Burke v. Groover, Christie & Merritt, P.C.
2011 D.C. App. LEXIS 436
D.C.2011Background
- After a 2000 stroke, Burke sued Groover, Christie & Merritt for medical malpractice.
- A jury awarded Burke in 2004; Maryland cap on non-economic damages was applied on appeal.
- Judgment was paid on March 23, 2007, three years after verdict.
- This appeal concerns post-judgment interest and payment delays related to cross-motions on rate.
- D.C. Code § 28-3302(c) ties interest to a variable I.R.C. 6621 rate, with a 'good cause' exception.
- Court previously held the I.R.C. rate can fluctuate; issue is whether it fixes at judgment or varies over time.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 28-3302(c) yields a fixed or fluctuating rate. | Burke: rate is variable, tied to I.R.C. 6621 over time. | Groover: rate is fixed as of judgment date. | Rate is variable and fluctuates during nonpayment. |
| Whether the trial court properly applied the 'good cause' exception to reduce the rate. | Burke: no good cause shown by delay. | Groover: delay constitutes good cause to reduce rate. | Good cause not shown; exception improperly applied. |
| Whether Burke is entitled to interest on the undisputed amount of post-judgment interest during court proceedings. | Burke: equitable entitlement to interest on undisputed portion. | Groover: no additional interest beyond fixed rate. | Equitable authority to award interest on undisputed post-judgment amount; remand. |
Key Cases Cited
- Kaiser Aluminum & Chem. Corp. v. Bonjorno, 494 U.S. 827 (U.S. 1990) (retrospective boundaries of statutory changes; purpose of post-judgment interest)
- Jerome Mgmt., Inc. v. District of Columbia Rental Housing Commission, 682 A.2d 178 (D.C. 1996) (upheld good cause exception; delay considerations)
- Pierce Assoc. v. District of Columbia, 527 A.2d 306 (D.C. 1987) (pre-judgment interest in unliquidated debts; liquidated vs unliquidated)
- Rastall v. CSX Transp., Inc., 697 A.2d 46 (D.C. 1997) (pre-judgment interest; contract actions distinction)
- Tupling v. Britton, 411 A.2d 349 (D.C. 1980) (policy considerations for interest to prevent loss of use)
- District of Columbia v. Place, 892 A.2d 1108 (D.C. 2006) (statutory interpretation in context of cohesion and purpose)
- Duggan v. Keto, 554 A.2d 1126 (D.C. 1989) (equitable discretion to award post-judgment interest in torts)
- Giant Food, Inc. v. Jack I. Bender, 399 A.2d 1293 (D.C. 1979) (pre-judgment interest and liquidated debt concepts)