Lewis v. Waletzky
31 A.3d 123
Md.2011Background
- Katherine Lewis sued her former Maryland psychiatrist in federal court for medical malpractice arising from medications prescribed between 2000 and 2005, with injuries occurring in Washington, D.C.
- Maryland Health Care Malpractice Claims Act filing requirements were at issue as prerequisites to suit, including a certificate of a qualified expert and other administrative filings.
- The District Court dismissed the federal suit for failure to comply with the Act, applying Maryland choice-of-law principles (lex loci delicti) and a public policy exception to lex loci.
- The Fourth Circuit certified a Maryland question of law to determine whether Maryland recognizes any public policy exception to lex loci delicti or any exception to the Act’s filing requirements.
- Maryland follows lex loci delicti for substantive tort issues and treats procedural matters, including the Act’s filing requirements, as procedural under CJ § 3-2A-10, thus requiring compliance if applicable.
- The Court ultimately held the Act’s filing requirements are procedural and thus applicable under Maryland choice-of-law rules; Lewis must comply with the filing requirements.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Are the Act filing requirements substantive or procedural for choice-of-law purposes? | Lewis contends the requirements are substantive public policy factors under lex loci. | Waletzky argues the provisions are procedural and not substantive. | Procedural; filing requirements deemed procedural under CJ 3-2A-10. |
| If substantive-procedural status is unclear, does Maryland’s public policy exception to lex loci apply to this case? | Lewis would invoke public policy to require compliance or to override lex loci delicti. | Waletzky would rely on lex loci delicti with any applicable public policy exception. | Not dispositive because the Court classified the filing requirements as procedural. |
Key Cases Cited
- Laboratory Corp. of America v. Hood, 395 Md. 608 (Md. 2006) (establishes lex loci delicti framework and when procedural law governs)
- Kearney v. Berger, 416 Md. 628 (Md. 2010) (dismissal for failure to file certificate; importance of expert certification)
- Carroll v. Carroll, 400 Md. 167 (Md. 2007) (courts dismissal for noncompliance with statutory filing requirements)
- Jacobs v. Adams, 66 Md. App. 779 (Md. Ct. App. 1986) (procedural-vs-substantive distinction for access-to-courts doctrines)
- Heffernan v. Erie Insurance Exchange, 399 Md. 598 (Md. 2007) (illustrates substantive-vs-procedural analysis in conflict of laws; damages measure)
- Davison v. Sinai Hospital of Baltimore, Inc., 462 F. Supp. 778 (D. Md. 1978) (federal court treated the word procedural as not controlling choice-of-law)