Summary
The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit held that Maryland's general three-year statute of limitations, rather than the five-year medical malpractice limitations period, applies to the plaintiff's fraudulent misrepresentation and civil conspiracy claims arising in a health care context. The court vacated the district court's dismissal and remanded for the district court to determine in the first instance whether the claims were timely under the applicable three-year period.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether Maryland's five-year statute of limitations for actions arising from the rendering of professional services by a health-care provider, Md. Code Ann., Cts. & Jud. Proc. § 5-109, applies to fraudulent-misrepresentation and civil-conspiracy claims arising in a health-care context.
- Whether Maryland's general three-year statute of limitations for civil actions, Md. Code Ann., Cts. & Jud. Proc. § 5-101, instead governs the asserted fraud and conspiracy claims.
- Whether the claims were timely under § 5-101, an issue the district court had not decided in the first instance.
Holdings
- Fraudulent-misrepresentation and civil-conspiracy claims arising from alleged medical malpractice, but not constituting traditional malpractice claims based on breach of a professional standard of care, fall under Maryland's general three-year statute of limitations, § 5-101, rather than the Health Care Malpractice Claims Act's five-year period, § 5-109.
- The district court must determine in the first instance whether Brunenkant's claims were timely under Maryland's three-year statute of limitations and discovery rule.
Key quotations
“Although Suburban Hospital maintains on appeal that Brunenkant’s fraud and conspiracy claims relate to the emergency gallbladder removal surgery that Brunenkant underwent at Suburban in October 2015 — and thus appear to arise in the health care context — they are simply not the “traditional malpractice claims” subject to section 5-109’s five-year statute of limitations.” (9)
“And in a similar vein, Maryland’s high court has recognized that “[w]hether or not the plaintiff’s failure to discover his cause of action was due to failure on his part to use due diligence, or to the fact that defendant so concealed the wrong that plaintiff was unable to discover it by the exercise of due diligence, is ordinarily a question of fact for the jury.”” (10)
“Finally, having concluded that section 5-101 is the statute of limitations applicable to the civil claims asserted by Brunenkant in the fraud and conspiracy complaint, we refrain from undertaking the analysis — for the first time in this appeal — of whether those claims were timely brought against Suburban Hospital.” (11)
Factual background
On October 10, 2015, Brunenkant presented to Suburban Hospital with abdominal pain, nausea, and vomiting, and was diagnosed with cholecystitis. Dr. Said Daee, an on-call surgeon, performed gallbladder-removal surgery at the Hospital the next day; complications led to a second surgery at Georgetown Hospital in November 2015, which revealed alleged medical malpractice. Brunenkant alleged that Suburban and Daee represented Daee as the Hospital's employee, agent, or apparent agent, and that Suburban concealed its contract with Daee, which identified him as an independent contractor and disclaimed Hospital supervision.
Procedural history
Brunenkant previously pursued medical-malpractice proceedings concerning gallbladder-removal surgery performed at Suburban Hospital in October 2015. After learning in May 2022 that the surgeon was an independent contractor rather than a Hospital employee, Brunenkant unsuccessfully sought to amend his earlier malpractice action and filed this separate diversity action in May 2023 alleging fraudulent misrepresentation and conspiracy to commit fraud. The district court dismissed the claims under Rule 12(b)(6), applying Maryland Courts and Judicial Proceedings § 5-109, and denied reconsideration. The Fourth Circuit vacated and remanded.
Remand instructions
Vacate the November 2023 dismissal order and remand for the district court to determine, in the first instance, whether the fraud and conspiracy claims were timely under Maryland's three-year statute of limitations and discovery rule, and to address any other unresolved issues as appropriate.