Opinion ID: 1541345
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: the eric t. decision

Text: On July 28, 1995, Judge Ann O'Regan Keary dismissed Eric T.'s complaint on forum non conveniens grounds in a thoughtful and thorough oral decision. Judge Keary began by noting that at bottom, the claim of injury to Eric T. is a medical one which centered on his improper treatment at the hands of medical professionals who detained him, and perhaps admitted him improperly, to a psychiatric facility. This was so, the judge explained, regardless of whether or not the defendants harbored a fraudulent intent and engaged in a conspiracy to enhance corporate revenues. The judge further noted that Eric T. and his parents were residents of Maryland, and that little weight should be accorded to their choice of forum. The judge then addressed in turn the relevant private and public interest factors specified in the applicable case law. See, e.g., Gulf Oil Corp. v. Gilbert, 330 U.S. 501, 507-09, 67 S.Ct. 839, 842-43, 91 L.Ed. 1055 (1947); Mills v. Aetna Fire Underwriters Ins. Co., 511 A.2d 8, 10 (D.C.1986). [5] With respect to the private interest factors, the judge concluded that because most of Eric T.'s hospitalizations were in Maryland [6] and because most of the parties and witnesses were localized in Maryland, the convenience of the parties in terms of ease of access to witnesses and documents favored trial in Maryland. Without specifically finding that the plaintiffs intended to vex or oppress the defendants by electing to bring the suit in the District of Columbia, she stated that their choice of forum could be viewed as an obvious attempt to avoid the Maryland arbitration system and to litigate instead in the District, where we are unfettered by any type of tort reform. Turning to the public interest factors, the judge found that they overwhelming[ly] favored trial in Maryland. She reasoned, in pertinent part, as follows: We are also seeing a high incidence of filings in cases where one sees litigants who had a choice of forum and are choosing the District of Columbia. Some perhaps to avoid the neighboring jurisdiction's tort reform. Some also to seek speedy resolutions in that this court has had some success in reducing delay in its civil calendars. Whatever the reason, the District has become a very desirable forum and its dockets are quite clogged at this point. It is also true that as a type, medical malpractice cases, particularly one as complex as this and as multi-faceted as this, present one of the most burdensome types of cases for the judiciary to deal with. The length of the case, both in terms of the period of time involved in discovery, the variety of issues which must be resolved by the court in motions practice prior to the setting of a trial, and the actual trial of the case which usually takes two to four weeks, if not longer, is very significant and these are important factors that the court must take into consideration.       Maryland, I believe, does have a significant interest in this case. All of the doctors were Maryland residents, including the doctor who treated Eric T. at PIW. The vast majority of his treatment was in Maryland and Maryland, unlike this jurisdiction, has spoken legislatively as to its desire to provide a certain mechanism to deal with litigation related to medical treatment. So I think there's a strong local interest in that controversy  the controversy of Eric T.'s treatment, four-fifths of which was in the State of Maryland, being decided by that jurisdiction. The unfairness of imposing the burden of jury duty on the citizens of this forum also is a compelling one to the Court. As I've indicated, we have a burgeoning case load, both in our civil and criminal calendars and it is significant given the nature of this type of case and the burden on our dwindling jury pool, that we avoid requiring the citizens of the jurisdiction to shoulder the burden of a multiple-week presence for jury duty in a case which this jurisdiction does not have a significant [interest], even though there was some period of treatment in this jurisdiction. [7] Judge Steffen W. Graae likewise dismissed the other four cases on forum non conveniens grounds. These appeals and cross-appeals followed.