Couch, J.,
delivered the opinion of the Court.
Once again we are called upon to determine what type claim against a health care provider is covered by the Health Care Malpractice Claims Act
(the Act). Quite recently, we decided
Cannon v. McKen,
296 Md. 27, 459 A.2d 196 (1983), which decision, in large measure, is dispositive of the instant case.
The present controversy arose when Judith E. Nichols, on behalf of herself and her minor child Evaun, filed an action in the Circuit Court for Prince George’s County seeking damages from Edward E. Wilson, M.D., Gary Langston, M.D., P.A., Leland Memorial Hospital, Fran Hough and Patricia Ciccone. The action was in three counts, based on assault and battery, negligence, and intentional infliction of emotional distress.
The defendants below reacted to this action by filing a motion to dismiss based on their perception that the claims
being pursued were such as to be within the coverage of the Act.
Thereafter, appellants’ counsel amended the negligence count (Count II) to downgrade the ad damnum clause therein to $5,000.00, which, of course, would have the effect of removing that count from coverage under the Act. The court heard oral argument on the motion raising preliminary objection and subsequently granted it; thereafter, a
final judgment for costs in favor of the defendants was entered and this appeal ensued. We granted certiorari on our own motion prior to consideration by the Court of Special Appeals in order to consider an issue of public importance.
Quite simply, the appellants argue that their claims are not within the Act since such claims did not arise or result from the rendering or failure to render health care. Not surprisingly, the appellees argue the claims do fall within the scope of the Act because injuries received arose or resulted from such rendering or failure to render health care. Furthermore, the appellants contend that after amending Count II there was no medical malpractice claim left in the action, and that Counts I and III were clearly not covered under the Act. To this contention the appellees argue that under the rationale of
Montgomery Ward & Co. v. Cliser,
267 Md. 406, 298 A.2d 16 (1972), the three claimed torts all arose out of one continuous occurrence, thus the damages sought in Counts I and III must be taken into account in determining whether the statutory amount set forth in the Act has been exceeded. (If this is a valid premise clearly the combined ad damnum clauses exceed $5,000.00 and that qualifying condition would be met.) Since we deem this latter contention to raise a threshold question, we shall deal with it first.
It is clear that even an admitted medical malpractice claim is not within the terms of the Act if the damages claimed are not more than $5,000.00.
By footnote 4 we stated in Cannon,
supra:
"We hasten to add that claims of strict liability and breach of warranty may not always be arbitrable; however, if such claims are related to and incorporate a negligence claim, as here, which may be arbitrable, then all counts will be arbitrable.” 296 Md. at 38, 459 A.2d at 202.
We recognize that in the instant case the appellants have incorporated, by reference, all allegations of fact previously
set forth in preceding counts. Thus, if the negligence count itself were arbitrable, all counts would likewise be arbitrable. We believe this result consonant with the efficient administration of justice and, of course, it avoids the piecemeal resolution of controversies.
However, in our view, appellees’ reliance on
Cliser
is misplaced. In
Cliser,
the plaintiff had recovered damages for claims of false arrest, assault and battery, and slander. For each claim, the jury awarded $500.00 in compensatory damages and $4,500.00 in punitive damages for a total sum of $15,000.00. Defendant, Montgomery Ward, appealed the judgment on the basis, inter alia, that the jury should not have been allowed to consider an award of punitive damages. We determined that the award of punitive damages was appropriate under the facts of the case. However, we held that where separate awards of punitive damages were awarded for essentially one continuous occurrence, punitive damages could not be pyramided even though there were three distinct theories of liability, stating in pertinent part:
"In our view, this point is controlled by the following principles quoted in 25 C.J.S.
Damages,
§ 3:
'It is generally recognized that there can be only one recovery of damages for one wrong or injury. Double recovery of damages is not permitted; the law does not permit a double satisfaction for a single injury. A plaintiff may not recover damages twice for the same injury simply because he has two legal theories... . The overlapping of damages is generally not permissible, and a person is not entitled to recover twice for the same elements of damage growing out of the same occurrence or event....’
We think that in view of the combination of events presented in this case, the trial court erred in not furnishing guidelines to the jury in its con
sideration of whether to award punitive damages for each of the three torts. The result, as we see it, was that the jury 'pyramided’ the claims into a triple recovery of punitive damages on the basis 'of an episode that was one continuous occurrence.’ ” 267 Md. at 425, 298 A.2d at 26-27.
Accordingly, we modified the judgment by reducing the amount of punitive damages to $4,500.00. In doing so, we left standing three separate awards of compensatory damages. Thus,
Cliser
simply is inapposite to the instant case and does not support appellees’ argument that the negligence count is arbitrable in view of the ad damnum clauses of the remaining counts.
Turning next to the question whether either, or both, of the other counts are within the Act, we conclude they are not. Preliminarily, we note that in
Cannon, supra,
we stated:
Thus it is only those claims for damages where there has been a violation of the health care provider’s professional duty to exercise care which are within the Act.
"Thus, it seems patent the legislature, by enacting the pertinent legislation, was reacting to a medical malpractice insurance 'crisis’ which was recognized as only partially resolved by creation of the Medical Mutual Liability Insurance Society of Maryland.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Couch, J.,
delivered the opinion of the Court.
Once again we are called upon to determine what type claim against a health care provider is covered by the Health Care Malpractice Claims Act
(the Act). Quite recently, we decided
Cannon v. McKen,
296 Md. 27, 459 A.2d 196 (1983), which decision, in large measure, is dispositive of the instant case.
The present controversy arose when Judith E. Nichols, on behalf of herself and her minor child Evaun, filed an action in the Circuit Court for Prince George’s County seeking damages from Edward E. Wilson, M.D., Gary Langston, M.D., P.A., Leland Memorial Hospital, Fran Hough and Patricia Ciccone. The action was in three counts, based on assault and battery, negligence, and intentional infliction of emotional distress.
The defendants below reacted to this action by filing a motion to dismiss based on their perception that the claims
being pursued were such as to be within the coverage of the Act.
Thereafter, appellants’ counsel amended the negligence count (Count II) to downgrade the ad damnum clause therein to $5,000.00, which, of course, would have the effect of removing that count from coverage under the Act. The court heard oral argument on the motion raising preliminary objection and subsequently granted it; thereafter, a
final judgment for costs in favor of the defendants was entered and this appeal ensued. We granted certiorari on our own motion prior to consideration by the Court of Special Appeals in order to consider an issue of public importance.
Quite simply, the appellants argue that their claims are not within the Act since such claims did not arise or result from the rendering or failure to render health care. Not surprisingly, the appellees argue the claims do fall within the scope of the Act because injuries received arose or resulted from such rendering or failure to render health care. Furthermore, the appellants contend that after amending Count II there was no medical malpractice claim left in the action, and that Counts I and III were clearly not covered under the Act. To this contention the appellees argue that under the rationale of
Montgomery Ward & Co. v. Cliser,
267 Md. 406, 298 A.2d 16 (1972), the three claimed torts all arose out of one continuous occurrence, thus the damages sought in Counts I and III must be taken into account in determining whether the statutory amount set forth in the Act has been exceeded. (If this is a valid premise clearly the combined ad damnum clauses exceed $5,000.00 and that qualifying condition would be met.) Since we deem this latter contention to raise a threshold question, we shall deal with it first.
It is clear that even an admitted medical malpractice claim is not within the terms of the Act if the damages claimed are not more than $5,000.00.
By footnote 4 we stated in Cannon,
supra:
"We hasten to add that claims of strict liability and breach of warranty may not always be arbitrable; however, if such claims are related to and incorporate a negligence claim, as here, which may be arbitrable, then all counts will be arbitrable.” 296 Md. at 38, 459 A.2d at 202.
We recognize that in the instant case the appellants have incorporated, by reference, all allegations of fact previously
set forth in preceding counts. Thus, if the negligence count itself were arbitrable, all counts would likewise be arbitrable. We believe this result consonant with the efficient administration of justice and, of course, it avoids the piecemeal resolution of controversies.
However, in our view, appellees’ reliance on
Cliser
is misplaced. In
Cliser,
the plaintiff had recovered damages for claims of false arrest, assault and battery, and slander. For each claim, the jury awarded $500.00 in compensatory damages and $4,500.00 in punitive damages for a total sum of $15,000.00. Defendant, Montgomery Ward, appealed the judgment on the basis, inter alia, that the jury should not have been allowed to consider an award of punitive damages. We determined that the award of punitive damages was appropriate under the facts of the case. However, we held that where separate awards of punitive damages were awarded for essentially one continuous occurrence, punitive damages could not be pyramided even though there were three distinct theories of liability, stating in pertinent part:
"In our view, this point is controlled by the following principles quoted in 25 C.J.S.
Damages,
§ 3:
'It is generally recognized that there can be only one recovery of damages for one wrong or injury. Double recovery of damages is not permitted; the law does not permit a double satisfaction for a single injury. A plaintiff may not recover damages twice for the same injury simply because he has two legal theories... . The overlapping of damages is generally not permissible, and a person is not entitled to recover twice for the same elements of damage growing out of the same occurrence or event....’
We think that in view of the combination of events presented in this case, the trial court erred in not furnishing guidelines to the jury in its con
sideration of whether to award punitive damages for each of the three torts. The result, as we see it, was that the jury 'pyramided’ the claims into a triple recovery of punitive damages on the basis 'of an episode that was one continuous occurrence.’ ” 267 Md. at 425, 298 A.2d at 26-27.
Accordingly, we modified the judgment by reducing the amount of punitive damages to $4,500.00. In doing so, we left standing three separate awards of compensatory damages. Thus,
Cliser
simply is inapposite to the instant case and does not support appellees’ argument that the negligence count is arbitrable in view of the ad damnum clauses of the remaining counts.
Turning next to the question whether either, or both, of the other counts are within the Act, we conclude they are not. Preliminarily, we note that in
Cannon, supra,
we stated:
Thus it is only those claims for damages where there has been a violation of the health care provider’s professional duty to exercise care which are within the Act.
"Thus, it seems patent the legislature, by enacting the pertinent legislation, was reacting to a medical malpractice insurance 'crisis’ which was recognized as only partially resolved by creation of the Medical Mutual Liability Insurance Society of Maryland. It therefore is clear to us that the legislature intended to include in the scope of the Act only those claims for damages done to or suffered by a person originating from, in pertinent part, the giving of or failure to give health care.
See also Oxtoby v. McGowan,
294 Md. 83, 447 A.2d 860 (1982). In our view, the legislature did not intend that claims for damages against a health care provider, arising from non-professional circumstances where there was no violation of the provider’s professional duty to exercise care, to be covered by the Act. It is patent that the legislature intended only those claims which the courts have traditionally viewed as professional malpractice to be covered by the Act.” 296 Md. at 34, 459 A.2d at 200.
Count I of appellants’ declaration clearly sounds in traditional assault and battery terms and alleges an
intentional, malicious, wanton
and
reckless
act. In no way can it be said that the legislature intended such a claim to be within the Act even though such action took place during the rendering of health care.
Likewise, Count III depends for its validity on the actions described in the assault and battery count which, again, are described as "intentional, reckless, extreme and outrageous.”
In
Cannon, supra,
we remanded the case without affirmance or reversal because the declaration was too sparse to allow us to determine whether those claims were within the Act. In the instant case, we are able to determine that none of the counts are within the Act and thus we shall reverse and remand the case to proceed as a normal tort case.
Judgment reversed; case remanded for trial; costs to be paid by appellees.