Univ. of MD Med. System v. Kerrigan
3/17
Md.Nov 28, 2017Background
- Minor plaintiff Brandon Kerrigan (and parents) sued multiple hospitals and doctors in Baltimore City for alleged medical malpractice after emergency care and a heart transplant following treatment beginning in Talbot County.
- Plaintiffs filed in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City; defendants jointly moved under Md. Rule 2-327(c) to transfer the case to Talbot County (where the Kerrigans live).
- After a hearing, the Baltimore City trial judge granted transfer, finding convenience of parties/witnesses and public-interest factors strongly favored Talbot County.
- The Court of Special Appeals reversed, holding the factors were in near-equipoise and the transfer was an abuse of discretion.
- The Court of Appeals granted certiorari and reversed the intermediate court, holding the trial court did not abuse its discretion in ordering transfer.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Kerrigan) | Defendant's Argument (UMMS et al.) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion by transferring venue under Rule 2-327(c) | Transfer was improper because key tortious acts and multiple treating physicians are in Baltimore City; balance did not strongly favor transfer | Trial court properly weighed convenience and interests of justice and reasonably concluded transfer to Talbot County was strongly favored | No abuse of discretion; transfer affirmed |
| Proper standard of review and burden of persuasion | Court of Special Appeals should reverse when balance is near-equipoise in plaintiffs' favor | Abuse-of-discretion review applies; moving party bears burden to show balance "strongly" favors transfer but appellate courts should be deferential | Abuse-of-discretion standard applies; appellate court must not substitute its judgment absent clear abuse |
| Role of plaintiff’s residence and "deference" to plaintiff’s forum choice | Plaintiff’s choice should receive substantial deference even if plaintiff does not reside there; residence should not diminish deference | Plaintiff’s choice receives less deference when plaintiff is not a resident of the selected forum or when forum lacks meaningful ties | Residence is a legitimate factor that can diminish deference; here plaintiffs lived in transferee forum, reducing weight of their Baltimore choice |
| Assessment of public-interest factors (court congestion, local interest, jury burden) | Public-interest factors do not strongly favor Talbot County; Baltimore has significant local interest given care provided there | Statistical abstracts and the fact Talbot has one hospital supported transfer; jury burden and local interest favored Talbot | Trial court reasonably relied on statistical material and local-interest arguments; public-interest factors supported transfer |
Key Cases Cited
- Leung v. Nunes, 354 Md. 217 (1999) (plaintiff's choice of forum gets less deference when plaintiff is not a resident of that forum)
- Urquhart v. Simmons, 339 Md. 1 (1995) (abuse-of-discretion standard for Rule 2-327(c) transfers; deference to trial court)
- Odenton Dev. Co. v. Lamy, 320 Md. 33 (1990) (Rule 2-327(c) modeled on 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a); trial court transfer affirmed where convenience favored transferee forum)
- Piper Aircraft Co. v. Reyno, 454 U.S. 235 (1981) (forum non conveniens principles; foreign-plaintiff choice receives less deference)
- Nodeen v. Sigurdsson, 408 Md. 167 (2009) (trial court abused discretion where transfer lacked factual support)
- Stidham v. Morris, 161 Md. App. 562 (2005) (plaintiff residence and meaningful ties can reduce deference to plaintiff's forum choice)
- Scott v. Hawit, 211 Md. App. 620 (2013) (intermediate appellate reversal where transfer improperly weighed multiple defendants with separate ties)