Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

Davison v. Sinai Hospital of Baltimore, Inc.

617 F.2d 361

Type: Opinion
Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: Federal
Date: 1980-03-27
Topic: general

How later courts describe this case

affirming district court’s dismissal of action on the ground that the HCMCA requires medical malpractice claims to be presented to arbitration as a condition precedent to the commencement of a civil action in federal court

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed Davison v. Sinai Hospital of Baltimore, Inc.. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by: 12 opinions

DAVISON v. SINAI HOSPITAL OF BALTIMORE, INC.,617 F.2d 361(4th Cir. 1980)

ETHEL M. DAVISON AND DAVID DAVISON, APPELLANTS, v. SINAI HOSPITAL OF

BALTIMORE, INC., A BODY CORPORATE, AND LIONEL GLASSMAN, M.D. AND LIONEL

GLASSMAN ASSOCIATES, P.A. AND ZOENA A. YANNAKAKIS, M.D., APPELLEES.

No. 79-1100.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Argued December 5, 1979.

Decided March 27, 1980.

Page 362

Donald F. Oakley, Baltimore, Md. (Marvin Ellin, Jonathan Schochor, Ellin Baker, Baltimore, Md., on brief), for appellants.

Angus R. Everton, Baltimore, Md. (E. Dale Adkins, III, Anderson, Coe King, Alva P. weaver, Baltimore, Md., on brief), for appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland.

Before WINTER, RUSSELL and HALL, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

[1] The appellants appeal from the order of the district court dismissing, without prejudice, their medical malpractice diversity suit against the defendants. The district court held that the Maryland Health Care Malpractice Claims Act¹precludes the bringing of this suit without first complying with the Maryland Health Care Malpractice Claims Act, which provides that the claim must first be presented to arbitration, and that compliance with this statute is a condition precedent to the bringing of the action. The appellants contend that the federal courts should not adopt a Maryland procedural rule which thwarts significant federal policies as a choice of law in diversity actions, and that the arbitration requirement of Maryland's Health Care Malpractice Claims Act, as a condition precedent to suit in federal court, unconstitutionally defeats diversity jurisdiction in medical malpractice litigation.

[2] We agree with the resolution of these issues by the district court and affirm its dismissal of the action, without prejudice, on the well-reasoned opinion of the district court,Davison v.Sinai Hospital of Baltimore, Inc.,462 F. Supp. 778(D.Md. 1978).²Judgment of the district court is accordingly

[3]AFFIRMED.Page 1025

Md. Courts and Judicial Proceedings Code Ann. §§3-2A-01et seq.(Supp. 1978). ↩
See also Woods v. Holy Cross Hospital,591 F.2d 1164(5th Cir. 1979);Edelson v. Soricelli,610 F.2d 131(3d Cir. 1979);Seoane v. Ortho Pharmaceuticals, Inc.,472 F. Supp. 468(E.D.La. 1979). ↩