Blundon v. Taylor
Citation | 770 A.2d 658,364 Md. App. 1,364 Md. 1 |
Decision Date | 17 April 2001 |
Docket Number | No. 33,33 |
Parties | Montague BLUNDON, III v. Shirley TAYLOR. |
Court | Court of Appeals of Maryland |
M. Natalie McSherry (Whiteford, Taylor & Preston, L.L.P., on brief), Baltimore, for petitioner.
Barry J. Nace (Paulson & Nace, on brief), Washington, DC, for respondent.
Argued before BELL, C.J., ELDRIDGE, RODOWSKY,1 RAKER, WILNER, CATHELL, and HARRELL, JJ.
The issue this case presents involves the validity of "faxing"—transmitting by facsimile—a pleading or paper to the Maryland Health Claims Arbitration Office. The respondent, Shirley Taylor, filed, pursuant to the Health Care Malpractice Claims Act (the "Act"), Maryland Code (1974,1995 Repl.Vol), §§ 3-2A-01 through 3-2A-09 of the Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article,2 a medical malpractice claim against the petitioner, Montague Blundon, III, M.D., in the Health Claims Arbitration Office (the "HCAO"). The panel that heard the claim issued an award in favor of the respondent, and the petitioner sought its modification, transmitting the request both by facsimile, which was timely received and docketed by the HCAO, and by regular mail, which arrived in the office one day late. The Circuit Court for Montgomery County having dismissed his challenge to the panel's award, albeit on other grounds,3 the petitioner noted an appeal to the Court of Special Appeals. In an unreported opinion, that court affirmed the trial court's judgment, but on the basis that the petitioner's transmission of his request to modify the panel award via facsimile did not constitute a timely filing of that request. We granted the petitioner's Petition for Certiorari to review that holding. See Blundon v. Taylor, 354 Md. 330, 731 A.2d 439 (1999). We shall affirm.
Judicial review of Health Claims Arbitration awards are controlled by § 3-2A-06. In pertinent part, it provides:
Thus, for judicial review to occur, there must be a rejection of the arbitration award, notice of which is timely filed on the Director of the HCAO, the arbitration panel and the other parties or their counsel and a timely filed court action to nullify the award, a copy of which is also filed with the Director. Notice of rejection, like the action to nullify, is timely if filed and served within 30 days after service of the award on the party rejecting it or within 10 days after the decision rendered in response to a timely filed application to modify or correct the award.
Section 3-2A-05(h) addresses the procedure for filing applications for modification or correction of an award. It provides, as pertinent, that "[a] party may apply to the arbitration panel to modify or correct an award as to liability, damages, or costs in accordance with § 3-222 of this article." Section 3-222, of the Arbitration and Award Subtitle of the Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article, in turn, provides in pertinent part: "(a) Application.—A party may apply to the arbitrators to modify or correct an award within 20 days after the delivery of the award to the applicant."
A written copy of the panel's award in favor of the respondent was served on the petitioner on April 9, 1997. The petitioner then had 20 days, or until April 29th, to seek modification of that award and, foregoing the right to seek modification, 30 days, or until May 9th, to seek judicial review. On the other hand, if, as the petitioner did in this case, modification was sought, the petition for judicial review could be filed within 10 days after the decision on the application. In this case, the Panel Chair, in an order dated May 14, 1997, and received by the petitioner on May 16, 1997, denied the requested modification. Thus, if his application for modification were to be timely, the petitioner had until May 27, 19974 to reject the award and file an action to nullify.
On April 28th, the petitioner "faxed" to the HCAO his Request For Modification of Arbitration Award. It was received that same day, and was so stamped by the HCAO. The petitioner, on the same day, also mailed the same paper to the HCAO, by regular mail. The mailed copy was received in the Health Claims office on April 30, 1997, one day after the deadline for filing the request for modification, a matter that is not in dispute.
Inasmuch as the request for modification that was mailed was received untimely, but the copy that was "faxed" was timely received, the question we must address is the propriety of docketing that copy, whether, in other words, its receipt and docketing were valid. Because "[e]xcept as otherwise provided, the Maryland Rules shall apply to all practice and procedure issues arising under [the Health Claims Arbitration Act]," § 3-2A-02 (d), we seek the answer in Maryland Rule 1-322, which provides:
The inquiry is one involving the interpretation of the rule.
"To interpret rules of procedure, we use the same canons and principles of construction used to interpret statutes." State ex rel. Lennon v. Strazzella, 331 Md. 270, 274, 627 A.2d 1055, 1057 (1993). See Jones v. Hubbard, 356 Md. 513, 526, 740 A.2d 1004, 1011 (1999)
(); State v. Bell, 351 Md. 709, 717, 720 A.2d 311, 315 (1998); State v. Harrell, 348 Md. 69, 79, 702 A.2d 723, 728 (1997) (); In re Victor B., 336 Md. 85, 94, 646 A.2d 1012, 1016 (1994) (); State v. Montgomery, 334 Md. 20, 24, 637 A.2d 1193, 1195 (1994) (). See also Hartless v. State, 327 Md. 558, 563, 611 A.2d 581, 583 (1992); State v. Romulus, 315 Md. 526, 533, 555 A.2d 494, 496 (1989); O'Donnell v. McGann, 310 Md. 342, 350, 529 A.2d 372, 376 (1987); In re Leslie M., 305 Md. 477, 481, 505 A.2d 504, 507 (1986); Pappas v. Pappas, 287 Md. 455, 465, 413 A.2d 549, 553 (1980).
We stated some of the applicable canons and rules of construction in Strazzella, 331 Md. at 274-75, 627 A.2d at 1057:
(Citations omitted). See also Mayor and City Council of Baltimore v. Chase, 360 Md. 121, 128, 756 A.2d 987, 991 (2000)
Applying these rules, the petitioner reaches a different interpretation of Rule 1-322 than does the Court of Special Appeals. According to the petitioner, giving "meaning to all relevant provisions [of the rule] results in a finding that, though the mere transmission by facsimile is not filing, where a paper received by HCAO through facsimile is docketed, it should thereafter be treated as an original document properly filed." He reasons:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Malarkey v. State
...of procedure, we use the same canons and principles of construction used to interpret statutes'") (citation omitted); Blundon v. Taylor, 364 Md. 1, 7, 770 A.2d 658 (2001) (stating that "`the canons of statutory construction ... are also generally applicable in respect to rule construction'"......
-
Jackson v. Dackman
...to have occurred on the date of mailing. BLACK'S LAW DICTIONARY 972 (8th ed.2004). 13. The Court of Appeals, in Blundon v. Taylor, 364 Md. 1, 11, 770 A.2d 658 (2001), also considered Maryland Rule 1-322(a) as it pertains to the time that a pleading is deemed filed, for court purposes, and .......
-
In re Estate of Vess
...delivered, either in person or by mail, to the clerk or a judge of the court in which they are sought to be filed." Blundon v. Taylor , 364 Md. 1, 11, 770 A.2d 658 (2001).9 As Mr. Price points out, Rule 1–322(a) does not strictly apply in proceedings before the orphans' court. See Md. Rule ......
-
Hackney v. State
...is "so clear and unambiguous in this regard that it does not require construction." Id. at 33, 846 A.2d 1035 (quoting Blundon v. Taylor , 364 Md. 1, 11, 770 A.2d 658 (2001) ).It is undisputed that the clerk received Petitioner's petition one day after the ten-year limitations period expired......