0082/25
Md. Ct. Spec. App.Jul 8, 2026Background
- Alex Vivar Perez died on August 30, 2020 after medical treatment at PM Pediatrics in Greenbelt, Maryland. 1
- Cristina Perez filed a wrongful death claim in HCADRO on August 16, 2023, waived arbitration, and then filed a circuit court complaint naming Mr. Vivar as a use plaintiff. 2
- Mr. Vivar was served with the complaint and Rule 15-1001 notice on September 26, 2023, but did not file his motion to intervene until June 7, 2024. 3
- The circuit court denied intervention as untimely, concluding the statutory deadline had expired before any motion was filed and could not be excused. 4
- On appeal, Mr. Vivar argued relation back should make his intervention timely and, alternatively, that good cause excused the late filing. 5
- The appellate court affirmed, holding Rule 15-1001 bars participation when the statutory deadline is missed and relation back does not apply. 6
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is Mr. Vivar's intervention untimely under Rule 15-1001(e)(2)? 7 | Vivar said service came after the statutory deadline, so relation back should save his motion. | Perez said missing the statutory deadline waives participation regardless of later service. | Yes; missing the statutory deadline bars participation. 8 |
| Does relation back make the late intervention timely? 9 | Vivar argued the motion should relate back to the original HCADRO filing. | Perez said relation back cannot defeat the wrongful-death deadline. | No; the three-year deadline is a condition precedent, so relation back does not apply. 10 |
| Can good cause excuse the late filing? 11 | Vivar said the clerk's refusal and confusion showed good cause. | Perez said good cause cannot excuse missing the statutory deadline. | No need to reach good cause after the statutory deadline was missed. 12 |
Key Cases Cited
- WAMCO, Inc. v. Northeast 400, LLC, 251 Md. App. 196 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 2021) (abuse-of-discretion standard for intervention rulings 13)
- Bethesda African Cemetery Coalition v. Housing Opportunities Commission of Montgomery County, 489 Md. 1 (Md. 2024) (de novo review for questions of law 14)
- Walker v. Essex, 318 Md. 516 (Md. 1990) (history of wrongful death actions and Maryland's adoption of the statute 15)
- Carter v. Wallace & Gale Asbestos Settlement Trust, 439 Md. 333 (Md. 2014) (interprets wrongful death procedure and discusses post-2012 Rule 15-1001 16)
- University of Maryland Medical Systems Corp. v. Muti, 426 Md. 358 (Md. 2012) (holds relation back cannot revive a wrongful death claim barred by the three-year condition precedent 17)
- Ferguson v. Loder, 186 Md. App. 707 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 2009) (relation back cannot cure failure to satisfy a condition precedent 18)
- Crowe v. Houseworth, 272 Md. 481 (Md. 1974) (relation back doctrine for amendments where operative facts remain the same 19)
- Grand-Pierre v. Montgomery County, 97 Md. App. 170 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 1993) (relation back generally not applied when an additional plaintiff intervenes after limitations unless merely sharing damages 20)