Date: 07-15-2011
Case Style: Jerry P. Hansen v. City of Laurel, Maryland
Case Number: No. 78 September Term, 2010
Judge: Harrell
Court: Maryland Court of Appeals on appeal from the Circuit Court Prince George’s County
Plaintiff's Attorney:
Defendant's Attorney:
Description: The parties here challenge us to interpret the pre-suit notice requirement of the 2007 iteration of the Local Government Tort Claims Act (“LGTCA”). Petitioner, Jerry Hansen (“Hansen”), asserts that 1 he complied, strictly or at least substantially, with the required notice provision of the LGTCA as regards Prince George’s County (notice of a claim must be served on the county solicitor or attorney) by delivering written notice of his claims against the City of Laurel (“City”) to the City Administrator. Respondent, the City, contests vigorously his assertions. Although the focus of the parties’ arguments before this Court are aimed at whether Hansen’s efforts were compliant at all with the LGTCA, the City argued in the trial court and the Court of Special Appeals also that Hansen did not plead expressly in his complaint satisfaction of the LGTCA notice provision. Such failure, the City averred, should prevent Hansen from pursuing his claim. We agree with the City’s latter contention and, accordingly, do not decide whether Hansen’s conduct complied with the applicable notice provision (although we shall comment in dicta, where appropriate, about some aspects of that dispute). As a result, we affirm the Court of Special Appeals’s judgment, which affirmed the dismissal of Hansen’s suit by the Circuit Court for Prince George’s County.
I.
We shall provide the relevant procedural facts, as well as some substantive background, for contextual purposes. No finder of fact has evaluated the credibility of any factual allegation because this case was disposed of ostensibly by the trial court through its grant of the City’s motion to dismiss. Thus, we – like the Court of Special Appeals – derive the “facts” related here from Hansen’s complaint (and, as it turns out, other pleadings and papers filed in the Circuit Court).
Hansen served as the City’s “Chief Building Official” for seventeen years before his employment ended, against his will, in 2007. In the Spring of 2006, he experienced a heart attack, after which he assumed disabled status and did not seek to return to work with the City for a while. As the Court of Special Appeals recounted in its reported opinion in this case:
In November 2006, he met with City officials and reported “he was ready, willing and able to work.” He presented documentation from his physician showing that his medical condition would not prevent him from returning to work. [According to Hansen], the City “regarded [him] as having a permanent disability” and was “determined to convince him to voluntarily terminate his employment.” Hansen insisted that he could return to work and was prepared to do so on December 26, 2006. Before then, City representatives contacted him and told him not to come in and that his last day of employment would be January 2, 2007.[2]
Hansen “exhausted all administrative remedies and, within [90] days of receipt of a Notice of Right to Sue letter from the Baltimore District Office of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission,” filed suit [in the Circuit Court] on September 26, 2008.[3]
On February 26, 2009, the City filed a motion to dismiss [for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted].
In its supporting memorandum, it asserted that, “[i]n order to state a claim for unliquidated damages against a municipal entity, a plaintiff must allege, and must have given, statutory pre-litigation notice of intention to file a claim, as provided by Md. Code, Courts & Judicial Proceedings Article [(“CJ”), §] 5-301, et seq., within 180 days ‘after the injury.’” The City argued that Hansen “ha[d] not alleged that he satisfied the notice requirements of the [LGTCA], and indeed as far as [the City] [was] aware, he did not.” The City did not request a hearing.
On March 5, 2009, Hansen filed an opposition to the City’s motion to dismiss. He did not address the alleged deficiencies in his complaint. Rather, he characterized the City’s motion as “assert[ing] [that] the City . . . [had] not receive[d] notice within the statutory 180 days after the actual injury that any claims were pending against it with relation to [Hansen’s] employment termination.” He responded that [the City’s] argument was “without factual foundation” and averred facts that were not included in his complaint. Those facts showed that Hansen had notified the City Administrator of his claim within the 180-day window.
In support of his new factual averments, Hansen attached a number of exhibits to his opposition. The exhibits, none of which were mentioned in the complaint, included: (1) a hand-delivered letter dated March 12, 2007, from Hansen’s lawyer to the City Administrator and the Deputy City Administrator setting forth the factual basis for Hansen’s potential legal claim and proposing that “the parties pursue a non-adversarial resolution to [the] matter and, therefore, [seek] intervention from the City Administrator’s Office prior to [Hansen’s] filing a discrimination claim with [. . . the Prince George’s County Human Rights Commission and the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission]”; (2) a document entitled “Charge of Discrimination,” dated April 25, 2007, submitted to the Prince George’s County Human Relations Commission and later sent to the City Administrator, providing the factual basis for Hansen’s discrimination claim; and (3) a
“Notice of Charge of Discrimination” from the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, dated April 27, 2007, also sent to the City Administrator, notifying the recipient of a discrimination charge. Like the City, Hansen did not request a hearing.
Hansen v. City of Laurel, 193 Md. App. 80, 85-86, 996 A.2d 882, 885-86 (2010).
The three documents attached to Hansen’s opposition to the City’s motion to dismiss expressed his intent to file claims with “local and federal administrative agencies,” to wit, the Prince George’s County Human Rights Commission and the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. The documents did not reflect expressly an intent to file a complaint or claim in the Circuit Court for Prince George’s County or any other court. Hansen’s proffered pre-suit notice to the City Administrator made no reference, explicitly or otherwise, to the LGTCA. On 10 March 2009:
[T]he City filed a reply to Hansen’s opposition. Noting that Hansen had “attache[d] to his opposition several pieces of paper which were neither referred to in the Complaint nor attached to the Complaint,” the City argued that, those “pieces of paper,” if considered, showed that Hansen could not prove compliance with the LGTCA notice requirement. According to the City, the LGTCA statute required Hansen to give notice of the claim to the “City Attorney.” Thus, sending a letter and charges of discrimination to the City Administrator did not satisfy the statutory notice requirement. The City asserted that “[i]t is not sufficient for a claimant simply to give some notice to some representative of the City.” The City further argued that, even if the City Administrator were a proper person to receive notice under the LGTCA, the letter and charges of discrimination were not sufficient “notice of a suit for unliquidated damages.” [Without issuing a written opinion,] . . . the circuit court granted the City’s motion to dismiss [by order of 13 April 2009]. (As neither party had requested a hearing, none was held.) The order states: “Upon consideration of Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss and any response thereto, good cause therefor having been shown, it is this 9th day of April, 2009, by the Circuit Court for Prince George's County ORDERED that the same be and hereby is GRANTED.”
Hansen, 193 Md. App. at 86-87, 996 A.2d at 886.
In deciding Hansen’s appeal of the Circuit Court’s dismissal of his suit, the intermediate appellate court acknowledged in its opinion the City’s contention that Hansen’s complaint failed to plead satisfaction of the notice provision of the LGTCA, but grounded its analysis instead on whether Hansen’s sending of notice to the City Administrator complied strictly or substantially with the notice requirement of the LGTCA prevailing at the relevant time of occurrence of Hansen’s operative facts.4 See Hansen, 193 Md. App. at 89, 996 A.2d at 888 (“The only controversy for purposes of our discussion concerns whether the City Administrator was the proper recipient of notice under the LGTCA . . . .”). It concluded that Hansen did not comply strictly with the LGTCA because he delivered his notice to the City Administrator, not to the County Attorney of Prince George’s County, as specified in § 5-304(c)(2) of the version of the statute in effect at the time of accrual of Hansen’s claims. See Hansen, 193 Md. App. at 92-93, 996 A.2d at 890. Assuming, without deciding, that Hansen, in the alternative, in 2007 could have sent notice to the “corporate authorities of [the] defendant local government,” § 5-304(c)(1), the Court of Special Appeals held that notice should have been provided to the Mayor or City Council, not the City Administrator. See Hansen, 193 Md. at 93, 996 A.2d at 890.
With respect to whether substantial compliance with the LGTCA requirement occurred, the Court of Special Appeals deduced that Hansen found no refuge there either, as he “notified the City Administrator,” a “position that is not charged with investigating tort claims against the City.” Hansen, 193 Md. App. at 96, 996 A2.d at 892; Hansen, 193 Md. App. at 95, 996 A.2d at 891 (“‘[T]he tort claimant has substantially complied with the notice provisions of the LGTCA’” where he or she “‘provides the local government, through the unit or division with the responsibility for investigating tort claims against that local government, or the company with whom the local government or unit has contracted for that function, the information required by § 5-304[] . . . , who thus acquires actual knowledge within the statutory period . . . .’” (quoting Faulk v. Ewing, 371 Md. 284, 302, 808 A.2d 1262, 1274 (2002) (citation omitted))).
Hansen petitioned us for a writ of certiorari, which we issued, Hansen v. Laurel, 415 Md. 607, 4 A.3d 512 (2010), to consider potentially whether “the lower court erred as a matter of law in holding a city administrator is not a proper recipient or ‘corporate authority of the defendant local government’ pursuant to CJ [§] 5-304(c)(4)?” After examining the record, we conclude that addressing the precise question pressed by the parties upon us would be injudicious on the particular circumstances of this case, given the omission in Hansen’s complaint that he pleaded fulfillment of the notice requirement under the LGTCA.5
We explain.6
II.
We choose to address first (and ultimately only) the City’s contention, preserved at each previous level of this litigation, that Hansen was required to plead affirmatively in his complaint satisfaction of the notice obligation of the LGTCA. Although the LGTCA notice provision may not be jurisdictional, as explained in footnote 5 supra, failure to plead satisfaction, if required, carries consequences nonetheless.
A. Satisfaction of the LGTCA Notice Provision is a Condition Precedent to Maintaining Suit Against a Local Government.
It is a longstanding principle of Maryland jurisprudence that the LGTCA notice provision is a condition precedent to maintaining an action directly against a local government 7 or its employees. See Rios v. Montgomery County, 386 Md. 104, 127, 872 A.2d 1, 14 (2005) (reaffirming that “the LGTCA notice requirements are a condition precedent to maintaining an action against a local government or its employees”) (citations omitted); Faulk, 371 Md. at 304, 808 A.2d at 1275 (“[N]otice requirements of th[e] type [contained in the LGTCA] have been viewed as conditions precedent to maintaining subsequent legal actions.” (citations omitted)); Grubbs v. Prince George’s County, 267 Md. 318, 320-21, 297 A.2d 754, 755 (1972) (interpreting the notice provision of the LGTCA predecessor statute, Md. Code (1957, 1972 Repl. Vol.) Art. 57, § 18,8 “as a condition precedent to the right to maintain an action for damages”) (citations omitted); Neuenschwander v. Washington Suburban Sanitary Comm’n, 187 Md. 67, 77, 48 A.2d 593, 599 (1946) (stating that the notice provision of “the Act of 1943,” another 9 ancestor of the current LGTCA, is “a condition precedent to the right to maintain the suit”) (citation omitted), overruled on other grounds by statute as stated in Arnold v. Prince George’s County, 270 Md. 285, 311 A.2d 223 (1973); Madore v. Balt. County, 34 Md. App. 340, 345, 367 A.2d 54, 56 (1976) (construing the notice provision of Art. 57, § 18 as “a condition precedent to the right to maintain the suit”) (citation omitted); Renn v. Bd. of Comm’rs, 352 F. Supp. 2d 599, 602 (D. Md. 2005) (“Maryland courts have consistently held that the LGTCA[] notice requirement is a condition precedent to the right to maintain an action for damages.” (citation omitted)); Lyles v. Montgomery County, 162 F. Supp. 2d 402, 404 (D. Md. 2001) (“The [LGTCA] notice is a condition precedent to the right to maintain an action for damages . . . .” (citations omitted)); 5-71 ANTIEAU ON LOCAL GOVERNMENT LAW § 71.08 (2d ed. 2009) (“Since legislatures can withhold the opportunity to sue local governments, they can impose whatever conditions precedent to suit they deem proper. Conditions precedent to suit against local governments are found in nearly all State statutes and local charters.” (footnote omitted)).
B. A Plaintiff Must Plead Satisfaction of the Condition Precedent That Is the LGTCA Notice Requirement.
Ordinarily, a plaintiff must plead affirmatively satisfaction of a condition precedent. See Maryland Rule 2-303(b) (“A pleading shall contain . . . such statements of fact as may be necessary to show the pleader’s entitlement to relief or ground of defense.”); Rule 2-304(b) (“In pleading the performance or occurrence of conditions precedent, it is sufficient to aver generally that all conditions precedent have been performed or have occurred.” (emphasis added)); Cannon v. McKen, 296 Md. 27, 38, 459 A.2d 196, 202 (1983) (“It is a basic rule of law that where a cause of action is dependent upon a condition precedent, plaintiff must allege performance of such condition or show legal justification for nonperformance.”); Jewell v. Malamet, 322 Md. 262, 272, 587 A.2d 474, 479 (1991) (same).
At the very least, our precedent seems to require that tort claimants plead affirmatively, albeit generally, this particular condition precedent, i.e., the LGTCA notice requirement. In construing the notice provision in the comparable Act of 1943, see footnote 9 supra, the Neuenschwander Court explained that:
It is a fundamental doctrine that the Legislature may grant or deny to individuals a right of action against municipal corporations for injuries resulting from the negligent manner in which streets are maintained. When the Legislature creates a municipal corporation as part of the machinery of government of the State, it is within its province to adjust the relative rights of the corporation and the citizens. The Legislature has thus the power to enact a statute requiring that, before suit for damages shall be instituted against a municipal corporation, a written notice of the claim shall be presented to the municipal authorities within a specified period after injury or damage is sustained. In order to maintain such an action, the declaration must allege that the notice prescribed by the statute was duly presented, for the notice is a condition precedent to the right to maintain the suit. If the declaration does not contain such an allegation, the defendant can object either by demurrer or plea. 187 Md. at 76-77, 48 A.2d at 599 (emphasis added) (citations omitted).
In other cases, this Court, the Court of Special Appeals, and the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland have reiterated the same canon. See Cotham v. Bd. of County Comm’rs, 260 Md. 556, 562-64, 273 A. 2d 115, 119 (1971) (explaining the state of Maryland local government tort law by quoting favorably the above passage of Neuenschwander, 187 Md. at 76-77, 48 A.2d at 599); Engle v. Cumberland, 180 Md. 465, 469, 25 A.2d 446, 448 (1942) (interpreting the notice provision in the Act of 192210 – which concerned also the right to sue local governments – and ruling that “the failure to make such allegations [of notice being given] can be raised either by demurrer or plea”) (citations omitted); Madore, 34 Md. App. at 342, 367 A.2d at 56 (1976) (interpreting the notice provision in Art. 57, § 18 and concluding that “compliance with the notice statute should be alleged in the declaration as a substantive element of the cause of action”) (citations omitted); Hargrove v. Mayor of Baltimore, 146 Md. App. 457, 462-63, 807 A.2d 149, 152 (2002) (“‘[T]ypically, a plaintiff must notify the municipality to be sued, and indeed plead notification in the complaint, in compliance with § 5-404’”11 of the LGTCA) (quoting favorably Downey v. Collins, 866 F. Supp. 877, 889 (D. Md. 1994)); Renn, 352 F. Supp. 2d at 602 (“[C]ompliance with the [LGTCA] notice provision should be alleged in the complaint as a substantive element of the cause of action.” (citation omitted)); Curtis v. Pracht, 202 F. Supp. 2d 406, 414 (D. Md. 2002) (same); Lyles, 162 F. Supp. 2d at 404 (same); Bibum v. Prince George’s County, 85 F. Supp. 2d 557, 564 (D. Md. 2000) (same); MARYLAND RULES COMMENTARY at 300 (“Certain causes of action require that conditions precedent to entitlement to relief be pleaded as an element of the cause of action. . . . Statutory provisions may also create conditions precedent.”).
Other jurisdictions have considered whether “a plaintiff’s pleading need . . . show compliance with applicable statutory . . . provisions requiring the filing of notice with . . . a municipality prior to instituting a suit” for certain tort actions. V. Woerner, Necessity and Sufficiency of Plaintiff’s Pleading of Having Given Requisite Notice or Present Claim to Municipality or Other Public Body, 83 A.L.R.2d 1178, 1 (1965). “Most . . . subscribe to the view that the plaintiff’s pleading must allege compliance with such applicable provisions, on the theory that the requirement for notice or claim is a condition precedent to the plaintiff’s right of action . . . .” Id.; see ANTIEAU ON LOCAL GOVERNMENT LAW § 39.01 (2d ed. 2009) (“Plaintiffs must ordinarily plead compliance with statutory notice provisions governing tort claims against local government defendants.” (footnote omitted)). But see id. (“[U]nder a number of statutes, the failure of a plaintiff to give notice to a local government is a matter of defense that must be pleaded by the local government.” (footnote omitted)); ANTIEAU ON LOCAL GOVERNMENT LAW at § 71.08 (“Courts differ on whether the plaintiff must plead compliance with conditions precedent or the defendant local government must plead noncompliance.”). Maryland rules and decisions reach somewhat of a compromise – plaintiffs must allege the performance of conditions precedent, but they may do so generally. See Rule 2-304(b). It is up to defendants, then, to show that “a particular condition precedent has in fact [not] been satisfied . . . .” MARYLAND RULES COMMENTARY at 300.
C. But Is the LGTCA Notice Provision Actually a Condition Precedent? Some may argue, despite the longstanding nature of the principle, that the LGTCA notice provision is not a condition precedent actually. We derive our understanding of what constitutes a “condition precedent” from the Supreme Court, which, in 1886, was confronted by statutes that created new causes of action. These statutes also imposed time limitations.
The Supreme Court said that:
The statutes create a new legal liability, with the right to a suit for its enforcement, provided the suit is brought within twelve months, and not otherwise. The time within which the suit must be brought operates as a limitation of the liability itself as created, and not of the remedy alone. It is a condition attached to the right to sue at all.
The Harrisburg, 119 U.S. 199, 214, 7 S. Ct. 140, 147, 30 L. Ed. 358, 362 (1886) (emphasis added). In the present case, one may observe (as footnotes 12 5 and 7 make clear) that the LGTCA does not create any new causes of action, or “rights.” Rather, it merely shapes how previously-available causes of action may proceed. Thus, a “condition precedent” analysis is inconsonant, or so the argument goes.
It has been surmised that, by enacting the LGTCA, the Legislature responded, at least in part, to the perceived threat that tort suits “discourage” local government employees from “vigorous[ly] proseucti[ng] . . . their duties.” Pavelka v. Carter, 996 F.2d 645, 650 (4th Cir. 1993). To affect that end, the Legislature could have “simply extend[ed] governmental immunity to those [local government-employee] tortfeasors,” albeit “at the expense of tort victims,” who would then have no recourse for their injuries. Id.; see also MARK M. VIANI, MARYLAND LOCAL GOVERNMENT LAW AND STRUCTURE 1-A (1999) (“[I]n practice, every incorporated municipality remains subject to the absolute control of the General Assembly.”).
In other words, the Legislature could have tweaked simply employees’ tort liability exposure. Instead, “it simply shifted the cost of employee negligence[, i.e., tort damages exposure,] . . . to a party better able to pay, their local government employer . . . .” Pavelka, 996 F.2d at 650 (emphasis added). As a tradeoff for this shifting, the Legislature altered the terms under which a plaintiff could bring already-available causes of action, so as to give local governments fair notice of tort suits, for which they would be responsible financially. See CJ § 5-304(b)(1) (“[A]n action for unliquidated damages may not be brought against a local government or its employees unless the notice of the claim required by this section is given within 180 days after the injury.”); Martino v. Bell, 40 F. Supp. 2d 719, 722 (D. Md. 1999) (“In conjunction with shifting some financial responsibility to local governments, the LGTCA requires a potential plaintiff to give the government notice of his claim within 180 days of the injury as a prerequisite to filing suit against a local government or one of its employees.” (citation omitted)); Ashton v. Brown, 339 Md. 70, 104, 660 A.2d 447, 464 (1995) (“[T]he General Assembly has recently enacted the [LGTCA], which shifts financial liability for wrongs committed by local government officials, acting in the scope of their employment and without malice, from the public officials to the local government entity itself.” (citation omitted)); Karen J. Kruger, Governmental Immunity in Maryland: A Practitioner’s Guide to Making and Defending Tort Claims, 36 U. BALT. L. REV. 37, 63 (2006) (“The LGTCA does not waive the governmental immunity of the local government; thus, the LGTCA does not create liability on the part of the local government, but does create financial responsibility for the government for the non-malicious acts of its employees.” (footnotes omitted)).
With respect to tort claimants (as opposed to tortfeasor-employees), the General Assembly was shifting financial obligations, rather than changing substantive rights. The Legislature left intact all common law and statutory causes of action. At the same time, it clarified what procedural requirements tort claimants must satisfy in order to maintain suit. See ANTIEAU ON LOCAL GOVERNMENT LAW at § 71.08 (“Where a right against a local government has been created by the legislature, it may be circumscribed by procedural requirements in any way the legislative body sees fit.”). The fact that the statutes creating some substantive rights – see footnote 7 supra; Williams v. Maynard, 359 Md. 379, 754 A.2d 379 (2000) (interpreting Md. Code (1974, 2009 Repl. Vol.), Transportation Art., § 17-107 and CJ § 5-524) – and the procedural requirements are different is, in our view, inapposite.
The way in which a plaintiff may bring a claim is connected fundamentally to the type of claims that a plaintiff may bring, such that whatever restrictions the General Assembly imposes should be deemed “conditions precedent.”
III.
We are aware, if not understanding, that pleading satisfaction of the LGTCA notice obligation may not be evident immediately to a potential tort claimant. In the case sub judice, however, the City advised Hansen of the pleading shortcoming through its motion to dismiss. Hansen did not amend his complaint, however, which he could have accomplished without leave of the trial court, pursuant to Rule 2-341(a). Nor did he dismiss voluntarily and refile his complaint. See Rule 2-506(a). After the trial court granted the motion to dismiss/motion for summary judgment, Hansen also did not seek leave of the trial court to file an amended complaint. See Rule 2-322(c) (“If the court orders dismissal, an amended complaint may be filed only if the court expressly grants leave to amend.”). He likewise did not file a motion to alter or amend the trial court’s judgment. See Rule 2-534 (“In an action decided by the court, on motion of any party filed within ten days after entry of judgment, the court . . . may amend its findings . . . , may enter new findings or new reasons, may amend the judgment, or may enter a new judgment.”).
Rather, confronting more frontally the tendered grounds of the motion, Hansen tendered documents, which he proclaimed as “indisputable evidence that ample notification of pending tort claims was received by the City of Laurel within 180 days of the injury and the objective of the [LGTCA] was realized.” Assuming, without deciding, that appending such documents in this manner and at that point in a case may compensate for a plaintiff’s failure to plead satisfaction of the LGTCA notice provision, the City would prevail nonetheless. Hansen attached the documents and referred to them in his response to the City’s motion to dismiss, but not in his complaint. See 83 A.L.R.2d 1178, at 6 (“[C]ourts have rarely discussed . . . the propriety of incorporating the notice or claim in the complaint either by reciting or quoting its contents or by attaching a copy as an exhibit to the complaint and incorporating it by reference . . . .” (emphasis added)). Hansen’s documents also expressed a singular intent to file administrative claims with government agencies, as opposed to “an action for unliquidated damages” in a circuit court.13 CJ § 5-304(b)(1); Rule 1-202 (“‘Action’ means collectively all the steps by which a party seeks to enforce any right in a court . . . .” (emphasis added)). While less relevant were we to engage in a substantial compliance analysis, this fact impacts our analysis of whether Hansen plead satisfaction of certain statutory conditions precedent, i.e., the LGTCA notice requirement.14 See Moore v. Norouzi, 371 Md. 154, 807 A.2d 632 (2002) (finding substantial compliance where the plaintiffs expressed little intent to sue, but provided information regarding the incident to the party responsible for investigation tort claims on behalf of the local government). But see Chappelle v. McCarter, 162 Md. App. 163, 171-72, 873 A.2d 458, 462 (2005) (discerning a lack of substantial compliance, in part, because plaintiff’s workers’ compensation claim did not constitute seemingly “notice of a claim for unliquidated damages, . . . [as] required by CJ § 5-304(a)”).
In sum, then, the LGTCA creates a procedural obligation that a plaintiff must meet in filing a tort action. A plaintiff must not only satisfy the notice requirement strictly or substantially, but also plead such satisfaction in his/ her complaint. If a plaintiff omits this step, he or she is subject to a motion to dismiss, for instance, based on a failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. See § 2-322(b). That is the case here essentially.
Although Hansen draws our attention to some concerning and worthwhile issues, sounding in discrimination and ethics, he did not abide the procedural requirements of the LGTCA that would allow the asserted merits of his complaint to reach the eyes and ears of a fact finder.15,
* * *
See: http://mdcourts.gov/opinions/coa/2011/78a10.pdf
Outcome: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS AFFIRMED; COSTS TO BE PAID BY PETITIONER.
Plaintiff's Experts:
Defendant's Experts:
Comments:
