Smith Laboratories, Inc. v. Teuscher

⁶⁷⁸ PER CURIAM. In this case we hold that the Maryland Health Care Malpractice Claims statute, Md.Code (1974, 1984 Repl.Vol., 1986 Cum.Supp.), §§ 3-2A-01 to -08 of the Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article (the Act), does not require, as a condition precedent to a civil action in court, arbitration of a products liability claim asserted exclusively against a pharmaceutical manufacturer. Appellees, Emil J. Teuscher (Emil), by Delma Teuscher, his legal guardian, Delma Teuscher, individually, and the United States Veterans Administration, as subrogee, filed a health claims arbitration claim against a physician and a hospital alleging personal injury by way of medical malpractice in the treatment of Emil. The treatment included chemonucleolysis, a procedure which involved the injection of Chymodiactin into two of Emil’s lumbar intervertebral discs.

Chymodiactin is a drug developed, manufactured, and marketed by the appellant, Smith Laboratories, Inc. (Smith). In the arbitration the physician filed a third-party claim against Smith. Smith moved to dismiss the third-party claim but that motion was denied. Smith thereupon filed the instant declaratory judgment action seeking an adjudication that the third-party claim against it was not subject to arbitration.

Because it is admittedly not a “health care provider” within the meaning of the Act, Smith contends that it is not within the jurisdiction created by § 3-2A-02(a)(l) of the Act which in relevant part reads: All claims, suits, and actions, including cross claims, third-party claims, and actions under Title 3 Subtitle 9 of this article, by a person against a health care provider for medical injury allegedly suffered by the person ... are subject to and shall be governed by the provisions of this subtitle.[ 1 ] ⁶⁷⁹ While the instant action was pending in circuit court, the appellees amended their claim in arbitration to claim directly against Smith and the appellees also filed an action in circuit court against Smith. The circuit court entered a declaratory judgment of arbitrability. Although finding that Smith was not a health care provider, the court ruled that the Act subjected to