Hill v. Scartascini

STEPHEN P. JOHNSON, Judge, Specially Assigned. “Zero is neither negative nor positive, but the narrowest of no-man’s land between these two kingdoms.” 1 And in some situations, such as this, it is more than just a placeholder; it can be an inaccurate and significant misrepresentation of reality. This appeal addresses what judgment should be entered when a jury award is less than a settlement payment by a joint tort-feasor pursuant to the Maryland Uniform Contribution Among Joint Tort-Feasors’ Act. Tina Hill, appellant and the plaintiff below, brings this appeal from a post-trial Order by the Circuit Court for Prince George’s County reducing a jury verdict in her favor to zero dollars ($0.00) and entering judgment for the appellees/defendants Ricardo L. Scartascini, M.D. and his professional corporation. On appeal, Hill asks this court to address whether the trial court erred in entering judgment for the defendants rather than entering the plaintiffs judgment as “satisfied.” Appellees maintain that Hill’s ³ argument is contrary to the language of the Joint Tort-Feasor’s Release which she executed, is contrary to the “true outcome” of the case, and that the appeal should be dismissed as moot.

For the reasons discussed below, we hold that the judgment was incorrectly entered by the trial court and that it should be amended to reflect more accurately how this case was concluded. FACTS On August 14,1995, Hill underwent an emergency Cesarean section in the Prince George’s Medical Center, in which she suffered a ruptured uterus and bladder, as well as other injuries. She brought suit against the physician, Dr. Seartas-cini, his professional corporation, and Dimensions Health Corporation (“Dimensions”), which owns the hospital, alleging negligence and lack of informed consent. On August 9, 1999, Hill settled her claim against Dimensions for $100,000 and signed a Joint Tort-Feasor’s Release. 2 The case against Dr. Scartascini and his professional corporation (collectively, “Dr. Scartascini”) proceeded to trial, and at the conclusion of the five day jury trial, the jury returned a verdict for Hill in the amount of $72,056.87.

Because the jury award was less than the amount paid by Dimensions, Dr. Scartascini filed a Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment seeking to have the judgment reduced to zero dollars ($0.00), or, alternatively, to have judgment entered in the.defendants’ favor. Hill opposed the motion, arguing that the judgment should be marked “satisfied” in the amount of the judgment, $72,056.87, as set forth in Martinez v. Lopez, 300 Md. 91 , 476 A.2d 197 (1984). Dr. Scartascini filed a Response to Hill’s Opposition and requested a hearing. Without conducting a hearing and stating that ⁴ “[t]his truly appears to be an esoteric issue of no practical importance to anyone, ... [with which] the Court will spend no significant amount of time or effort ...” the lower court granted the defendants’ motion by reducing the judgment to zero dollars ($0.00) as well as entering judgment in favor of Dr. Seartascini.

DISCUSSION We first address Dr. Scartascini’s argument that the case is moot because there is no controversy to which this court could provide a remedy. “A question is moot if, at the time it is before the court, there is no longer an existing controversy between the parties, so that there is no longer any effective remedy which the court can provide.” Attorney General v. Anne Arundel County School Bus, 286 Md. 324, 327 , 407 A.2d 749 (1979). We do not find the issue to be moot because not only does a controversy still exist between the parties, but this Court can provide an effective remedy by reversing the judgment below and modifying the judgment. As this Court said in Williams v. Williams, 63 Md.App. 220, 226 , 492 A.2d 649 (1985), aff'd, 305 Md. 1 , 501 A.2d 432 (1985): Were we to dismiss this appeal [for mootness], those [court] orders would remain spread out among the records of the Circuit Court for Montgomery County for all to see. While they may not ever be utilized and while their effect beyond mere existence is not known, and may be none, that existence, uncontradicted, gives substance to this appeal.

Similarly, in this case, the judgment for Dr. Seartascini remains in the records of the Circuit Court for Prince George’s County for all to see, despite the jury’s finding that Dr. Seartascini was hable to Hill for medical malpractice. We therefore reject appellees’ argument of mootness. We now turn to the Maryland Uniform Contribution Among Joint Tort-Feasors’ Act (“the Act”). Under the Act: A release by the' injured person of one joint tort-feasor, whether before or after judgment, does not discharge the other tort-feasor unless the release so provides, but it re ⁵ duces the claim against the other tort-feasors in the amount of the consideration paid for the release or in any amount or proportion by which the release provides that the total claim shall be reduced, if greater than the consideration paid.

Md. Code (1998 Repl.Vol.) Cts. & Jud. Proc. § 3-1404 (emphasis added). In other words, unless the injured party’s release discharged the non-settling tort-feasor, the Act provides only that the claim be reduced. Neither the Act nor Maryland case law allows for judgment to be entered in favor of the defendant.

Therefore, we conclude that the lower court erred in entering judgment for Dr. Scartascini and his