Tempel v. Murphy
202 Md. App. 1
Md. Ct. Spec. App.2011Background
- This Maryland Court of Special Appeals case (2011) involves medical negligence surrounding the death of Thomas Murphy at St. Joseph Medical Center.
- Plaintiffs Elena Murphy (as widow and personal representative) and Caroline and Meghan Murphy sue Dr. Melissa Fox, Dr. Utzschneider, St. Joseph's, Osler Drive Emergency Physician Association, and Patient First.
- Prior settlements occurred with Dr. Fox/Patient First and with Dr. Utzschneider/St. Joseph's; Dr. Tempel did not settle.
- The eleven-day trial ended with a jury verdict totaling $1,440,000 in damages, allocated among funeral expenses, lost household services, lost salary, and noneconomic damages.
- After verdict, Tempel moved for judgment notwithstanding the verdict on the lost-salary award, arguing it was speculative; the court denied.
- During litigation, the court allowed redacted releases to be produced to determine release type, but withheld settlement amounts pre- and post-verdict; the actual settlement amounts were disclosed after trial: $450,000 (Utzschneider/St. Joseph's) and $200,000 (Fox/Patient First).
- An economist, Dr. Borzilleri, estimated lost financial support using life-expectancy statistics and earnings data, which was challenged on cross-examination but admitted for jury consideration.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether settlement amounts should be inspectable pre-judgment | Tempel contends discovery of settlement amounts is necessary to assess credit under the Joint Tortfeasor Act. | Appellees argue discovery of settlement amounts is outside permissible scope and confidential, not impacting pre-verdict issues. | No; settlement amounts are not relevant pre-verdict and confidential releases need not disclose dollars. |
| Whether the verdict on lost support was properly sustained given speculative evidence | Appellants claim the $600,000 lost-salary award was speculative because retirement age could not be predicted. | Appellees say evidence including life expectancy data and witness testimony supports the award; preservation for appeal was proper. | Affirmed; the jury could consider total evidence, including life expectancy and earnings data, to determine lost support. |
Key Cases Cited
- Porter Hayden Co. v. Bullinger, 350 Md. 452 (1998) (settlement amounts discoverable after verdict for apportionment purposes only)
- Bullinger v. Porter Hayden Co., 350 Md. 452 (1998) (pre-verdict relevance; release type informs apportionment; amounts disclosed post-verdict)
- Jones v. Hurst, 54 Md. App. 607 (1983) (joint tortfeasor releases and pro rata reduction)
- Bottaro v. Hatton Associates, 96 F.R.D. 158 (1982) (post-verdict apportionment context in federal court)
- Dehn v. Edgecombe, 384 Md. 606 (2005) (admissibility and weighing of evidence)
- Hamot v. Telos Corp., 185 Md. App. 352 (2009) (mootness with capable repetition exception; discovery context)