Craig Snowden v. Kevin Snyder Art M.D.
2019 CA 001113
| Ky. Ct. App. | May 12, 2022Background
- Snowden alleged medical negligence for treatment between December 15, 2015 and October 14, 2016 and filed a proposed complaint with the Medical Review Panel (MRP) on October 12, 2017 before the one-year limitations period expired.
- The MRP never issued an opinion in Snowden’s matter. While Claycomb (challenging the 2017 MRP Act) was pending, the Supreme Court held the MRP Act unconstitutional on November 15, 2018; that decision became final February 14, 2019.
- Snowden filed a circuit‑court complaint on February 7, 2019 (one week before Claycomb became final). Defendants moved to dismiss under CR 12.02 as time‑barred by the one‑year statute in KRS 413.140(1).
- The circuit court dismissed, holding: the MRP tolling provision could not extend limitations because the MRPA was void ab initio; the savings statute (KRS 413.270) did not apply because MRPs were not quasi‑judicial; and equitable tolling was unavailable because Snowden could have sued after nine months.
- On appeal this Court, relying on the Supreme Court’s holding in Smith v. Fletcher, reversed: it held MRPs are quasi‑judicial for KRS 413.270 purposes, the 90‑day savings period ran from Claycomb’s finality, and Snowden’s February 7, 2019 filing was timely. Case remanded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the MRPA tolling provision (KRS 216C.040) preserved Snowden's limitations period | Filing with MRP tolled the limitations period and preserved the claim | MRPA was declared unconstitutional; statutory tolling cannot operate to extend limitations | MRPA tolling under the voided statute cannot be the controlling basis, but this did not end the timeliness inquiry |
| Whether KRS 413.270 (the savings statute) applies to claims filed with an MRP | KRS 413.270 applies because MRPs are quasi‑judicial tribunals; 90‑day period runs from finality of Claycomb | MRPs are not judicial/quasi‑judicial, so the savings statute does not apply | Court follows Smith: MRPs are quasi‑judicial; KRS 413.270 applies and saved Snowden’s claim |
| When the 90‑day savings period begins where the MRPA was declared unconstitutional and no MRP opinion issued | 90 days begins when Claycomb became final (Feb 14, 2019); Snowden’s Feb 7 filing was timely | If no MRP opinion issued, the claimant could have filed after nine months, so the 90‑day period would have run from that earlier date (making Snowden untimely) | The 90‑day period runs from the final judgment determining the MRP’s jurisdiction (Claycomb finality); absence of an MRP opinion does not shift the start date |
| Whether equitable tolling excuses any delay | Equitable tolling or the savings statute should preserve rights given reliance on the MRPA | No extraordinary circumstances; plaintiff could have filed after nine months | Court did not need equitable tolling because KRS 413.270 resolved timeliness; dismissal was reversed |
Key Cases Cited
- Smith v. Fletcher, 613 S.W.3d 18 (Ky. 2020) (holds MRPs are quasi‑judicial and KRS 413.270 can save claims; 90‑day period runs from finality)
- Commonwealth v. Claycomb, 566 S.W.3d 202 (Ky. 2018) (declared the 2017 Medical Review Panel Act unconstitutional)
- CTS Corp. v. Waldburger, 573 U.S. 1 (2014) (explains the purpose of statutes of limitations in preventing revival of stale claims)
- Roach v. Kentucky Parole Board, 553 S.W.3d 791 (Ky. 2018) (articulates test for determining when an administrative body is quasi‑judicial)
- Ockerman v. Wise, 274 S.W.2d 385 (Ky. 1954) (defines which judgment starts the savings‑statute clock)