Brothers v. Sinai Hospital

GILBERT, Chief Judge. This appeal is yet another wrinkle in medical malpractice suits. The entire matter presently before us is procedural. ²³⁷ We need not, therefore, recite any of the factual situation giving rise to the claim. The record shows that a panel of the Health Claims Arbitration Office (HCAO) dismissed the claim of Seymour Brothers and Bernyce Brothers, his wife, against health care providers, Dr. Joel M. Cherry, Dr. Nelson Stone, Dr. Ray Brodie, Jr., and Sinai Hospital.

Obviously dissatisfied with the panel’s rejection, the Brothers, within the time prescribed by Md.Rule BY2 and Courts Art. § 3-2A-06(a), filed paper writings entitled, “Notice of Rejection of Award,” and “Notice of Action to Nullify Award.” Both were captioned: “SEYMOUR BROTHERS, et al„ “ BEFORE THE HEALTH CLAIMS Claimants * ARBITRATION OFFICE OF -vs- * MARYLAND JOEL M. CHERRY, M.D., et al., * Health Care Providers ’ HCA No.: 82-139” The notice of action to nullify added the words, “Mr. Clerk,” and substituted the noun, “Plaintiffs,” for the noun “Claimants.” It is apparent that copies, not the originals, of the two writings were filed in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City along with a “declaration.” 1 Two of the health care providers, Drs. Cherry and Stone, filed a motion raising preliminary objection, asserting that the trial court did not have jurisdiction over the case because of the Brothers’ failure to abide by the Maryland Rules of Procedure. Those two health care providers noted that the “Notice of Rejection” and the “Notice of Action to Nullify” were filed in the improper forum, and only a copy of the notices was tendered to the circuit court. The hearing judge agreed with Drs.

Cherry and Stone. Furthermore, the hearing court “considered the issues raised on its own motion,” and then dismissed the Brothers’ action ²³⁸ against all defendants. Simultaneously, the court affirmed the arbitrator’s decision. Recently in Osheroff v. Chestnut Lodge, Inc., 62 Md.App. 519 , 490 A.2d 720 (1985), we addressed a somewhat similar situation.

There we declined to put form over substance and thus deprive a claimant of the right to litigate an issue of liability. We said: “It must be borne in mind that the statute is strictly construed so as to effectuate the