Published by Arfaa Law Group
Courts are generally reluctant to allow appeals of partial judgments while a case is still pending unless there is a compelling justification for doing so. A recent opinion issued in a Maryland medical malpractice case demonstrates the high bar litigants must meet to demonstrate that they should be permitted to appeal a non-final judgment. If you suffered harm due to incompetent medical care, it is smart to talk to a Baltimore medical malpractice attorney about your options as soon as possible.
Case Setting
This medical negligence action arises out of care the plaintiff, proceeding pro se, received at Suburban Hospital in October 2015. The plaintiff alleged that the hospital failed to prevent a pulmonary embolism and sought damages for medical malpractice and lost economic opportunities. The parties filed cross-motions for partial summary judgment, with the plaintiff pursuing direct liability theories against the hospital and the defendants seeking dismissal of various claims.
In an August 2024 decision, the court dismissed several of the plaintiff’s claims. Specifically, the court held that the plaintiff failed to present expert evidence to support corporate negligence theories, such as failure to train or supervise. The court also dismissed the plaintiff’s claims for lost profits, finding a lack of evidentiary support. However, it denied summary judgment on the plaintiff’s respondeat superior theory of liability, finding genuine disputes of fact regarding whether the treating physician was an apparent agent of the hospital and whether his conduct caused the plaintiff’s injury.
Following this decision, the plaintiff filed a motion seeking to certify several rulings for immediate appeal under Rule 54(b), including: (1) the denial of his own summary judgment motion and grant of summary judgment to the hospital on a simple negligence theory; (2) the dismissal of his claim for failure to prevent pulmonary embolism; and (3) the dismissal of his claim for lost profits. The plaintiff also requested a stay pending appeal. The defendants opposed the motion, arguing that the judgment was not final and that no just reason existed to depart from the normal rule of waiting until the end of the litigation to appeal.
Appeals in Medical Malpractice Cases
Rule 54(b) allows a court to enter a final judgment as to one or more claims in a case involving multiple claims or parties, but only if the court expressly determines there is “no just reason for delay.” This rule exists to permit flexibility in complex litigation, but courts have emphasized that such certification should be granted sparingly.
In denying the plaintiff’s motion, the court applied the two-step test set out in Curtis-Wright Corp. v. General Electric Co.and Braswell Shipyards, Inc. v. Beazer East, Inc.: (1) whether the judgment is final, and (2) whether there is no just reason for delay. The court concluded that neither condition was met.
First, the court found that the August 2024 decision did not dispose of all damages issues. Although the plaintiff’s lost profits claim was dismissed, other theories of damages remained unresolved, meaning that no final judgment had yet been entered on the damages claim as a whole. Second, and more significantly, the court found that the plaintiff failed to show that there was “no just reason for delay.” Because the unresolved claims, such as agency liability for Dr. Daee’s conduct, were closely related to the dismissed claims, any appellate review at this stage would risk duplication and inefficiency. The court was also concerned that resolving these issues piecemeal could lead to inconsistent rulings and prolong the litigation.
The court emphasized that certification would likely result in piecemeal appeals, undermine judicial economy, and potentially moot appellate issues depending on how the remaining claims were resolved at trial. For these reasons, the court declined to certify the requested partial judgment under Rule 54(b) and denied the plaintiff’s motion.
Speak to a Knowledgeable Baltimore Medical Malpractice Lawyer
Litigants in complex medical negligence actions must navigate not only substantive medical issues but also intricate procedural rules. As this case illustrates, attempts to appeal interim rulings before trial are rarely successful unless they meet strict criteria under Rule 54(b). If you are pursuing a claim for medical malpractice and have questions about how procedural rulings may affect your case, the knowledgeable Baltimore medical malpractice attorneys at Arfaa Law Group can help you understand your options and develop a strategic approach. Call (410) 889-1850 or use our online contact form to schedule a confidential consultation.