Circuit Court for Baltimore City Case No. 24C20000672 UNREPORTED DEBRA ...

Circuit Court for Baltimore City Case No. 24C20000672

UNREPORTED IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS

OF MARYLAND No. 0620

September Term, 2020 ______________________________________

DEBRA WALKER v.

SETON MEDICAL GROUP, INC., et al. ______________________________________

Fader, C.J. Nazarian, Gould,

JJ. ______________________________________

Opinion by Gould, J. ______________________________________

Filed: July 7, 2021

*This is an unreported opinion, and it may not be cited in any paper, brief, motion, or other document filed in this Court or any other Maryland Court as either precedent within the rule of stare decisis or as persuasive authority. Md. Rule 1-104.

Unreported Opinion In this appeal of an order granting a motion to transfer a medical malpractice case from Baltimore City to Baltimore County, the appellant argues that the court misunderstood and misapplied the principles governing such motions, and that the court made critical findings unsupported by the record before it. Although we disagree that the court misunderstood and misapplied the law, we agree that the court made significant findings without adequate evidentiary support. Accordingly, we shall vacate the judgment and remand this case to the Circuit Court for Baltimore City for further proceedings.

BACKGROUND THE COMPLAINT Debra Walker filed suit in the Circuit Court of Baltimore City against Seton Medical Group, Inc. d/b/a Saint Agnes Medical Group ("Seton Medical"), St. Agnes Healthcare, Inc., and Saundra Goralski, CRNP (collectively, the "St. Agnes Appellees"), and ExpressCare, LLC, ExpressCare of Northwest, LLC ("ExpressCare NW"), and Bryan S. Nolan, M.D. (collectively, the "ExpressCare Appellees") (the St. Agnes Appellees and the ExpressCare Appellees are collectively, "Appellees"). The complaint alleged that on February 22, 2018, Ms. Walker went to Seton Medical complaining of pain, swelling, redness, and itching in her left foot. She was seen by Nurse Practitioner Goralski, who diagnosed her with gout. Two days later, she presented to ExpressCare NW, complaining of severe pain, swelling, numbness, and bleeding in her left foot. She was seen by Dr. Nolan, who diagnosed her with cellulitis and a wound infection.

2

Unreported Opinion

On February 27, Ms. Walker's symptoms had not improved, and her foot had begun to emit a foul order. She went to the Emergency Department of Northwest Hospital in Baltimore County, where she was diagnosed with gas gangrene and admitted for treatment. Her foot was amputated due to the infection. Ms. Walker was later transferred to Sinai

Hospital in Baltimore City for acute inpatient rehabilitation. Ms. Walker brought this medical malpractice action to seek redress for her injuries. MOTION TO TRANSFER FOR FORUM NON CONVENIENS The St. Agnes Appellees filed their answer to Ms. Walker's complaint without

moving to dismiss for improper venue. As a result, they waived their right to assert the defense of improper venue. See Maryland Rule 2-322(a). The ExpressCare Appellees pleaded improper venue in their answer but did not move to dismiss.1

Instead, Appellees moved to transfer the case from Baltimore City to Baltimore County under Maryland Rule 2-327(c),2 which permits a case to be transferred from one proper venue to another under the doctrine of forum non conveniens. Appellees argued that Baltimore County was the more convenient forum because all parties to the action, including Ms. Walker, resided or conducted business in Baltimore County, and all events

1 Although the ExpressCare Appellees' initial motion was to dismiss, or in the alternative, to transfer venue, in their reply in support of their motion, the ExpressCare Appellees clarified that "the ExpressCare Defendants are not moving to dismiss this case, but rather, to transfer this case to Baltimore County pursuant to Maryland Rule 2-327(c) and the doctrine of forum non conveniens. Any `dismissal' language was inadvertently included from a previous draft of the motion."

2 The ExpressCare Appellees and the St. Agnes Appellees filed separate motions to transfer venue. However, their motions generally make the same arguments, so we need not address them separately.

3

Unreported Opinion

giving rise to this action occurred in Baltimore County. They also argued that the interests of justice weighed heavily in favor of transfer because (1) Baltimore County's circuit court was less congested than Baltimore City's; and (2) Baltimore County had a vested interest in deciding local controversies, whereas Baltimore City had no local interest in the controversy. Appellees further contended that because Ms. Walker did not reside in her chosen forum, her choice of venue was entitled to little deference. The ExpressCare Appellees attached two exhibits to their motion: 1) Mr. Walker's complaint and 2) a statistical abstract comparing the number of cases in Baltimore City and Baltimore County in 2018. The St. Agnes Appellees attached the same 2018 statistical abstract as the only exhibit to their motion.

Ms. Walker opposed the motions. She argued that her choice of venue was entitled to deference and that venue was proper in Baltimore City. She also asserted that Appellees' motions lacked sufficient evidentiary support. Ms. Walker supported her opposition with a total of 21 exhibits, including various webpages purportedly demonstrating that Appellees regularly conducted business in Baltimore City, maps showing the proximity of Appellees to the Baltimore City circuit courthouse, and a map of Maryland counties and county seats.

THE DECISION OF THE CIRCUIT COURT The Circuit Court for Baltimore City held a hearing on the matter and granted Appellees' motions to transfer for forum non conveniens. At the outset, the court acknowledged that Appellees had the burden to show that the relevant factors weighed heavily in favor of transfer, but nevertheless concluded that "the burden is not heavy

4

Unreported Opinion

because [Ms. Walker] took most of the weight off" of their burden by filing suit in a forum

where she did not reside.

Turning to the relevant factors, the court first found that Appellees demonstrated

that the public interests of justice weighed in favor of transfer. Relying on the statistical

abstract introduced by Appellees, the court concluded that the circuit court in Baltimore

County was less congested than the court in Baltimore City. Noting that Ms. Walker was

a resident of Baltimore County and that all of the alleged injuries occurred in Baltimore

County, the court found that considerations of local interest and the burden of jury duty

favored a transfer. The court reasoned that Baltimore County residents have a vested

interest in the quality of care provided within their borders and to their fellow residents.

The court then found that the private interests of justice favored neither Baltimore

County nor Baltimore City because the sources of proof could be found in both

jurisdictions. This was because although the cause of action occurred in Baltimore County,

much of Ms. Walker's post-injury care occurred in Baltimore City.

Finally, the court made the following findings on the convenience of the parties and

witnesses:

Convenience of the parties and witnesses weigh together. The Plaintiff correctly points out that it is very early in this case, and the parties haven't even had the opportunity to research and prepare what or which if any witnesses will be called. And thus, Defendant cannot say which jurisdiction would be most convenient for those witnesses. This, however, does not lead to Plaintiff's conclusion that without such information Defendants cannot meet their burden. Defendants may file the motion at any time with the information that they have at that time. Judge Moylan, in [Smith v. Johns Hopkins Cmty. Physicians, Inc., 209 Md. App. 406, 418 (2013)], makes it very clear the motion court is to rely upon what it has at the time of the motion to make its analysis and findings.

5

 ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download