Bailey v. Woel

• Decision Date: 15 July 1983
• Docket Number: No. 1669,1669
• Citation: Bailey v. Woel, 462 A.2d 91, 55 Md.App. 488 (Md. App. 1983)
• Parties: Louise C. BAILEY, et vir. v. Gerard WOEL, et al.
• Court: Court of Special Appeals of Maryland

Page 488

55 Md.App. 488

462 A.2d 91

Louise C. BAILEY, et vir. v.Gerard WOEL, et al.

No. 1669.

Court of Special Appeals of Maryland.

July 15, 1983.

Charles E. Mentzer, Baltimore, for appellants.

Angus R. Everton, Baltimore, with whom were Anderson, Coe & King, Baltimore, on brief for appellee, Woel.

I. Marshall Seidler, Baltimore, with whom were Eccleston & Seidler, Baltimore, on brief for Baltimore County General Hosp.

Argued before MOYLAN and WEANT, JJ., and RAINE, JOHN E., Jr., Specially Assigned Judge.

RAINE, John E. Jr., Special Judge.

On October 5, 1979the appellants filed a malpractice claim with the Health Claims Arbitration Office.On February 1, 1982a panel was convened to hear testimony and the parties and counsel were present.However, without stating any reason the appellants knowingly and voluntarily declined to present any testimony to the panel.Whereupon, after extensive discussion, the panel ruled that the claim would be dismissed and on March 12, 1982 an Order was passed dismissing the claim.

On April 22, 1982, the appellants, pursuant to Rule BY1 filed a Petition to Nullify an award, coupled with a statement of claim and a prayer for jury trial.One of the health care providers (a hospital) filed a Motion Ne Recipiatur; the other (a doctor) filed a Motion Raising a Preliminary Objection.The Motion Ne Recipiatur was based on the fact that the arbitration panel was still considering a petition for the allowance of costs and counsel fees filed by the health care providers and that the appellants' Petition to Nullify was premature.The Motion Raising a Preliminary Objection rested on the contention that a claimant cannot circumvent the arbitration process by withholding testimony, thereby preventing the panel from making a determination on the issue of liability as the panel is required to do by provisions in the Health Care Malpractice Claims law, Section 3-2A-05(d), Courts and Judicial...