Preview:

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND

No. 3

September Term, 1997

__________________________________________

SHELDON H. LERMAN v. KERRY R. HEEMAN

__________________________________________ Bell, C.J. Eldridge Rodowsky Chasanow Raker Wilner Karwacki (retired, specially assigned) JJ.

Opinion by Raker, J.

Filed: October 17, 1997

The questions presented are whether a joint tortfeasor, who has filed a Motion for Judgment of Contribution or Recovery Over pursuant to Maryland Rule 2-614, must have filed a cross-claim in the underlying tort suit, and whether that Motion for Contribution, when arising out of a medical malpractice action, is subject to mandatory arbitration under the Health Care Malpractice Claims Act. We shall hold that a joint-tortfeasor need not file a cross-claim prior to filing a Motion for Contribution, and that a Motion for Contribution, the decision of which does not require any further resolution of any negligence claim is not subject to mandatory arbitration. I. In November of 1992, the Estate of Tiffany L. Troch, et. al. ("claimants") filed a medical malpractice action with the Health Claims Arbitration Office against Petitioner, Sheldon H. Lerman, M.D., his Professional Association (as employer), Respondent Kerry R. Heeman, M.D., Osler Drive Emergency Physicians Associates (Respondent's employer), and St. Joseph's Hospital. Defendants filed no cross-claims. The arbitration panel returned an award in favor of the claimants and against all the defendants, after which all parties filed a Notice of Rejection with the Health Claims Arbitration Office. Claimants then re-filed their action in the Circuit Court for Baltimore County. Once again, defendants filed no cross-claims. In September of 1994, a jury returned a verdict against Drs. Lerman and Heeman (and their employers) in the amount of $3,354,808.55. Subsequently, Respondent Heeman's insurer paid $2,354,808.55 and Petitioner Lerman's insurer paid $1,000,000, and each,

-2through their insurers paid half of the interest due on the judgment, in full satisfaction of the judgment. In July, 1995, pursuant to Maryland Rule 2-614, Heeman filed a Motion for Judgment of Contribution or Recovery Over with the trial court requesting contribution from Lerman in the amount of $677,404.28, the amount by which his payment to the claimants exceeded Dr. Lerman's payment. Dr. Lerman, in turn, filed an Opposition to the Motion. Lerman's Opposition raised two arguments: (1) that the court had no authority to enter a judgment for contribution because Dr. Heeman had never filed a cross-claim against Dr. Lerman and (2) the court had no jurisdiction to entertain Dr. Heeman's claim for contribution because the contribution claim had not been submitted to arbitration. The trial court granted Heeman's motion and entered judgment in the amount of $677,404.28. Lerman noted an appeal to the Court of Special Appeals, raising the same issues he raised below. The Court of Special Appeals affirmed the judgment of the circuit court. Lerman v. Heeman, 112 Md.App. 320, 323, 685 A.2d 782, 784 (1996). We granted Lerman's petition certiorari. II. We review the trial court's judgment to determine if the court erred in granting Respondent's Motion for Contribution. Petitioner argues that a court can grant a motion for contribution only if the movant has a right to contribution, and that a right to contribution can be acquired only if it was previously asserted in a cross-claim. We disagree. Respondent's right to contribution is derived from Maryland's adoption of the Uniform Contribution Among Tortfeasors Act ("UCATA"), and is governed by Maryland Rule 2-614. Neither

-3require a previous assertion of the right to contribution. To interpret rules of procedure and statutes we use the same canons and principles of construction, beginning our analysis by looking at the plain language -- looking to the words of the rule and giving them their ordinary and natural meaning; if the words of the rule are clear and unambiguous, our analysis ordinarily ends. Long v. State, 343 Md. 662, 667, 684 A.2d 445, 447 (1996); In Re Victor B., 336 Md. 85, 94, 646 A.2d 1012, 1016 (1994); New Jersey v. Strazzella, 331 Md. 270, 274, 627 A.2d 1055, 1057 (1993); Beales v. State, 329 Md. 263, 271, 619 A.2d 105, 109 (1993). When the language is ambiguous, we may look to the intent behind the statute or rule, but "our mission is to give the rule a reasonable interpretation in tune with logic and common sense." In Re Victor B. 336 Md. at 94, 646 A.2d at 1016. See also Strazzella, 331 Md. at 275, 627 A.2d at 1057; Long, 343 Md. at 667, 684 A.2d at 448. Maryland's earliest version of the UCATA, codified at Article 50

Download Lerman v. Heeman.pdf

Maryland Law