Muti v. University of Maryland Medical Systems Corp.
14 A.3d 1179
| Md. Ct. Spec. App. | 2011Background
- Elliot Muti suffered a myocardial infarction and underwent emergency CABG at UMMS-related care in Jan 2005, with subsequent intubations and bronchoscopy.
- A tracheal tear was observed on Feb 9, 2005, followed by pneumomediastinum, sepsis, respiratory failure, and death on March 4, 2005.
- Appellants Giuseppina, Tom, and David Muti filed a wrongful death and survival action in Sept 2008, amended Aug 2009 to add three wrongful death counts.
- UMMS moved to dismiss wrongful death claims for failure to join a necessary party (Ricky Muti) and for summary judgment on all counts; circuit court granted both.
- Experts Dr. McAlary and Dr. Karetzky offered opinions linking alleged negligences to the tracheal tear and to failure to diagnose/treat thereafter.
- On appeal, the court vacated the dismissals and reversed the summary judgment, remanding for further proceedings, and held leave to amend may be required to name a use plaintiff.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether dismissal of wrongful death claims without leave to amend was correct | Muti; Rule 15-1001 requires joinder of use plaintiff; failure to locate Ricky may justify amendment. | UMMS; Ricky is a necessary party and dismissal with prejudice was proper due to noncompliance. | No; remanded to consider leave to amend and potential prejudice to Ricky. |
| Whether summary judgment on the survival action was proper | Muti; expert testimony supports breach and causation; material facts dispute exist for jury. | UMMS; expert testimony fails to establish breach/causation with sufficient certainty. | No; reversal of summary judgment and remand for trial on survival claims. |
Key Cases Cited
- Walker v. Essex, 318 Md. 516 (1990) (one wrongful-death action requires considering all beneficiaries)
- Williams v. Work, 192 Md.App. 438 (2010) (failure to include known statutory beneficiary akin to failure to join necessary party)
- Gaetano v. Calvert County, 310 Md. 121 (1987) (abuse of discretion in dismissals requires Rule 1-201 factors consideration)
- Meda v. Brown, 318 Md. 418 (1990) (circumstantial evidence standard and expert testimony foundation)
- Edsall v. Huffaker, 159 Md.App. 337 (2004) (jury may accept or reject portions of expert testimony)