Weidig v. Tabler

WENNER, Judge. In this appeal from the Circuit Court for Montgomery County, we shall hold that a claim of medical malpractice against a non-health care provider, where joined with and incorporated in an arbitrable claim against a health care provider, is subject to mandatory arbitration under Maryland’s Health Care Malpractice Claims Act (the Act). Md. Cts. & Jud. Proc.Code Ann. (1989 Repl.Vol.) § 3-2A-01 et seq.

At the outset, however, we reject appellant’s threshold contention that the circuit court erred when it refused to issue a Writ of Mandamus to Walter R. Tabler, Director of the Health Claims Arbitration Office, directing that he dismiss from arbitration proceedings appellee’s claim against the non-health care provider. Appellee, Bradley Crites, sought the professional services of Jeffrey C. Weidig, M.D., for the purpose of receiving a hair transplant. Appellant, Joseph Kies, is an employee of Dr. Weidig. He is also the office manager of Jeffrey C. Weidig, M.D., Chartered. 1 Appellee had an initial consultation with appellant.

Appellant examined appellee’s scalp ⁴⁹¹ and determined that appellee was a suitable candidate for hair transplant surgery. At the initial consultation, appellant informed appellee of the costs and potential risks of the procedure. Suffice it to say that the surgery proved to be unsuccessful. As a result, appellee filed with the Health Claims Arbitration Office a complaint for medical malpractice against the appellant, Weidig, and Weidig’s corporation.

Appellant subsequently moved for summary judgment on the grounds that, as a non-health care provider, the claim against him was beyond the scope of the Act. The panel chairman denied the motion. Undaunted, appellant sought from the circuit court a writ of mandamus to prohibit the Health Claims Arbitration Office from exercising jurisdiction over him. The circuit court declined to issue the Writ, and this appeal ensued.

Mandamus The function of mandamus is to compel an inferior tribunal, a public official, or an administrative agency to perform a function or duty to which the person applying for the Writ has a clear legal right. Dorchester General Hospital v. Sober, 79 Md.App. 110, 115 , 555 A.2d 1074 (1989). Mandamus is an extraordinary remedy, reserved for those claims where there is no other available procedure for obtaining review, or where the action complained of is arbitrary and capricious. Id.

In any event, the decision to deny a writ of mandamus will be overturned by us only upon a showing of an abuse of discretion. Ipes v. Board of Fire Commissioners of Baltimore, 224 Md. 180, 185-186 , 167 A.2d 337 (1961). In the case at hand, appellant may seek upon disposition of the arbitration proceedings review of the denial of his motion for summary judgment pursuant to Md. Cts. & Jud. Proc.

Code Ann. §§ 3-2A-06 and 3-224(b)(4). Dorchester, supra, 79 Md.App. at 118 , 555 A.2d 1074 . Accordingly, we hold that the circuit court did not abuse its discretion when it declined to issue the Writ of Mandamus sought by ⁴⁹² appellant. Nevertheless, we view the underlying question concerning the jurisdiction of the Act over non-health care providers in circumstances similar to those sub judice to be of such importance so as to require its prompt resolution.

The Statute The Health Care Malpractice Claims Act is applicable to “[a]ll claims, suits, and actions, including cross claims, third party claims ... by a person against a health care provider for medical injury allegedly suffered by the person____ § 3-2A-02(a)(l). Medical injury means an injury arising out of or resulting from the rendering or failure to render health care. § 3-2A-01(f). A health care provider is defined by the Act as a hospital, a related institution as defined in § 19-301 of the Health-General Article, a physician, an osteopath, an optometrist, a chiropractor, a registered or licensed practical nurse, a dentist, a podiatrist, and a physical therapist, licensed or authorized to provide one or more health care services in Maryland. “Health care provider” does not mean any nursing institution conducted by and for those who rely upon treatment by spiritual means through prayer alone in accordance with the tenets and practices of a recognized church or religious denomination. § 3-2A-01(e). With these provisions clearly in mind, as well as all of the other provisions of the Act, we turn to the question at hand.

The parties concede, as they must, that Weidig falls within the statutory definition of a health care provider. For the purpose of this appeal, we shall regard appellant as a non-health care provider. 2 . Appellee filed a complaint with the Health Claims Arbitration Office for medical injury sustained by him as a result of the alleged negligence of ⁴⁹³ both Weidig and appellant. What we are called upon to decide then, is whether, under circumstances such as those in the case sub judice, a non-health care provider, when joined as a party defendant with a health care provider in an action to recover for medical injuries arising out of the rendering or failure to render health care, is included within the purview of the Act.

Upon the record before us, as we shall explain, we believe that such a claim is subject to the Act. In order to reach our conclusion, it was necessary to engage in the familiar exercise of statutory construction. The primary objective of such a task, of course, is to ascertain and carry out the real intention of the Legislature. State Department of Assessments and Taxation v. Belcher, 315 Md. 111, 119 , 553 A.2d 691 (1989).

As a beginning point, we are accustomed to discerning legislative intent from the plain meaning of the words used in the statute. Id. It is upon the plain meaning rule that appellant relies in arguing that a non-health care provider is excluded from coverage under the Act. Even if we were to assume, for the sake of argument, that this is so, our quest to discover legislative intent is not at an end.

That statutory language is clear and unambiguous does not preclude us from consulting external evidence to determine the goal or purpose of the Act. Kaczorowski v. City of Baltimore, 309 Md. 505, 513-515 , 525 A.2d 628 (1987). Our focus then becomes the context within which the Act was enacted, as evidenced by committee reports, the bill’s title and function paragraphs, and “other material that fairly bears on the fundamental issue of legislative purpose or goal.” Id. at 515 , 525 A.2d 628 ; see also Motor Vehicle Administration v. Mohler, 318 Md. 219, 225 , 567 A.2d 929 , (1990). What Kaczorowski and its progeny teach us is that the rules of construction should not be employed to defeat the legislative objective.

Belcher, supra, 315 Md. at 119 , 553 A.2d 691 . When we apply these principles to the circumstances sub judice, a review of the legislative history of the Act con ⁴⁹⁴ vinces us that the plain meaning of the words used should not be afforded their literal effect. Legislative Intent In 1976, the Maryland General Assembly adopted legislation requiring mandatory arbitration of claims of medical malpractice before resort could be had to a court of law. The impetus for the enactment of the legislation was what has often been referred to as the malpractice insurance “crisis” pervading the health care industry.

This “crisis” manifested itself in a dramatic increase in medical malpractice claims. As a result, the medical profession was faced not only with an increase in the cost of professional liability insurance, but with the threatened exodus of major insurance companies from the professional liability insurance market. The Health Care Malpractice Claims Act was but one of several statutes adopted by the Legislature to preserve the health care delivery system in Maryland. 3 The theme that pervades the Report of the Medical Malpractice Insurance Study Committee. (January 6, 1976), was the need for some type of dispute resolution mechanism to screen medical malpractice claims before they would reach the courts.

The prime objective of such legislation, then, was to reduce health care costs for patients as well as for physicians, by requiring more prompt resolution of medical malpractice claims before more accessible non-judicial forums. Report at p. 1. At least in theory, mandatory arbitration would reduce the number of malpractice claims that would ultimately reach the courts. In the Committee’s view, an arbitration panel’s determination in favor of the claimant would encourage settlement of the claim.

On the other hand, those claimants with non-meritorious claims would be dissuaded from pursuing them fur ⁴⁹⁵ ther in court. Report at p. 3. Furthermore, because the health care profession would be represented on the arbitration panel, the