Bledsoe v. Crowley
United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
849 F.2d 639 (1988)
- Written by Steven Pacht, JD
Facts
Brian Crowley and Sylvia Friedman (defendants) were Maryland-based doctors who treated Dr. Theodore Bledsoe (plaintiff) for numerous years for psychiatric disorders. Bledsoe lived in Maryland when he began treatment, and Bledsoe’s medical practice was in Maryland. However, Bledsoe moved to the District of Columbia (D.C.) at some point and lived in D.C. when he sued Crowley and Friedman in federal court in D.C. for medical malpractice for failing to diagnose him with a brain tumor. Per Bledsoe, his untreated brain tumor caused him permanent damage, which prevented Bledsoe from continuing to practice medicine. Under Maryland law, medical-malpractice claims generally had to be submitted to an arbitration panel before litigation could be commenced. The arbitration panel’s decision would not be dispositive but would be admissible evidence in any subsequent suit. D.C. did not have a comparable arbitration requirement. Crowley and Friedman moved to dismiss Bledsoe’s complaint on the ground that Maryland law applied and that Bledsoe did not comply with Maryland’s presuit arbitration requirement. The district court ruled that Maryland law applied and dismissed Bledsoe’s complaint. Per the district court, Maryland had evinced a strong public policy regarding the conduct of medical-malpractice claims by requiring presuit arbitration; by contrast, D.C.’s failure to legislate regarding presuit arbitration showed that D.C. had no relevant policy interest. Thus, the district court concluded, there was no true conflict of law, and Maryland law applied. Bledsoe appealed, arguing that the lack of relevant D.C. legislation could mean that D.C. wished to afford D.C. citizens full tort remedies, not that D.C. had no interest in whether presuit arbitration should be required in medical-malpractice cases. Bledsoe also cited the Maryland statute’s provision that a medical-malpractice suit “may not be brought or pursued in any court of this State except in accordance with” the statute, which Bledsoe asserted meant that the Maryland statute applied only to suits brought in Maryland’s courts.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Edwards, J.)
Concurrence (Williams, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 806,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.