UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-1251
KATHERINE M. LEWIS,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
v.
JEREMY P. WALETZKY,
Defendant – Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt. Peter J. Messitte, Senior District
Judge. (8:07-cv-02154-PJM)
Argued: March 23, 2010 Decided: April 24, 2012
Before NIEMEYER and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and James A. BEATY,
Jr., Chief District Judge for the Middle District of North
Carolina, sitting by designation.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
ARGUED: Paul McCourt Curley, CANFIELD, BAER, HELLER, LLP,
Richmond, Virginia, for Appellant. H. Kenneth Armstrong,
ARMSTRONG, DONAHUE, CEPPOS & VAUGHAN, CHTD, Rockville, Maryland,
for Appellee. ON BRIEF: Erica C. Mudd, ARMSTRONG, DONAHUE,
CEPPOS & VAUGHAN, CHTD, Rockville, Maryland, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Katherine Lewis appeals from the dismissal of her complaint
and from the subsequent denial of her motion to reconsider.
Relying on the public policy exception to the lex loci delicti
doctrine, the district court applied Maryland law and dismissed
the complaint without prejudice because Lewis failed to comply
with the mandatory filing requirements of Maryland’s Health Care
Malpractice Claims Act (“the Act”). See Md. Code Ann., Cts. &
Jud. Proc., §§ 3-2A-01, et seq.
In our prior order, we certified to the Court of Appeals of
Maryland the following question:
Does Maryland recognize the public policy exception,
or any other exception, to lex loci delicti based on
the Maryland Health Care Malpractice Claims Act, see
Md. Code Ann., Cts. & Jud. Proc., §§ 3-2A-01, et
seq., which requires a plaintiff to comply with
certain mandatory administrative filings prior to
filing a medical malpractice lawsuit in a Maryland
court?
Lewis v. Waletzky, 2010 WL 1734976 (4th Cir. 2010).
The Court of Appeals of Maryland has now published an
opinion in response to our certified question. That court held
that although the doctrine of lex loci delicti does not apply
under the circumstances presented in this case, “the filing
requirements at issue are procedural, mandating application of
those requirements under Maryland choice-of-law principles, as
the law of the forum.” Lewis v. Waletzky, 422 Md. 647, 667 (Md.
2
2011). Therefore, the Court of Appeals of Maryland found that
Lewis must “comply with the Act’s filing requirements.” Id.
Based on the published opinion of the Court of Appeals of
Maryland, Lewis's claim fails as a matter of law because she was
required to comply with the mandatory requirements of the Act
and she did not do so. Accordingly, we affirm the district
court’s orders dismissing the complaint and denying the motion
for reconsideration. See MM ex rel. DM v. School Dist. of
Greenville Cty., 303 F.3d 523, 536 (4th Cir. 2002)(“[W]e are
entitled to affirm the court's judgment on alternate grounds, if
such grounds are apparent from the record.”).
AFFIRMED
3