Kratz Ex Rel. Kratz-Spera v. MedSource Community Services, Inc.

SHARER, J. Presented in this appeal is the question of whether the appointment of a guardian of the person of a mentally incompetent person removes the disability of that person for purposes of application of the statute of limitations. The Circuit Court for Prince George’s County (Hon. Albert Northrop, J.) ruled that the guardian of the person is not excused from the operation of the statute of limitations. The Circuit Court for Prince George’s County found that appellant, Kurt Kratz, an adult, lacks the capacity to make responsible decisions concerning his person due to a mental disability or disease, 1 and appointed his mother, Carole Kratz-Spera, and his sister, Heather Lamont, guardians of his person, on July 18, 2008.

On June 18, 2013, and June 6, 2014, Kratz, by his guardian, Kratz-Spera, filed complaints in the Circuit Court for Prince George’s County against appellee, MedSource Community Services (“MedSource”). Kurt Kratz was a resident of a group home operated by MedSource in Laurel, Prince George’s County when two incidents occurred, both resulting in injury to him, from which the complaints in this case arose. On March 22, 2006, he gained improper access to a bottle of chloral hydrate and ingested a quantity of the contents. On November 24, 2009, he was ⁴⁷⁹ injured when his hand was submerged into a pot of boiling water.

Both complaints alleged medical negligence resulting in injury. MedSource moved to dismiss the initial complaint for failure to arbitrate pursuant to the Maryland Health Care Malpractice Claims Act. The motion was denied and a stay was ordered to allow for proceedings in the Health Care Alternate Dispute Resolution Office. After there was no resolution through arbitration, Kratz-Spera filed the second complaint, again alleging medical negligence as a result of both the 2006 and 2009 incidents.

Kratz-Spera’s motion to lift the stay in the first case and consolidate the complaints was granted by the circuit court. On February 26, 2015, the circuit court granted Med-Source’s motion to dismiss, as to all counts in both complaints. Kratz-Spera thereafter noted this timely appeal, raising the following issue: Whether the Circuit Court erred in granting the motion to dismiss and finding that the appointment of a guardian of the person “removes the disability” of a mentally incompetent individual for purposes of the Maryland tolling statute. We shall affirm the judgment of the circuit court.

The tolling exception addresses a disability that is not a procedural one; rather it is a disability that prevents one from understanding the existence of a cause of action. The statute of limitations begins to run after the knowledge has been gained, which occurs when a guardian learns of the facts giving rise to the cause of action. BACKGROUND Kurt Kratz is an adult who suffers from severe autism and intellectual disability. On July 18, 2008, the circuit court appointed his mother, Carole Kratz-Spera, and his sister, Heather Lamont, as guardians of his person after finding that he “lacks sufficient understanding or capacity to make or communicate responsible decisions concerning his person, including provisions for health care, food, clothing, or shelter.” ⁴⁸⁰ The order granted the guardians “all the rights, duties and powers as set forth in Estates and Trusts Article, Section 13-708 ... with the general discretion of the guardian concerning living arrangement within this State, non life threatening medical care and procedures, clothing and food.” Kratz at all relevant times lived in a group home operated by MedSource.

On March 22, 2006, Kurt Kratz gained access to a bottle containing chloral hydrate, a sedative, and ingested a large quantity of the substance. Coincidentally, Kratz-Spera arrived at the MedSource group home to visit her son at that time, and found him asleep and “foaming at the mouth and breathing erratically.” Kratz-Spera instructed MedSource employees to call an ambulance, which transported Kratz to a hospital, where he remained in a coma for approximately 60 days. On November 24, 2009, Kratz suffered second degree burns when his hand was submerged into a pot of boiling water at the MedSource group home. A MedSource employee reported to police during an investigation, in conjunction with Adult Protective Services, that he observed another MedSource employee hold Kratz’s hand momentarily in the hot water.

Kratz-Spera was notified of this incident the following morning. On June 18, 2013, Kratz, by his guardian Kratz-Spera, filed a complaint in the Circuit Court for Prince George’s County against MedSource, alleging liability on three different theories for negligence related to the second incident. 2 Med-Source moved to dismiss the complaint on the grounds that the Maryland Health Care Malpractice Claims Act required ⁴⁸¹ arbitration prior to filing an action in court. The circuit court denied the motion to dismiss, but ordered a stay to allow Kratz to pursue a remedy through the Health Care Alternative Dispute Resolution Office. On June 6, 2014, Kratz, by his guardian Kratz-Spera, and Kratz-Spera, individually, filed a complaint asserting liability on three different theories for both incidents, as well as claims for medical and related expenses and loss of income and wage earning capacity incurred by Kratz-Spera.

Kratz’s counsel conceded that the new complaint was a redundancy to ensure the first case, previously stayed, was re-opened. MedSource moved to dismiss the complaint on limitations grounds, arguing that Kratz’s disability had been “removed” for limitations purposes upon the appointment of the guardians. Hence, MedSource asserts, limitations began to run at the time the guardian gained notice of each incident. On February 26, 2015, the circuit court lifted the stay in the first case, consolidated the two cases, and dismissed all counts.

The circuit court ruled: Plaintiff contends that the right of action by a mentally incompetent person would never be subject to the statute of limitations regardless of appointment of a guardian. This Court believes that runs against the prevailing policy arguments supporting the existence of a statute of limitations as well as the statutes and supporting case law on guardian-ships in Maryland. Standard of Review We review the grant of a motion to dismiss by determining whether the trial court was legally correct; we must determine whether the complaint, on its face, discloses a legally sufficient cause of action. Britton v. Meier, 148 Md. App. 419, 425 , 812 A.2d 1082 (2002) (quoting Fioretti v. Md. State Bd. of Dental Exam’rs, 851 Md. 66 , 71-72, 716 A.2d 258 (1998)).

We presume the truth of all well-pleaded facts in the complaint, together with any reasonable inferences drawn therefrom. Id. “Dismissal is proper only if the facts and ⁴⁸² allegations, so viewed, would nevertheless fail to afford plaintiff relief if proven.” Id. (quoting Faya v. Almaraz, 329 Md. 435, 443 , 620 A.2d 327 (1993)). Particularly regarding motions to dismiss on limitations grounds, the Court of Appeals has said: We have held consistently that “the question of accrual in § 5-101 is left to judicial determination.” Frederick Rd.

Ltd. P’ship v. Brown & Sturm, 360 Md. 76, 95 [ 756 A.2d 963 ] (2000). We review the grant of [the] motion in order to “determine whether the court was legally correct.” Parks [v. Alpharma, Inc.,] 421 Md. [59, 72, 25 A.3d 200 (2011).] Kumar v. Dhanda, 426 Md. 185, 193 , 43 A.3d 1029 (2012). DISCUSSION MedSource maintains that the complaint was legally insufficient because the statute of limitations began running when Kratz-Spera, as guardian, discovered each of the separate incidents, and therefore had run by the time she filed the initial complaint. Kratz-Spera, on behalf of Kratz, argues that the appointment of a guardian of the person has no effect for statute of limitations purposes.

She contends that, because her son remains under the disability, the tolling exception in the Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article of the Maryland Code (“CJP”), section 5-201, continues to apply to his claims. She asserts that guardians charged with making decisions regarding his person do not have an affirmative duty to sue on his behalf. The general statute of limitations in Maryland for a civil cause of action is three years and is codified in CJP § 5-101, which provides: A civil action at law shall be filed within three years from the date it accrues unless another provision of the Code provides a different period of time within which an action shall be commenced. We explained in Antar v. Mike Egan Insurance Agency that, when considering the statute of limitations, ⁴⁸³ it is appropriate to take note of the fact that we are not dealing with a common law of limitations or with some judicial doctrine of limitations.

We are dealing with the Statute of Limitations. As the noun “Statute” expressly states, we are dealing with a legislative policy determination to establish a definite and certain deadline for the filing of a civil lawsuit, notwithstanding the fact that an occasional injustice or hardship might sometimes result from such an arbitrary and definite legislative pronouncement. 209 Md.App. 336, 341 , 58 A.3d 609 (2012). We further emphasized that “statutes of limitations are to be strictly construed and courts will decline to apply strained construction that evades the effect.” Bi v. Gibson, 205 Md. App. 263, 266 , 45 A.3d 305 (2012) (citing Decker v. Fink, 47 Md.App. 202, 206 , 422 A.2d 389 (1980)). As MedSource is a “health care provider” pursuant to the Maryland Health Care Malpractice Claims Act, id. § 3-2A-01, the applicable statute of limitations is within the earlier of five years of the injury or three years of the date the injury was discovered.

CJP § 5-109(a). Kratz-Spera discovered her son’s injury from the ingestion of choral hydrate on the day it occurred, March 22, 2006; it was she who alerted MedSource staff to the event. She was notified of the burn injury the day after it occurred, on November 25, 2009. Her knowledge operates as discovery under the statute.

By any measure, even the earlier of the two complaints was filed more than three years after knowledge was acquired. The parties disagree only as to when, and if, the limitations countdown began. The tolling exception for filing a civil cause of action provides, “When a cause of action subject to a limitation under Subtitle 1 ... accrues in favor of a minor or mental incompetent, that person shall file his action within the lesser of three years or the applicable period of limitations after the date the disability is removed.” CJP § 5-201(a). MedSource contends that the appointment of a guardian removes the disability and begins the period of limitations running. ⁴⁸⁴ Courts have been careful to limit tolling exceptions to their narrowest definitions. “[W]here the legislature has not expressly provided for an exception in a statute of limitations, the court will not allow any implied or equitable exception to be engrafted upon it.” Booth Glass Co. v. Hunting-field Corp., 304 Md. 615, 623 , 500 A.2d 641 (1985).

See also Garay v. Overholtzer, 332 Md. 339, 359 , 631 A.2d 429 (1993) (detailing Court of Appeals’s unwillingness to give expansive interpretation to, or recognize implied exceptions, in CJP § 5-201). For instance, the tolling exception was not available to a plaintiff who, though he had been confined to the Patuxent Institution when the claim accrued, was never adjudicated as mentally incompetent. McDonald v. Boslow, 363 F.Supp. 493, 496 (D.Md.1973) (“commitment to Patuxent is not, in and of itself, an adjudication of non compos status sufficient to toll the statute”). And, once the limitations period begins to run, an intervening