Source: https://mdappblog.com/2020/02/11/february-2020-maryland-certiorari-grants/
Timestamp: 2020-04-09 00:30:59
Document Index: 375528709

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 11', '§ 3', '§ 3', '§ 3', '§ 3', '§ 9']

February 2020 Maryland Certiorari Grants | Maryland Appellate Blog
February 2020 Maryland Certiorari Grants
The Maryland Court of Appeals today posted grants in four cases. They are listed below, with questions presented and links to the Court of Special Appeals opinions under review.
Anne Arundel County, Maryland and Rodney Price v. Michael H. Reeves – Case No. 68, September Term, 2019 (Unreported COSA Opinion by Judge Kehoe; Dissent by Judge Friedman)
Issues – Torts – 1) As a matter of first impression does Md. Code § 11-110 of the Courts & Judicial Proceedings Article limit the amount of damages recoverable for negligently causing the death of a pet? 2) Did CSA err in finding sufficient evidence of gross negligence?
Remonia B. Chaplin, et al. v. University of Maryland Medical System Corporation – Case No. 70, September Term, 2019 (Unreported COSA Opinion by Judge Friedman)
Issues – Torts – 1) Does the exception to the board certification requirement in the Health Care Malpractice Claims Act, Md. Code § 3-2A-02(c)(2)(ii)(B)(2)(B) of the Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article, which excuses board-certification at § 3-2A-02(c)(2)(ii)(B) for an attesting health care provider who has “taught medicine in the defendant’s specialty or a related field of health care,” require the attesting health care provider to have “taught medicine” to students who are “in the defendant’s specialty?” 2) Does the board certification requirement at § 3-2A-02(c)(2)(ii)(B) apply when the defendant is not a natural person? 3) Does a claim for absence of informed consent when made in the same proceeding with a claim for malpractice require compliance with the certificate requirements in the Act, including the board-certification provisions (and its exceptions) at § 3-2A-02(c)(2)(ii)(B) and (2)(B)?
Gregory Johnson v. Maryland Department of Health – Case No. 71, September Term, 2019 (Bypass Review)
Issues – Health – General – 1) Did Respondent impermissibly decide issues of competency in violation of the U.S. Constitution and the Maryland Declaration of Rights when it used an administrative process to forcibly medicate Petitioner for competency restoration based on a statute that omits language authorizing involuntary medication for that purpose? 2) Did Respondent violate the U.S. Constitution and Maryland Declaration of Rights, which guarantee a criminal defendant certain due process and trial rights, when it forcibly medicated Petitioner after an administrative proceeding that prohibited him from asserting affirmative defenses related to his competency to rebut Respondent’s case and denied him meaningful access to his criminal defense attorney?
Montgomery County, Maryland v. Anthony G. Cochran and Andrew Bowen – Case No. 69, September Term, 2019 (Reported COSA Opinion by Judge Nazarian)
Issues – Workers’ Compensation – 1) Did CSA err in holding that, when calculating a claimaint’s hearing loss under Md. Code § 9-650(b)(3) of the Labor & Employment Article, the decibels deducted from the total average hearing loss should be calculated by counting the number of years between the date the claimant turned 50 and the date the claimant retired? 2) Did CSA err in reversing a factual finding of the Workers’ Compensation Commission as to whether Respondent Bowen suffered a “disablement” given that 1) the Commission’s factual finding is “presumed to be correct”; 2) the issue of whether the claimant suffered a disablement was not raised at the Commission hearing; and 3) there was no evidence put on by Petitioner before the trial court to disturb the Commission’s finding?