Bishop v. Holy Cross Hospital of Silver Spring

MacDaniel, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. The appellant, Kathleen L. Bishop, filed a Declaration in the Circuit Court for Montgomery County, alleging that certain acts by the appellees, Holy Cross Hospital of Silver Spring and John B. Umhau, Jr., were medical malpractice and that, as a proximate result of those acts, she sustained certain injuries. The appellant sought punitive damages in addition to compensatory damages. Both appellees filed Motions Raising Preliminary Objections.

They contended that the circuit court did not have jurisdiction to consider the appellant’s claim because the appellant had failed to present her claim to the Health Claims Arbitration Office, as required by this State’s Health Care Malpractice Claims Statute (§§ 3-2A-01 through 3-2A-09 of the Courts Article of the Annotated Code of Maryland). A hearing was held on April 11, 1979, and the trial judge sustained the motions. For the purposes of this case, the applicable statutory sections are as follows. Section 3-2A-02 provides: "§ 3-2A-02.

Exclusiveness of procedures. (a) Claims and actions to which subtitle applicable. — All claims, suits, and actions, including cross claims, third-party claims, and actions under Title 3 Subtitle 9 of this article, by a ⁶⁹⁰ person against a health care provider for medical injury allegedly suffered by the person in which damages of more than $5,000 are sought are subject to and shall be governed by the provisions of this subtitle. An action or suit of that type may not be brought or pursued in any court of this State except in accordance with this subtitle. An action in which damages of $5,000 or less are sought is not subject to the provisions of this subtitle.” (Emphasis added.) Section 3-2A-05 provides, in part: "§ 3-2A-05.

Arbitration of claim. (d) Determinations. — The arbitration panel shall first determine the issue of liability with respect to a claim referred to it. If the arbitration panel determines that the health care provider is not liable to the claimant or claimants the award shall be in favor of the health care provider. If the arbitration panel determines that a health care provider is liable to the claimant or claimants, it shall then consider, assess, and apportion appropriate damages against one or more of the health care providers that it has found to be liable.” (Emphasis added.) Section 3-2A-06 provides for judicial review of any claims.

The appellant now argues that the trial court erred in ruling that it did not have jurisdiction over her claim. She contends that the Health Claims Arbitration Panel has no authority to award punitive damages and that, therefore, she had no adequate administrative remedy and was entitled to bring her suit directly in the circuit court. We disagree. The principles of statutory construction which must guide us are clear.

In Greenbelt Consumer v. Acme Mkts., 272 Md. 222, 226 (1974), the Court of Appeals said: ". . . the cardinal rule requires that the legislative intent be discovered and carried out. This purpose must be discerned from the words the Legislature' ⁶⁹¹ chose to employ unless there exists an ambiguity or obscurity, in which case we need to look elsewhere. M.T.A. v. Balto. Co. Revenue Auth., 267 Md. 687 , 298 A.2d 413