eNotes: Liability – July 2024 – Washington, DC

SIGNIFICANT CASE SUMMARIES

Washington, DC Case Summary

Porter v. Howard Univ. Hosp.
District of Columbia Court of Appeals
No. 23-CV-0021

Decided: June 20, 2024

Trial Court erred when it granted summary judgment on judicial estoppel grounds without considering Plaintiff’s Motion to substitute a bankruptcy trustee as the real party in interest.

Background

Plaintiff sued a hospital in the District of Columbia for medical malpractice. While the case was pending in the Trial Court, Plaintiff discharged her debts in chapter 7 bankruptcy. When the Defendant hospital learned of this over two years later, it alerted Plaintiff’s counsel, and then filed a Motion for summary judgment, arguing that Plaintiff’s prior representations about the bankruptcy meant that Plaintiff’s Complaint should be dismissed due to judicial estoppel. Plaintiff had failed to list her unliquidated medical malpractice claim on her bankruptcy assets schedule and, therefore, Defendant argued that she was not the real party in interest to the suit. While that Motion for summary judgment was pending, Plaintiff’s bankruptcy trustee filed a Motion for substitution into the medical malpractice suit. The Trial Court considered these Motions and granted the Motion for summary judgment based on judicial estoppel. Plaintiff appealed. On appeal, Plaintiff argued that the Trial Judge prematurely granted summary judgment without considering the Motion for substitution.

Holding

The Court of Appeals reversed the entry of summary judgment. The Court of Appeals held that the Trial Court abused its discretion when it granted summary judgment on judicial estoppel grounds while failing to consider a Motion for substitution. By entering summary judgment before permitting the bankruptcy trustee to substitute as Plaintiff, the Trial Court deprived Plaintiff’s creditors of the opportunity to benefit from her claim. Moreover, the Court of Appeals thought it would be inequitable for the Defendant hospital to escape liability on a procedural dismissal without regard to the merits. The Court also considered whether the bankruptcy trustee timely filed his Motion to substitute given the time that had elapsed. The Court of Appeals held that the fifty-seven days that elapsed was a reasonable time given that the trustee needed to contest objections from the Defendant. Rather than giving the Defendant a windfall, the Court of Appeals granted the Motion to substitute the bankruptcy trustee as the real party in interest and remanded the matter for further proceedings.

Questions about this case can be directed to Matt Ainsley at (202) 945-9506 or mainsley@tthlaw.com.