Silver v. Greater Balt. Med. Ctr., Inc.
| Decision Date | 21 December 2020 |
| Docket Number | No. 3491,3491 |
| Parties | ENOCH SILVER, III v. GREATER BALTIMORE MEDICAL CENTER, INC., ET AL. |
| Court | Court of Special Appeals of Maryland |
ENOCH SILVER, III
v.
GREATER BALTIMORE MEDICAL CENTER, INC., ET AL.
No. 3491
COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND
September Term, 2018
December 21, 2020
Civil Procedure — Class Actions — Standard of Review: Maryland appellate courts exercise de novo review to determine whether the circuit court applied the correct legal standard in granting or denying class certification. Appellate courts review the circuit court's ultimate decision to grant or deny class certification for abuse of discretion.
Civil Procedure — Class Actions — Appellate Relief: If the appellate court decides that the circuit court's decision to deny class certification was based upon a legal error but that there are other grounds in the record that might support denial of class certification, the proper appellate remedy is to vacate the circuit court's judgment and remand the case for the circuit court to consider the alternative grounds. It is not appropriate for appellate judges to exercise the discretion that is reserved to the circuit court.
Civil Procedure — Class Actions — Certification — Md. Rule 2-231(b) and (c): Md. Rule 2-231(b) sets out four threshold requirements for class certification: numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy of representation. While these prerequisites are necessary, they are not alone sufficient. In addition to Rule 2-231(b)'s threshold requirements, Rule 2-231(c) sets out additional criteria and a proposed class must usually satisfy at least one of them. The criteria include: (i) whether issues common to the members of the class predominate over issues affecting individual members and that a class action is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of the controversy or (ii) the defendant has acted or refused to act on grounds generally applicable to the class so that injunctive or declaratory relief would be appropriate to the class as a whole.
Civil Procedure — Class Actions — Certification — "Predominance": In deciding whether potential class issues predominate over individual issues, a court must first classify issues as common to members of the class or confined to one or more individual members of the proposed class. In this exercise, courts should not focus on legal and factual issues in the abstract but rather on how these questions would be answered at trial. To predominate, a class issue need not pertain to all aspects of the action but rather to significant aspects of individual cases.
Civil Procedure — Class Actions — Certification —"Superiority": In deciding whether a proposed class action would be superior to other means of dispute resolution, the circuit court should consider "the interest of members of the class in individually controlling the prosecution of separate actions," "the extent and nature of any pending
Page 2
litigation," "the desirability . . . of concentrating the litigation of the claims in the particular forum," and "the difficulties likely to be encountered in the management of a class action." Md. Rule 2-231(c). Answering these questions requires the court to weigh the relative advantages and disadvantages of a class action as opposed to other procedures.
Civil Procedure — Class Actions — Subclasses: A circuit court is under no obligation to sua sponte propose subclasses when the court declines to certify the class as proposed by the plaintiff
Civil Procedure — Class Actions: The plaintiff in this action proposed a single class to adjudicate all claims for damages based on the assertion that four large Maryland hospitals had violated Md. Code Health Gen. § 4-304 by overcharging patients and former patients for copies of medical records over a four-year period. The circuit court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that the plaintiff had not demonstrated that class issues would predominate over individual issues or that a class action would be an efficient and economical method of adjudicating the claims of class members.
The plaintiff also proposed a separate class for injunctive relief against the hospitals. The court concluded that, because the damages class had not been certified, it was inappropriate to certify a hybrid class action, that is one in which a class could be certified under more than one section of Md. Rule 2-231(c). Therefore, the court declined to certify the injunctive relief class. But the plaintiff had never requested hybrid class certification, and the court did not consider his request for certification of an injunctive relief class under Md. Rule 2-231(c)(2) alone. In so doing, the court erred.
Page 3
Circuit Court for Baltimore City
Case No. 24-C-16-004995
REPORTED
Kehoe, Arthur, Moylan, Charles E., Jr. (Senior Judge, Specially Assigned) JJ.
Opinion by Kehoe, J.
* Fader, C.J., did not participate in the decision to report this opinion pursuant to Md. Rule 8-605.1.
Page 4
Introduction
Background
The medical-records charges
The complaint
The motion for class certification
The circuit court's denial of the class-certification motion
Analysis
A. Class certification
B. The standard of review
C. The damages class: certification under Md. Rule 2-231(c)(3)
1. Predominance
2. Superiority
3. Certification of subclasses
D. The injunctive-relief class: certification under Md. Rule 2-231(c)(2)
Conclusion and proceedings on remand
Enoch Silver, who paid to receive copies of his medical records from each of the appellee hospitals, filed a putative class-action lawsuit against them. He alleged that the hospitals had violated, and were continuing to violate, Maryland statutory law by assessing unreasonable charges for the copies and by engaging in related illegal and unfair trade practices. The Circuit Court for Baltimore City denied Silver's motion to certify two proposed classes for the action—one for damages and another for injunctive relief. And because Silver's individual claims against the hospitals did not meet the circuit court's
Page 5
amount-in-controversy threshold, the court ultimately granted an unopposed motion to dismiss Silver's case for lack of jurisdiction.
Silver's brief presents three issues which we have consolidated into one: Did the circuit court abuse its discretion in denying Silver's class-certification motion?1 Our answer is no as to the proposed damages class. However, we do not agree with the circuit court's reasoning as to the proposed class for injunctive relief. We will affirm the circuit court's judgment in part, vacate it in part and remand this case for further proceedings.
Silver's lawsuit arises out of three separate requests for medical records from three unaffiliated hospitals: Greater Baltimore Medical Center ("GBMC"), Medstar Union Memorial Hospital, and The Johns Hopkins Hospital.
On August 20, 2014, Silver, through his attorney, sent GBMC a written request for copies of his personal medical records dating back to July 1, 2014. In his letter to the
Page 6
hospital, Silver asked that any records available in electronic format be sent to him on a CD. Within a few days, GBMC delivered the requested records, but in paper format and for a considerable price. The $573.39 invoice for fulfilling the records request included per-page copying fees totaling $506.16 ($0.76 per page, for an estimated 666 pages); a "Basic Fee" of $22.88; a "Handling Fee" of $1.00; a shipping fee of $12.23; and sales tax of $31.12. On July 15, 2015, more than nine months after receiving this invoice, Silver, through his attorney, complained about the amount of these fees. The hospital didn't budge.
Silver's second medical-records request was made to Union Memorial on March 25, 2015. Through his attorney, Silver made a written request for his personal medical records dating back to January 1, 2007. As he had done with GBMC, Silver asked that any records available in electronic format be delivered on a CD. Union Memorial responded as GBMC had: with paper records and an invoice. The bill, for $277.47, included per-page copying fees totaling $228.76 ($0.76 per page, for an estimated 301 pages); a "Basic Fee" of $22.88; a "Handling Fee" of $1.00; a shipping fee of $9.80; and sales tax of $15.03.
Silver's third request was made of Johns Hopkins on October 19, 2015, seeking his personal medical records dating back to July 1, 2014. The written request, once more made through Silver's attorney, asked that electronic records be delivered on a CD. Johns Hopkins delivered one page of paper records for $24.12. This cost included a per-page copying fee of $0.76; a "Basic Fee" of $22.88; and a shipping-and-handling fee of $0.48.
Page 7
In September 2016, Silver filed a two-count complaint in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City, proposing to bring a class-action lawsuit against all three hospitals.
In one count, Silver alleged that the hospitals' "exorbitant" medical-records charges violated Md. Code, § 4-304(c) of the Health-General Article ("Health-Gen."), which limits the fees that healthcare providers may charge for the provision of medical records. (A right of action for the violation of Health-Gen. § 4-304(c) is provided under Health-Gen. § 4-309(f), which makes healthcare providers and others who knowingly violate the statute liable for actual damages.) Under the current version of the statute, when a "person in interest" or other authorized person requests medical records, providers are limited to charging "a reasonable cost-based fee for providing the information requested." Health-Gen. § 4-304(c)(2). Subject to some conditions, the statute places a $0.76 per-page cap on fees for "copying and mailing" records. Health-Gen. § 4-304(c)(3)(i). In addition to the per-page fees, the statute permits healthcare providers to charge up to $22.88 for "record retrieval and preparation," plus the actual costs incurred for "postage and handling." Health-Gen. § 4-304(c)(3)(ii). For electronic copies of records stored in an electronic format, the per-page fee is limited to...
To continue reading
Request your trial