65 A.3d 1196
Me.2013Background
- D.S. is an incapacitated woman who alleged Spurwink Services breached its duty by allowing her to leave its education facility, leading to sexual assault.
- The Maine Health Security Act (MHSA) prelitigation framework applies to actions for professional negligence against health care providers.
- Spurwink moved for summary judgment arguing MHSA applied and D.S. failed to comply with MHSA prelitigation requirements.
- The trial court granted summary judgment, concluding D.S. claims fell under MHSA; the court lacked jurisdiction.
- The Maine Supreme Judicial Court held that MHSA does not apply because Spurwink is not a health care provider under MHSA §2502(2).
- The matter is remanded to proceed under non-MHSA theories of liability.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether MHSA applies to the claims. | D.S. contends MHSA governs her claims. | Spurwink argues the MHSA prelitigation procedures apply. | MHSA does not apply to Spurwink’s actions. |
| Whether Spurwink is a “health care provider” under MHSA § 2502(2). | D.S. asserts Spurwink provided health care services. | Spurwink contends it does not provide services under a licensed physician's direction. | Spurwink is not a health care provider under MHSA § 2502(2). |
| Whether the psychiatrist’s involvement makes Spurwink a health care provider. | The psychiatrist contributed to treatment planning. | The psychiatrist did not prescribe or supervise medical services. | Not enough to make Spurwink a health care provider under MHSA. |
| Whether the injury arises out of the provision or failure to provide health care services. | Claims arise from care/education at Spurwink. | MHSA must cover health care services provided under physician direction. | No, claims do not arise from health care services under MHSA. |
Key Cases Cited
- Saunders v. Tisher, 902 A.2d 830 (Me. 2006) (MHSA occupies the field for professional negligence against health care providers)
- Hill v. Kwan, 962 A.2d 963 (Me. 2009) (Subject matter jurisdiction; de novo review of statutory interpretation)
- Dickey v. Vermette, 960 A.2d 1178 (Me. 2008) (Statutory interpretation and jurisdiction principles)
- Baker v. Farrand, 26 A.3d 806 (Me. 2011) (Plain meaning and statutory scheme interpretation)
- Hayden-Tidd v. Cliff House & Motels, Inc., 52 A.3d 925 (Me. 2012) (De novo review of statutory interpretation; jurisdiction)
- Barr v. Dyke, 49 A.3d 1280 (Me. 2012) (Jurisdiction and summary judgment standards)
- Brand v. Seider, 697 A.2d 846 (Me. 1997) (MHSA scope and application)
- Dutil v. Burns, 674 A.2d 910 (Me. 1996) (MHSA context; professional negligence actions)
- Musk v. Nelson, 647 A.2d 1198 (Me. 1994) (MHSA interpretation)
- Hewett v. Kennebec Valley Mental Health Association, 557 A.2d 622 (Me. 1989) (Earlier MHSA considerations)