Maryland's intermediate appellate court rendered a decision in the case of Hashimi v. Bennett which served to clarify both the outcome of judgement and the application of the Uniform Contribution Among Joint-Tortfeasors Act (UCATA).

The underlying case, involved the tragic death of Adrian Bennett in 2003 as a result of sepsis. Prior to trial, Good Samaritan Hospital and Doctor Roman Kostrubiak settled with the family of the decedent, executing a joint-tortfeasors agreement.

Thereafter, the case went to trial against Doctor Hashimi and a verdict in the amount of $2,295,000.00 was returned.
Under application of prevailing Maryland law, the trial judge reduced the verdict to about $1,800,000.00 and determined that Dr. Hashimi was responsible for one third.

The doctor's lawyers argued that he should only be responsible for one fifth of the final judgement, as three different Good Samaritan employees has originally been sued. This position struck both the trial and appellate courts as illogical as the pre-trial settlement agreement mentioned only the hospital and Dr. Kostrubiak as settling defendants.

Perhaps, this matter will wend its way to the Maryland Court of Appeals.
Be the first to comment!
Post a Comment