August 2024 Maryland Certiorari Grants

Today the Supreme Court of Maryland granted review in three appeals, including a case that Chris Mincher covered in his post, Coyle v. State: Ineffective Certiorari Counsel is Inconsequential. Today’s grants follow an earlier grant on August 12. The four grants, with questions presented, appear after the jump.

Seamus Coyle v. State of Maryland – Case No. 21, September Term, 2024 (Unreported ACM Opinion by Judge Reed, dissent by Judge Nazarian)
Issues – Criminal Law – 1) When the Office of the Public Defender appointed counsel to Petitioner and approved of assigned counsel’s determination that a petition for writ of certiorari should be filed, was Petitioner entitled to the effective assistance of counsel in filing such a petition? 2) Must prejudice be presumed when, due to ineffective assistance of counsel, Petitioner was denied his right to file a petition for writ of certiorari and did the post-conviction court err in holding that he must establish that the petition would have been granted?

Canton Harbor Healthcare Center v. Felicia Robinson, et al.  – Case No. 22, September Term, 2024 (Reported ACM Opinion by Judge Beachley)
Issues – Tort – 1) Can a registered nurse be a “qualified expert” to attest “that the departure from standards of care is the proximate cause of the alleged injury” as required by Courts & Judicial Proceedings §3-2A-04(b)(1)(i), even though offering a medical diagnosis is outside the authorized scope of nursing practice in Maryland? 2) Can a registered nurse opine whether physicians wrongfully failed to prescribed medicines or undertake appropriate treatment plans? 3) Did ACM improperly rely on Federal regulations regarding Medicare/Medicaid funding of nursing facilities in determining the qualifications of a registered nurse to give a medical causation opinion?

State of Maryland, Comptroller of Maryland v. Badlia Brothers, LLC d/b/a Southwest Check Cashing – Case No. 23, September Term, 2024 (Certiorari to Circuit Court)
Issues – State Government – Where the State has already satisfied its obligation to pay funds pursuant to a state-issued check, did the trial court err in concluding that the State has waived sovereign immunity against a claim by a holder in due course of that check who subsequently seeks to have the State pay that obligation a second time?

Sharon Saunders v. Steven Gilman, et al. – Case No. 20, September Term, 2024 (Unreported ACM Opinion by Judge Zic)
Issues – Courts & Judicial Proceedings – 1) Did ACM err when it concluded that no exception to the final judgment rule applies and that it lacked appellate jurisdiction? 2) Does § 12-303(3)(v) of the Courts and Judicial Proceedings article permit an immediate appeal from an order finding adverse possession of real property before a final judgment has been entered?