Rice v. Univ. of Maryland Med. Sys. Corp. arose out of a wrongful death medical malpractice action filed by Pearline Rice’s children after Ms. Rice died of soft tissue cancer in her leg. The plaintiffs claimed that the University of Maryland Medical System negligently misdiagnosed Ms. Rice. However, when the plaintiffs filed the case, they did not attach the certificate of merit required by Md. Code Ann., Cts. & Jud. Proc. § 3-2A-04(a)(1)(i) (2008). A certificate of merit is a, "certificate of a qualified expert…attesting to departure from standards of care, and that the departure from standards of care is the proximate cause of the alleged injury." § 3-2A-04(a)(1)(i). Due to the plaintiffs’ failure to attach the required certificate of merit, the Circuit Court for Baltimore City dismissed the case without prejudice on January 18, 2007. The plaintiffs immediately appealed the Circuit Court’s decision. While their appeal was pending, the plaintiffs also refiled the case on July 23, 2007, before the August 1, 2007 deadline set forth in § 5-119. The defendants moved to dismiss the refiled case because they claimed it was time-barred and the Circuit Court granted the defendants’ motion. The plaintiffs appealed the decision.

The Court of Special Appeals found that the Legislature has the constitutional authority to extend the statute of limitations for cases in which the statute of limitations has not yet expired; however, the Legislature cannot revive an expired claim where the defendant has survived the period set forth in the statute of limitations without being sued. The Legislature cannot retroactively revive a stale claim. The defendants conceded that § 5-119 permitted the plaintiffs to refile the case, but they argued that § 5-119 violated their constitutional rights under the Due Process Clause. They argued that once the Circuit Court dismissed the case, the plaintiff’s claim became stale and the Legislature violated their rights by reviving that stale claim. The Court of Special Appeals agreed that the Legislature cannot revive a stale claim, but they found that this case was not stale. Instead, the Court of Special Appeals found that when the plaintiffs filed an appeal to the dismissal, they kept the case, "on life support." If the Court of Special Appeals overruled the Circuit Court, then this case would have been remanded and reopened. Therefore, the Court of Special Appeals found that this case was not stale and the Legislature could extend that statute of limitations and permit the plaintiffs to refile the case. As such, under these particular facts, § 5-119 was not unconstitutional.