University of Maryland Medical System Corp. v. Muti
426 Md. 358
| Md. | 2012Background
- Elliott Muti died March 4, 2005; his widow Giuseppina and their two children Tom and David are wrongful death claimants.
- Ricky Muti, adopted by Elliott in a prior marriage, was not named as a use plaintiff; his whereabouts are unknown and he did not join the suit.
- Plaintiffs filed medical malpractice and wrongful death claims; Ricky’s potential claim surfaced through interrogatories but was never named as a use plaintiff.
- Circuit Court dismissed the wrongful death claims for failure to join Ricky as a use plaintiff under Rule 15-1001 and for summary judgment on survival claim.
- Court of Special Appeals vacated the dismissal and remanded; Maryland Supreme Court granted certiorari to address sanctions and relation-back issues.
- The Court holds that Ricky’s omission did not justify dismissal as a sanction and, because Ricky’s claim expired under the three-year window, relation back is unavailable; case is remanded for appropriate sanctions coloring the bar and future practice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether omission of Ricky as a use plaintiff bars the wrongful death claims | Muti argues Rule 15-1001 is procedural and Ricky may be added within three years. | UMMSC contends 3-904(g) and Rule 15-1001 create a substantive condition precedent and joint action is required. | No; the dismissal was abuse of discretion; Ricky’s claim expired, but amendment by relation back is not permitted. |
| Whether Rule 15-1001(b) creates a time-bar or sanction for noncompliance | Rule 15-1001(b) is procedural and should not destroy valid claims. | Rule 15-1001(b) operates as a procedural precursor with potential prejudice. | Rule 15-1001(b) is not a substantive time-bar; relation back not allowed to revive expired claims; sanction remanded. |
| Whether Ricky can be treated via relation back to preserve the action | Ricky could be relation back to use plaintiff if alive at filing. | Relation back conflicts with three-year substantive limit and one-action rule. | Relation back cannot save Ricky; his claim expired. |
| What is the proper remedy on remand given the improper dismissal | Court should reinstate wrongful death claims with possible sanctions. | Maintain dismissal and consider appropriate sanctions to reinforce Rule 15-1001. | Remand to determine sanction appropriate; dismissals reversed for wrongful death only; proceedings to continue. |
Key Cases Cited
- Deford v. State, u/o Keyser, 30 Md. 179 (1869) (one action for same injury; nonjoinder not fatal to joined claim)
- Walker v. Essex, 318 Md. 516 (1990) (use plaintiffs must be joined; one-action rule protects defendant from multiple suits)
- Ace Am. Ins. Co. v. Williams, 418 Md. 400 (2011) (recognizes viability of late-asserted known beneficiaries and limits of judgments)
- Georgia-Pacific v. Benjamin, 394 Md. 59 (2006) (describes treatment of beneficiaries under wrongful death and severability of claims)
- Slate v. Zitomer, 275 Md. 534 (1975) (timeliness of wrongful death actions; three-year rule as substantive)
- Waddell v. Kirkpatrick, 331 Md. 52 (1993) (tolling and timing rules in wrongful death actions)