|
|
|
Medical Malpractice Claim Barred by Maryland's Statute of Repose
(MONTH 2010) By Tamiya N. Wilkes, Associate
For more information, contact Paul Farquharson.
Angelia Anderson v. United States of America,
Civil No.: CCB-08-3 (D. Md., March 30, 2010) available at
http://www.mdd.uscourts.gov/Opinions/Opinions/Anderson30mar10.pdf
Angelia M. Anderson ("Anderson") filed suit against the
United States, in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland
("the Court") alleging that she sustained injuries as a result of the negligent
medical treatment she received at the Veterans Administration Medical Center
("VA Hospital"). Specifically, Anderson alleged that over a period of several
months, she sought treatment at the VA Hospital for pain and was routinely
discharged without the appropriate treatment. However, when Anderson sought
treatment at another hospital it was revealed that she had an epidural spinal
tumor which was compressing her spinal cord, causing her to undergo immediate
emergency surgery. In her Complaint, Anderson alleged that the VA Hospital
negligently failed to recognize the symptoms of progressive spinal cord
compression due to an epidural spine tumor and as a result of such negligence,
she was left with significant and permanent neurologic deficits, severe and
permanent disability, unending pain and emotional anguish. The United States
filed a Motion to Dismiss Anderson's Complaint, arguing that Anderson's claims
were barred by Maryland's five-year medical malpractice limitations statute, as
set forth in as set forth in MD. CODE ANN., CTS. & JUD. PROC. § 5-109(a)(1).
Anderson argued that the five year limitations provision in Section 5-109 did
not govern her claim, but rather her claim was governed by the portion of the
statute that required medical malpractice claims to be filed within three years
of the discovery of injury.
Section 5-109(a) contains both a three-year limit, subject
to the discovery rule, and a five year limit: "[a]n action for damages for an
injury arising out of the rendering of or failure to render professional
services by a health care provider . . . shall be filed within the earlier of:
(1) Five years of the time the injury was committed; or (2) Three years of the
date the injury was discovered." Anderson's injury and damages first accrued on
December 24, 2002, when she underwent emergency surgery; she did not file suit
in the United States District Court until January 2, 2008, more than five years
later.
The Court held that MD. CODE ANN., CTS. & JUD. PROC. §
5-109(a)(1) is a statute of repose which limits the period of time in which a
litigant may exercise her right to file suit, irrespective of when the injury
was discovered. See First United Methodist Church of Hyattsville v. United
States Gypsum Co., 882 F.2d 862, 866 (4th Cir. 1989) (explaining that a statute
of limitations is a procedural device, whereas a statute of repose creates a
substantive right to be free from liability) (emphasis added)). In Maryland, a
statute of repose, as compared to a statute of limitations, is an absolute time
limit beyond which liability no longer exists, subject to tolling for fraud,
infancy, and incompetence. In Hill v. Fitzgerald, 501 A.2d 27, 32 (Md. 1985),
the Court of Appeals of Maryland explained that, in response to the "so called"
crisis in the field of medical malpractice claims, the purpose of Section 5-109
was to restrict the amount of time that could lapse between the allegedly
negligent treatment of a patient and the filing of a malpractice claim related
to the treatment." 501 A.2d at 32. In other words, in Maryland, medical
malpractice claims must be filed within five years of when the injury was
committed, even if the injury not discovered until after the five year period
has expired.
Because Anderson's claim was filed more than five years
after her injury, her Complaint was barred by the five year statute of repose
irrespective of when her injury was discovered.
|
|
|
Top
