Submitted January 7, 2019
Appeal
from the Superior Court of the District of Columbia
(CAM-7831-17) (Hon. Robert R. Rigsby, Trial Judge)
Brian
Keith Waugh, pro se.
Crystal S. Deese and Diona F. Howard-Nicolas were on the
brief for appellee.
Before
Thompson and Easterly, Associate Judges, and Ruiz, Senior
Judge.
RUIZ,
SENIOR JUDGE
This
appeal arises out of a medical malpractice action filed by
pro se appellant Brian Keith Waugh against appellee
MedStar Georgetown University Hospital (the
"Hospital"). The trial court dismissed
appellant's amended complaint on the alternative grounds
that it was filed outside of the statutory three-year
limitations period governing medical malpractice claims, and
that appellant did not provide appellee with ninety days'
pre-suit notice as required by statute. We affirm.
I.
Factual Background
Appellant
alleges that he received improper treatment at the Hospital
between September 7-8, 2014, when two nurses went
"fishing" for a vein in his right arm. The first
nurse's attempt to insert the intravenous needle caused
appellant's arm to "bleed[] significantly from the
needle hole." And when a second nurse inserted the
needle, appellant's "thumb felt funny." A
radiology technician then "took out the needle in
[appellant's] right arm and put one in the back of [his]
right hand without a problem," but it "caused the
back of [appellant's] hand to sting intensely," and
appellant "screamed out, Ahhhhhh!" Appellant
subsequently sought medical care related to the injury. His
hand sometimes "feel[s] like it is going to sleep,"
and he occasionally experiences "prickly pains, or sharp
pains in the back of [his] wrist."
Appellant
filed his complaint on November 22, 2017.[1] After the
Hospital filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, appellant
filed both a brief in opposition and an amended complaint.
The Hospital filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint,
and appellant filed a motion to amend his brief in opposition
to the Hospital's motion to dismiss the original
complaint. Then, appellant filed a brief in opposition to the
Hospital's motion to dismiss the amended complaint.
The
trial court issued an omnibus order resolving all outstanding
motions on February 23, 2018. As relevant here, the trial
court: (1) denied the Hospital's motion to dismiss the
initial complaint as mooted by the amended complaint, (2)
denied appellant's motion to amend his brief in
opposition to that motion as also mooted by the amended
complaint, [2] and (3) granted the Hospital's motion
to dismiss the amended complaint on the grounds that
appellant did not file his complaint within the three-year
limitations period established by D.C. Code § 12-301(8)
(2012 Repl.), and did not provide the Hospital with ninety
days' pre-suit notice as required by D.C. Code §
16-2802 (2012 Repl.). This appeal followed.
II.
Standard of Review
The
trial court may dismiss a claim for failure to comply with
the applicable statute of limitations under Super. Ct. Civ.
R. 12(b)(6) if "the claim is time-barred on the face of
the complaint." Logan v. LaSalle Bank Nat'l
Ass'n, 80 A.3d 1014, 1020 (D.C. 2013). "We
review de novo the trial court's dismissal of a
complaint under Super. Ct. Civ. R. 12(b)(6)."
Id. at 1019.
III.
...