Perri Frame v. Millinocket Regional Hospital
2013 ME 104
| Me. | 2013Background
- In July 2011 Perri Frame filed an unsworn notice of claim under the Maine Health Security Act (MHSA) alleging medical negligence occurring in 2008; the three‑year statute of limitations expired August 3, 2011. She later served the unsworn notice on defendants and filed a sworn notice several months later.
- The prelitigation screening panel initially allowed Frame to file a sworn notice that would relate back, but then referred the jurisdictional/statute issues to the Superior Court.
- The Superior Court dismissed, holding Paradis v. Webber Hosp. controlled and an unsworn notice does not toll the limitations period; the court also declined to permit amendment under M.R. Civ. P. 15 to relate back.
- Frame appealed, arguing (1) the current MHSA tolling provision does not require an oath and thus her unsworn notice tolled the limitations period, and (2) she should be allowed to amend under Rule 15 with relation back.
- The Law Court reviewed statutory text, MHSA revisions (notably 1986 changes creating mandatory prelitigation screening and filing of the notice in court), and federal and state precedents on relation back and verification.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether an unsworn notice of claim tolled the statute of limitations under the MHSA | Frame: §2859 refers to "notice of claim" and contains no oath language, so her unsworn filing tolled the statute | Hospital: Paradis controls; MHSA requires a sworn notice to toll limitations | Court: The MHSA read as a whole requires the notice be under oath; Paradis remains binding — an unsworn notice does not toll |
| Whether the court could permit amendment of an unsworn notice to a sworn notice and have it relate back under M.R. Civ. P. 15(c) | Frame: Court may apply Civil Rules (Rule 15(c)) under Rule 81(f) to permit amendment and relation back where no prejudice exists | Hospital: Paradis and stare decisis bar relation back; the oath requirement is mandatory | Court: Court has authority to allow amendment and relation back in these circumstances; judgment vacated and remanded to allow sworn amendment to relate back and deny dismissal |
Key Cases Cited
- Paradis v. Webber Hosp., 409 A.2d 672 (Me. 1979) (held unsworn notice did not toll limitations under prior MHSA)
- Garland v. Sherwin, 804 A.2d 354 (Me. 2002) (analyzed relation‑back principles for post‑notice amendments)
- Edelman v. Lynchburg Coll., 535 U.S. 106 (2002) (upheld relation back of later verification for administrative charge and recognized courts often accept later verification as reaching back)