The Maryland Court of Special Appeals recently ruled on the case of Juan Carlos Vivar v. Samantha Jackson Dilts, M.D., et al., which addresses the timeliness of wrongful death claims. The court's decision, filed on July 8, 2026, clarifies the rules surrounding when a use plaintiff can join a wrongful death action. This ruling is significant for families seeking justice in wrongful death cases, as it outlines strict deadlines for participation.
In this case, Juan Carlos Vivar sought to intervene in a wrongful death lawsuit following the tragic death of his son, Alex Vivar Perez. The court ruled that Vivar's motion to intervene was untimely, which means he will not be able to participate in the lawsuit. This decision has implications for other potential plaintiffs in similar situations, emphasizing the importance of adhering to procedural deadlines.
Background
Juan Carlos Vivar is the father of Alex Vivar Perez, who died on August 30, 2020, after a visit to PM Pediatrics Urgent Care in Greenbelt, Maryland. Alex, who was only nine years old, suffered from complications related to chronic constipation. His mother, Cristina Perez, filed a wrongful death claim against the attending physician, Dr. Samantha Jackson Dilts, and the medical facility on August 16, 2023. This claim was filed with the Maryland Healthcare Alternative Dispute Resolution Office (HCADRO), and Ms. Perez waived arbitration that same day.
Following the waiver, Ms. Perez filed a formal complaint in the Circuit Court for Prince George’s County on September 22, 2023. She named Mr. Vivar as a use plaintiff, meaning he was included in the lawsuit but did not formally join it as a party. Mr. Vivar was served with the complaint and notice on September 26, 2023. However, he did not file a motion to intervene until June 7, 2024, which was well after the statutory deadline of August 30, 2023.
The Ruling
The court ruled that Mr. Vivar's motion to intervene was untimely under Maryland Rule 15-1001. This rule requires that a use plaintiff must file a motion to intervene by the earlier of three years after the death or 30 days after being served with the complaint. The court found that Mr. Vivar failed to meet these deadlines, stating, "An individual who fails to file a complaint or motion to intervene by the statutory deadline may not participate in the action or claim a recovery." This ruling was made by Judge Berger, with judges Tang and Kenney concurring.
The court emphasized that the relation back doctrine, which allows certain claims to be treated as if they were filed on an earlier date, does not apply in this case. The court stated that the failure to act before the statutory deadline extinguishes a use plaintiff's claim. Therefore, even though Mr. Vivar attempted to intervene after the deadline, the court could not excuse this late filing.
Impact
This ruling has significant implications for wrongful death actions in Maryland. It reinforces the strict adherence to procedural deadlines, which can bar individuals from participating in lawsuits even if they have legitimate claims. Families seeking justice for wrongful deaths must be vigilant about filing motions and complaints within the specified time frames to ensure their rights are protected.
The decision also clarifies the role of use plaintiffs in wrongful death cases. It highlights the importance of understanding one's legal standing and the necessary steps to take in order to participate in a lawsuit. This ruling may lead to increased awareness among potential plaintiffs regarding the importance of timely action in wrongful death claims.
What's Next
While Mr. Vivar's case has been decided, the ruling can potentially be appealed to a higher court. However, details regarding any appeal or related cases were not available in the court filing. The outcome of this case may influence future wrongful death claims in Maryland, particularly regarding the interpretation of procedural rules and the rights of use plaintiffs.