Opinion ID: 1946872
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Is GHA's third-party complaint against Dr. Barrows subject to mandatory arbitration?

Text: Although under the wording of the certified questions it is not necessary to respond to this question, for guidance in future cases we shall answer it in the affirmative. GHA's claim against Dr. Barrows clearly falls within the purview of § 3-2A-02 (a). That section, as previously noted, covers [a]ll claims ... including ... third-party claims ... by a person against a health care provider for medical injury suffered by the person. The rules of interpretation for the Maryland Code provide that the word person shall include corporation. Code (1957, 1981 Repl. Vol.), Art. 1, § 15. Thus a third-party claim by an HMO is a claim by a person. As Dr. Barrows is a physician and, as such, is a health care provider as defined in § 3-2A-01 (e), the claim is against a health care provider within the meaning of the Act. Finally, the third-party claim is for a medical injury within the meaning of § 3-2A-02 (a). Section 3-2A-01 (f) defines medical injury as an injury arising or resulting from the rendering or failure to render health care. This definition of medical injury plainly encompasses GHA's claimed injury. According to GHA, if Dr. Barrows is found to have been negligent in rendering medical care to Mrs. Blumenthal, and liability for that negligence is imputed to GHA, then GHA will have suffered a medical injury as defined in § 3-2A-01 (f). GHA's injury will have arisen out of Barrows's rendering of medical care. Therefore, GHA's third-party claim against Dr. Barrows falls within § 3-2A-02 (a) and is subject to mandatory arbitration.