Murray v. Transcare Maryland, Inc.
203 Md. App. 172
| Md. Ct. Spec. App. | 2012Background
- Karen Murray filed a negligence/medical malpractice action in Baltimore City for Bryson and a loss of parental relationship claim; action was transferred to Talbot County on forum non conveniens grounds; the Baltimore City court later granted reconsideration and summary judgment in favor of appellees on immunity issues; the Talbot County court granted summary judgment which was then reversed on appeal and remanded; Bryson was transported by PHI Air Medical with TransCare Maryland, Inc. involvement through its employee Barbour; the case centers on Good Samaritan Act immunity (CJP 5-603) and Fire and Rescue Act immunity (CJP 5-604); the alleged incident occurred during Bryson’s transport from Easton Memorial (Talbot County) to UMMS in Baltimore, with most care providers located in Talbot or Baltimore counties; the appellate court reviewed the forum transfer and the immunities rulings de novo and for abuse of discretion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Forum non conveniens transfer proper? | Murray argues the court gave improper regard to her forum choice. | TransCare asserts balancing factors favor transfer due to local Talbot County ties. | Transfer affirmed; no abuse of discretion. |
| Good Samaritan Act immunity for appellees? | Act does not cover private for-profit ambulance companies, so immunity should not apply to TransCare. | Act applies to licensed individuals; company immunity claimed through Barbour’s status should extend to appellees. | Act does not confer immunity to private commercial ambulance companies; summary judgment inappropriate. |
| Fire and Rescue Act immunity applicability? | Private ambulance company cannot be a fire/rescue company; Act does not apply. | Ambulance company could be treated as rescue company within Act. | Act does not immunize private commercial ambulance companies; summary judgment inappropriate. |
Key Cases Cited
- Mayor and City Council of Baltimore v. Chase, 360 Md. 123 (Md. 2003) (interprets 5-604; public/private fire and rescue immunity scope)
- Stidham v. Morris, 161 Md.App. 562 (Md. 2005) (forum non conveniens factors and abuse of discretion standard)
- Payton-Henderson v. Evans, 180 Md.App. 267 (Md. 2008) (proper regard for plaintiff's choice of forum; private/public interest factors)
- Cobrand v. Adventist Healthcare, Inc., 149 Md.App. 431 (Md. 2003) (abuse of discretion in transfer venue analysis; deference to trial court)
- Lark v. Montgomery Hospice, Inc., 414 Md. 215 (Md. 2010) (statutory interpretation; plain meaning vs. context)