Mary Carter Agr: Lewis v. UCMC
This post of the Baltimore Medical Malpractice Lawyer Blog examines the recent unreported decision by the Appellate Court of Maryland in Upper Chesapeake Medical Center, Inc. v. Kenyetta Lewis, et al., No. 0679, April 10, 2026. That medical malpractice case serves as a cautionary tale regarding the use of secret settlements in multi-defendant litigation. The issue involves the disclosure of a Mary Carter agreement.
Factual Background
The roots of this legal battle trace back to a birth Injury that occurred in 2004. The plaintiffs were a mother and child. They alleged that the medical care provided at the hospital was negligent. Specifically, they targeted two theories of liability. The direct negligence of the hospital’s nursing staff and the vicarious liability of the attending obstetrician.
The case in the Circuit Court for Harford County reached a twelve-day jury trial in July 2022. Separate counsel represented the hospital and doctor. They appeared to the outside world as co-defendants with aligned interests in defeating the plaintiffs’ claims. However, just after the court impaneled the jury, the plaintiffs’ counsel disclosed that they had struck a deal with the doctor.
The parties to the agreement did not disclose the terms of this deal to hospital or the trial judge at the start of the proceedings. The trial judge declined at that time to require disclosure of the terms. While the trial moved forward, the doctor remained a named defendant. He testified with a level of contrition that suggested he was “accepting responsibility”. It wasn’t until the third week of trial—after nearly all evidence had been presented—that the details of the “Agreement” was finally revealed. The jury eventually returned a verdict of $13,385,000 against the hospital.
Parties’ Arguments on Disclosure of Mary Carter Agreement
The core of the appeal centered on whether the trial was fundamentally unfair due to the secrecy of the agreement between the plaintiffs and the doctor.
The Hospital’s Position (Appellant)
The hospital argued that the deal was a “Mary Carter Agreement.” This is a controversial type of settlement where a defendant stays in the case but has their liability capped or eliminated in exchange for helping the plaintiff’s case against other defendants. The hospital contended that:
- The court should have dismissed the doctor from the case entirely once the parties had entered into the agreement.
- The late disclosure of the deal created a “sham of adversity,” where the jury was misled into thinking the doctor was a true adversary to the plaintiffs when he was actually cooperating with them.
- The delay prevented the hospital from effectively cross-examining the doctor about his motives or using an “empty chair” defense to shift blame away from the nurses.
The Plaintiffs’ Position (Appellees)
The plaintiffs fought to keep the verdict intact, arguing:
- The deal wasn’t a true Mary Carter Agreement because no money changed hands upfront.
- The trial judge eventually disclosed the agreement to the jury before they deliberated, which they argued cured any potential prejudice.
- The hospital was still directly liable for the nurses’ actions regardless of the doctor’s status.
Court Ruling on Disclosure of Mary Carter Agreement
The Appellate Court of Maryland ultimately sided with the hospital. It reversed the circuit court’s decision and remanding the case for a new hearing on the motion for mistrial.
Defining the Agreement
The court first confirmed that the deal was, in fact, a Mary Carter Agreement. The court found the doctor received a “pecuniary benefit” because the plaintiffs promised not to enforce any judgment against him. This created the very “sham of adversity” Maryland law seeks to avoid.
The Dismissal Issue
The court clarified that Maryland law does not automatically require a defendant who settles via a Mary Carter Agreement to be dismissed from the case. Therefore, the trial judge did not err by letting the doctor stay in the trial.
The Prejudicial Delay
The fatal error, according to the Appellate Court, was the timing of the disclosure. By allowing the trial to proceed for weeks without the jury knowing about the secret deal, the lower court allowed the doctor’s testimony to be viewed in a vacuum. The jury saw a “heroic figure” who was “taking full responsibility” without knowing he had zero financial risk.
The court noted that the hospital lost its chance to:
- Color the doctor’s testimony by showing he had “nothing to lose”.
- Properly execute an “empty chair” defense.
The court concluded that while there is no “bright line rule” on when these deals must be disclosed, in this specific case, the plaintiffs’ disclosure was far too late to save the fairness of the trial.
Commentary on Disclosure of Mary Carter Agreement
Mary Carter Agreements are not common. This opinion restates that the trial judge has discretion to require the terms be revealed to the jury, but the scope of that discretion is unclear.
Generally, abuse of discretion is a very high bar for an appellant to clear. It requires showing that the trial judge’s decision was “well removed from any center mark” or “violative of fact and logic.”
Although this opinion states that a trial judge “may” disclose the terms of a Mary Carter agreement, the discussion does not indicate if nondisclosure is ever within the discretion. In terms of timing of the disclosure, the appellate court said the end of evidence was too late but declined to set a bright line rule. The trial judge’s allowance of the parties to recall witnesses did not cure the lateness. What constitutes late in other cases is not clear.
Plaintiffs may want to push for the best of both worlds by having the agreement and declining or delaying in disclosing it. However this opinion is a cautionary tale that shows the risks of proceeding in that manner.
Mark Kopec is a top-rated Baltimore medical malpractice lawyer. Contact us at 800-604-0704 to speak directly with Attorney Kopec in a free consultation. The Kopec Law Firm is in Baltimore and helps clients throughout Maryland and Washington, D.C. Thank you for reading the Baltimore Medical Malpractice Lawyer Blog.