Rosenberg v. Institute of Pennsylvania Hospital

GILBERT, Chief Judge. The Rosenbergs—Morton, Aileen, and Adam, father, mother and son—have reached this Court as a result of the dismissal by the Circuit Court for Montgomery County of their counterclaim against the Institute of the Pennsylvania Hospital (Institute). The appellants ask that we reverse the circuit court. To do so would require us to declare that the particular facts of this case are not within the spread of the statutory protective umbrella raised over medical malpractice actions. 1 The Facts The litigation began on February 10, 1984, when the Institute filed an action in the District Court of Maryland for Montgomery County against the Rosenbergs in order to recover a balance of $1141.27 allegedly due for medical services rendered to Adam, who was a patient in the Institute from February 13, 1981, to February 24, 1982.

The Rosenbergs filed a counterclaim for damages for negligence, negligent infliction of emotional distress, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and breach of contract, arising from the Institute’s failure to supervise Adam properly while he was an inpatient at the Institute. Following the Rosenbergs’ request for a jury trial, the case was transferred to the Circuit Court for Montgomery County. When the Institute was apparently untimely in its reply to the Rosenbergs’ discovery demand, the latter moved for ⁶¹⁹ dismissal of the former’s complaint. That motion was granted by the court, which then, sua sponte, dismissed the Rosenbergs’ countersuit against the Institute.

The basis of the dismissal was that the Rosenbergs had failed to comply with the Maryland Health Care Malpractice Act. The Law The Health Care Malpractice Act provides, in pertinent part: “(a) ... (1) All claims, suits, and actions, including cross claims, third-party claims, and actions under Subtitle 9 of this title, by a person against a health care provider for medical injury allegedly suffered by the person in which damages of more than the limit of the concurrent jurisdiction of the District Court are sought are subject to and shall be governed by the provisions of this subtitle. (2) An action or suit of that type may not be brought or pursued in any courts of