Md. Bd. of Physicians v. Geier
| Decision Date | 26 June 2019 |
| Docket Number | No. 1979,No. 338,1979,338 |
| Parties | MARYLAND BOARD OF PHYSICIANS, ET AL. v. MARK R. GEIER, ET AL. |
| Court | Court of Special Appeals of Maryland |
APPELLATE PROCEDURE—SEPARATE DOCUMENT REQUIREMENT
Under a mechanical application of Md. Rule 2-601, the circuit court's 112-page memorandum opinion purporting to award damages to three plaintiffs did not set forth a final judgment. The court did not set forth a final judgment on a separate document within the meaning of Rule 2-601(a) until the court issued a subsequent order stating each defendant's liability for damages and directing the clerk to enter a final judgment.
FEDERAL CIVIL RIGHTS CLAIMS—LIABILITY OF STATE AGENCY
42 U.S.C. § 1983 does not authorize an action for damages against a state or a state agency. The Board of Physicians had no liability for damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, where the complaint did not name the Board as a defendant in the § 1983 count, but instead named the Board as a defendant only in a separate tort count. Because the Board had no § 1983 liability, the Board could not be required to pay an award of attorneys' fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988.
FEDERAL CIVIL RIGHTS CLAIMS—ABSOLUTE QUASI-JUDICIAL IMMUNITY
Under federal law, government officials who perform adjudicative or prosecutorial functions in administrative proceedings have absolute immunity from being sued for damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, as long as those proceedings afford procedural safeguards adequate to restrain unconstitutional conduct by agency officials.
In this case, members and staff of the State Board of Physicians were entitled to absolute immunity in an action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 to recover damages resulting from their participation in the adjudicative function of issuing a cease-and-desist order. The administrative prosecutor who drafted the order was also entitled to absolute immunity, because she acted as an advocate for the State in asking the Board to include provisions in the order.
MARYLAND TORT CLAIMS—ABSOLUTE QUASI-JUDICIAL IMMUNITY
As a matter of first impression, under Maryland common law, agency officials who perform either adjudicative or prosecutorial functions in administrative proceedings are absolutely immune from suit for non-constitutional tort claims based on conduct for which those officials would enjoy absolute immunity under federal law in a suit for damages for alleged violations of the federal constitution.
STATUTORY INTERPETATION—PRESUMPTION AGAINST PREEMPTION OF COMMON LAW
Section 5-715(b) of the Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article provides that a member or legally authorized agent of the State Board of Physicians "who acts without malice ... is not civilly liable for ... acting on an allegation for Board action made to the Board[.]" Absent an express statement or clear implication of legislative intent to preempt the common law, this statute must be interpreted as neither changing nor limiting other defenses that might be available under common law.
CIVIL PROCEDURE—ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY
The defense of absolute immunity may be raised in a preliminary motion to dismiss or in a motion for summary judgment. An interlocutory order overruling a claim of absolute immunity is subject to de novo review on appeal from an adverse final judgment. If the circuit court erroneously rejected a valid claim of absolute immunity, the appellate court should reverse the judgment with the direction to dismiss the action.
DISCOVERY—SANCTIONS AGAINST MULTIPLE DEFENDANTS
A decision to impose sanctions based on a defendant's discovery failure, without more, does not justify the imposition of sanctions against a co-defendant. In this case, the circuit court abused its discretion by imposing a default as to the liability of 25 individual defendants as a sanction for discovery failures attributed to their co-defendant, the State Board of Physicians. The court further erred when it refused to vacate the default as to those defendants, based on the court's clearly erroneous finding that those defendants previously waived their objection to being sanctioned for the Board's discovery failures.
MARYLAND TORT CLAIMS—LIABILITY OF STATE AGENCY
In an action where all officials of a state agency have absolute immunity, the agency cannot be made liable for the conduct of those officials under the Maryland Tort Claims Act. Where the conduct of the agency officials is the only basis for liability of the agency, a judgment in favor of all of the agency officials inures to the benefit of the agency even if the agency is in default.
Circuit Court for Montgomery County
Case No. 371761V
REPORTED
CONSOLIDATED CASES
Opinion by Arthur, J.
*Chief Judge Matthew J. Fader, Judge Donald E. Beachley, and Judge Steven B. Gould did not participate in the Court's decision to designate this opinion for publication pursuant to Md. Rule 8-605.1
Statutory and Regulatory Background ........................................................................... 1
The Administrative Proceedings ...................................................................................... 7
The Proceedings in the Circuit Court ............................................................................ 14
Scope of Appellate Review .............................................................................................. 34
Questions Presented ........................................................................................................ 38
Discussion ......................................................................................................................... 40
Conclusion ...................................................................................................................... 108
In 2012, the Maryland Board of Physicians issued a public cease-and-desist order against Mark Geier, M.D. The text of the order included information about medications prescribed to Dr. Geier, his wife, and his son. The Geiers filed suit in the Circuit Court for Montgomery County, seeking to recover damages from 25 persons who were alleged to have participated in the drafting or approval of the order and from the Board itself. The court rejected the defendants' assertions that they were entitled to absolute immunity with respect to their functions in the administrative proceedings.
The defendants managed to narrow the discovery of some matters by prevailing in two interlocutory appeals: Maryland Board of Physicians v. Geier ("Geier I"), 225 Md. App. 114 (2015), and Maryland Board of Physicians v. Geier ("Geier II"), 451 Md. 526 (2017). Ultimately, as a sanction for the Board's discovery failures, the circuit court ordered a default as to the liability of all defendants. After a bench trial on damages, the court awarded a total of $1.25 million in compensatory damages and a total of $1.25 million in punitive damages. The court further ordered the defendants to pay nearly $2.4 million in attorneys' fees. All defendants appealed from the final judgment.
Foremost in a litany of challenges, the defendants contend that they are entitled to absolute immunity as to all claims. For the reasons discussed in this opinion, we conclude...
To continue reading
Request your trial