McCain v. Vanadia

191 A.3d 1174 (Me. 2018) · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · August 14, 2018

Summary

The Maine Supreme Judicial Court addresses an interlocutory appeal from a discovery order issued during medical malpractice screening-panel proceedings. Because the parties completed the screening-panel process without producing the disputed nonparty medical records, the court held that the discovery order had become a nullity and remanded for any renewed discovery request to be considered by the Superior Court.

Holdings

  1. Under the unique circumstances of this case, the discovery order lost its vitality, ceased to be the law of the case, and became a nullity without legal force or effect after the parties completed the screening-panel process without producing the records.
  2. Neither the death-knell nor the collateral-order exception applied because the appellants could not demonstrate an irreparable loss of a claimed right from immediate nonreview of an order that had become a nullity.
  3. The court declined to decide whether a Superior Court judge acting as a medical malpractice screening-panel chair may issue an immediately appealable order compelling discovery over a claim of privilege or confidentiality.

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the interlocutory appeal from a discovery order entered during medical malpractice screening-panel proceedings was immediately reviewable under an exception to the final judgment rule.
  2. Whether the discovery order remained operative after the screening-panel proceedings concluded without production of the records.
  3. Whether the court should decide whether an order compelling discovery over a claim of privilege or confidentiality is immediately appealable.

Disposition

remanded

Cases Cited (7)

  • Gafner v. Down E. Cmty. Hosp., 1999 ME 130, ¶ 12 & n.4, 735 A.2d 969(followed and applied)
  • Bd. of Overseers of the Bar v. Warren, 2011 ME 124, ¶ 19, 34 A.3d 1103(followed)
  • Taylor v. Walker, 2017 ME 218, ¶ 8, 173 A.3d 539(followed)
  • Estate of Cox v. E. Me. Med. Ctr., 2007 ME 15, ¶ 6, 915 A.2d 418(followed)
  • Chretien v. Chretien, 2017 ME 192, ¶ 6, 170 A.3d 260(followed)
  • In re Evelyn A., 2017 ME 182, ¶ 14, 169 A.3d 914(followed)
  • Bond v. Bond, 2011 ME 105, ¶ 11, 30 A.3d 816(followed)

Cited In (0)

No citing cases on record yet.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…