litigation pending reexamination of the patents. It also moved to strike portions of Unilin's answer to Akzenta's amended complaint.The Court denied the stay based on a likelihood of prejudice to Unilin, given that no other factors weighed heavily in favor of or against granting a stay and Akzenta failed to demonstrate that it would suffer any hardship without one. Although Unilin should have sought leave of court to amend the answer as it did, the Court declined to strike any part of the amended answer given the close relationship between the two patents at issue and the Court’s broad discretion in granting leave to amend.The full opinion is available in PDF.
Filed: December 13, 2006 - Opinion by Chief Judge Joseph F. Murphy, Jr.Evidence; Criminal Procedure, Cross-examination of the defendant about his or her testimony in an unrelated criminal case: A defendant who testifies in an unrelated case does not thereby submit to a discovery deposition. Nor does a defendant’s unrelated case testimony "open the door" to cross-examination questions that are of consequence only to the defendant's upcoming case, and have nothing to do with the direct examination testimony.If, however, a criminal defendant who is awaiting trial and represented by counsel elects to testify on behalf of another criminal defendant in an unrelated case, the State may cross-examine the defendant about his or her unrelated case testimony, as long as the record shows thatthe judge presiding in the unrelated case had advised the defendant of the possibility that the State may be able to use the defendant's testimony during the defendant’s trial; andthe unrelated case testimony was given by the defendant either on (a) direct examination, or (b) cross-examination that was, pursuant to Md. Rule 5-611(a), "limited to the subject matter of the direct examination."The full opinion is available in WPD and PDF.
Filed December 11, 2006--Opinion by Chief Judge Robert M. BellThe U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland entered a monetary sanction against Respondent for his failure to comply with orders of discovery in a a civil case, said failures resulting in the entry of summary judgment against Respondent's client. Respondent failed to pay the monetary sanction or to explain that failure, was ordered to show cause for such failure and, upon his failure to appear, was held in contempt and subsequently arrested. A disciplinary action was instituted in the Disciplinary Committee of the U.S. District Court and Respondent was disbarred by the U.S. District Court. Upon receiving notice of the federal disbarment, the Attorney Grievance Commission filed reciprocal disciplinary charges against Respondent for violating the Maryland Rules of Professional Conduct, and those charges were consolidated with two unrelated disciplinary cases against Respondent in this State relating, respectively, to Respondent's failure to file or preserve a timely claim for professional negligence against a nursing home and Respondent's failure to proceed with the filing of an expungement petition, in both such cases failing to communicate with his clients as well. Respondent failed to cooperate with Bar Counsel regarding its investigation of these complaints.The Court of Appeals upheld the findings and rulings of the Circuit Court for Baltimore County regarding Maryland's rules on reciprocal discipline and regarding the facts as proven, and found violations of Rules 1.3 (Diligence), 1.4 (Communication), 1.16 (Declining or terminating representation) and 8.1 (Bar Admission and Disciplinary Matters). For these violations and for the aggravating factor of the federal disbarment, the Court of Appeals disbarred Respondent.The full opinion is available in WordPerfect and PDF.
Filed December 8, 2006--Opinion by Judge Irma Raker.Whether the Court of Special Appeals erred in holding that petitioner's nickname, "Sat Dog," which was displayed on a television monitor above a bowling lane, was not hearsay. Even if the court erred with respect to the evidentiary issue, the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. Thus, the Court did not reach the hearsay issue.The full opinion is available in WordPerfect and PDF.
Filed December 7, 2006--Per Curiam.The unfavorable recommendations of the State Board of Law Examiners and the Character Committee are accepted, and Roderick M. Chavez is denied admission to the Bar of Maryland.The full order is available in WordPerfect and PDF.
Filed December 4, 2006--Opinion by Judge Arrie W.Davis.The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution; New York v. Belton, 453 U.S. 454, 455–56, 101 S. Ct. 2860, 2861–62 (1981); Thornton v. U.S., 541 U.S. 615, 617-18, 124 S. Ct. 2127, 2129 (2004); Wyoming v. Houghton, 526 U.S. 295, 305-06, 119 S. Ct. 1297, 143 L. ed. 2d 408 (1999); Although Maryland has yet to extend the Belton/Thornton bright–line specifically to the search of items belonging to a passenger situated several feet from the vehicle arguably outside of the Chimel [v. California, 395 U.S. 752, 89 S. Ct. 2034, 23 L. Ed. 2d 685 (1969)] reach, who is neither under arrest or suspected of criminal activity at the time of the search and who neither poses a threat to the officer's safety or is capable of destroying evidence, in light of the holding in Thornton, that "Belton allows police to search the passenger compartment of a vehicle incident to a lawful custodial arrest of both 'occupants' and 'recent occupants,'" and "In any event, while an arrestee's status as a "recent occupant" may turn on his temporal or spatial relationship to the car at the time of the arrest and search, it certainly does not turn on whether he was inside or outside the car at the moment that the officer first initiated contact with him," the motions court properly denied appellant's motion to dismiss evidence of cocaine retrieved from twelve individualized baggies within small recyclable grocery bag located in appellant's coat that was on the rear passenger side seat of vehicle.The full opinion is available in WordPerfect and PDF.
December 4, 2006--Opinion by Judge Alan Wilner.This is a reciprocal discipline case governed by Maryland Rule 16-773. In April, 2006, Bar Counsel, having learned that, in November, 2005, the District of Columbia Court of Appeals had found that respondent, John Midlen, Jr., violated certain D.C. Rules of Professional Conduct (DCRPC) and had suspended him from the practice of law for a period of eighteen months, filed a petition seeking reciprocal discipline in Maryland. The petition, filed pursuant to Maryland Rule 16-773(b), alleged that, based on the findings of the D.C. Court, Midlen had violated Maryland Rules of Professional Conduct (MRPC) 1.15 (safekeeping property in which a client has an interest), 1.16 (requirements upon termination of representation), and 8.4(a), (c), and (d) (violating other MRPC; engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation that is prejudicial to administration of justice).In accordance with Rule 16-773(c), the Court of Appeals issued an order directing the parties to show cause why, based on any of the grounds set forth in Rule 16-773(e), corresponding discipline should not be imposed.Attorney was suspended for a period of eighteen months.The full opinion is available in WordPerfect and PDF.
Filed December 1, 2006--Opinion by Judge Alan Wilner.Certified questions from the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland. The questions directed to the Court were as follows:In a case where a medical laboratory receives a specimen from a Maryland physician and erroneously interprets the specimen in another State, causing injury in Maryland the Maryland residents, should this court follow the "standard of care" exception in the Restatement (First) of Conflicts of Law §380(2) and apply the substantive law of the State where the erroneous interpretation took place?Does denying Maryland residents the right to bring a wrongful birth action by applying North Carolina law violate the public policy of the State of Maryland?Where a laboratory analyzes a mother’s amniocentesis specimen and the results are provided to the mother’s physician, but relied upon by both parents, does the laboratory have a sufficient relationship with the father that gives rise to a duty of care?The full opinion is available in WordPerfect and PDF.