86 A.3d 681
Md. Ct. Spec. App.2014Background
- Abrishamian injures head in auto accident and is treated by Washington Medical Group (WMG); signs Authorization and Assignment Agreement to pay WMG from any settlement; he recovers $30,000 but does not remit to WMG.
- WMG files suit in District Court (2010) to enforce the A&A for $11,510; after discovering PIP payments post-accident, WMG refiles (2011) reducing the amount to $4,810.
- Counterclaim alleges Dr. Macedo offered to testify for a fee and later refused; counterclaims include fraud and breach; case is transferred to Circuit Court for Montgomery County.
- Pre-trial wrangling includes a Clerk’s inadvertent denial of a default motion, a motion to disqualify counsel, a motion to strike a deposition, and various discovery and scheduling motions, all culminating in trial in the Circuit Court.
- Trial to a jury (Feb. 11–12, 2013) results in a verdict for WMG in the amount of $2,900; post-judgment items include attorney’s fees of $965.70 and prejudgment interest of $2,262; Abrishamian appeals the circuit court’s rulings and the jury verdict, which the Court affirms.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Default entry issue under Rule 2-613 | Abrishamian argues clerk should have entered default against WMG | WMG contends the court had discretion to deny default and later vacate | Court did not err; discretion to vacate default affirmed |
| Disqualification of counsel | Brown should remain as counsel; no hearing needed | Brown should be disqualified due to possible witness status | Disqualification proper; counsel barred from trial and discovery |
| Admission of 'enhanced' EMG testimony | Testimony admissible to show fraud by Macedo | Testimony is irrelevant or unduly prejudicial as prior bad act | Evidence properly excluded on relevance and prejudice grounds |
| Award of prejudgment interest and fees | Fees and interest should have been resolved before verdict | Waived or preserved issue; court could decide post-verdict | Prejudgment interest and attorneys' fees properly awarded; issue waived for appellate review |
| Judicial notice of disputed facts | Court should judicially notice asserted facts from prior actions | Facts are disputable and not properly judicially noticeable | Trial court did not abuse discretion; judicial notice denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Holly Hall Publ'ns, Inc. v. County Banking & Trust Co., 147 Md. App. 251 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 2002) (discretion to vacate default emphasizes justice over technicality)
- Goldsberry, 419 Md. 100 (Md. 2011) (criminal context; not constitutional right in civil disqualification)
- Klupt v. Krongard, 126 Md. App. 179 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 1999) (disqualification may extend beyond trial; scope determined by court)
- Walker v. D’Alesandro, 212 Md. 163 (Md. 1957) (judicial notice limits; scope depends on context)