W. C. v. Robinson ( 1997 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
W. C., an inmate at the Maryland
House of Correction,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
BISHOP L. ROBINSON, Secretary of
Public Safety and Correctional
Services; RICHARD LANHAM; MERRY
COPLIN; FRED JORDAN; ELMANUS
HERNDON; HOWARD N. LYLES; FORD
BREWER, Dr.; CORRECTIONAL
MEDICAL SERVICES (CMS), Inc.;
ROBERT C. GRANGER; NEVZAT
TURKMAN; DR. SHAW-TAYLOR; PHP
HEALTHCARE CORPORATION; JAMES
No. 96-7549
ROLLINS; THE ESTATE OF VICTOR J.
LUCKRITZ, by Patrick McCardle,
Personal Representative,
Defendants-Appellees,
and
PHILLIP R. NICHOLS; STEVEN F.
ASHCRAFT; DENNIS HUGHES; ROBERT
BUCHANAN; FARRAOUHK MOHADJERIN;
JAMES TINNEY, III; MICHAEL
MIGINSKY,
Defendants,
JEFFREY TAYLOR, Esquire, acting on
behalf of the plaintiff,
Party in Interest.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore.
Edward S. Northrop, Senior District Judge.
(CA-94-1881-N)
Argued: May 6, 1997
Decided: June 4, 1997
Before RUSSELL and HALL, Circuit Judges, and
Joseph F. ANDERSON, Jr., United States District Judge for the
District of South Carolina, sitting by designation.
_________________________________________________________________
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
_________________________________________________________________
COUNSEL
ARGUED: Robert Bruce McElhone, LAW OFFICES OF PETER G.
ANGELOS, P.C., Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellant. Kevin Francis
Arthur, KRAMON & GRAHAM, P.A., Baltimore, Maryland; Wendy
Ann Kronmiller, Assistant Attorney General, Baltimore, Maryland;
Paul T. Cuzmanes, WILSON, ELSER, MOSKOWITZ, EDELMAN
& DICKER, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees. ON BRIEF: Ger-
trude C. Bartel, KRAMON & GRAHAM, P.A., Baltimore, Maryland,
for Appellees Correctional Medical Systems, et al; Stephanie Lane-
Weber, Assistant Attorney General, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appel-
lees Robinson, et al; Thomas C. Swiers, WILSON, ELSER, MOS-
KOWITZ, EDELMAN & DICKER, Baltimore, Maryland, for
Appellees PHP Healthcare, et al; Susan T. Preston, GOODELL,
DEVRIES, LEECH & GRAY, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee
McArdle.
_________________________________________________________________
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
Local Rule 36(c).
_________________________________________________________________
2
OPINION
PER CURIAM:
W.C., an inmate in a Maryland state prison, appeals the summary
judgment in favor of the defendants in W.C.'s action in which he
alleged that he contracted the AIDS virus from a prison dentist who
had the disease but who took inadequate precautions in his dental
practice. We affirm.
The dentist's death on May 7, 1991, from AIDS-related causes was
widely reported in the Maryland newspapers. An AIDS testing and
counseling program was quickly instituted for all inmates who had
been treated by the dentist. W.C. had his first blood test on May 28,
1991, and a prison nurse informed him on June 13, 1991, that the
results were positive. The nurse also noted that the test often returned
false-positive results, and W.C. was retested. On July 4, he was told
that the results of the second test were positive.
Three years later, on July 5, 1994, W.C. filed suit against a host of
defendants under a variety of theories. The district court dismissed the
federal claims on the ground that the suit was filed after the statute
of limitation had expired.*
The parties agree that Maryland's three-year limitations applies,
that the accrual date is a matter of federal law, and that "[u]nder fed-
eral law a cause of action accrues when the plaintiff possesses suffi-
cient facts about the harm done to him that reasonable inquiry will
reveal his cause of action." Nasim v. Warden, Md. House of
Correction, 64 F.3d 951, 955 (4th Cir. 1995) (en banc). The only
argument W.C. raises on appeal is that he must have had "unequivo-
cal notice" that he was actually harmed (that he had the virus) before
he can be deemed to have been placed on inquiry notice of his cause
of action. He contends that the circumstances existing prior to July 4,
1991 -- for instance, that he was asymptomatic and that he was told
that the tests often returned false-positive results-- raise at least a
_________________________________________________________________
*The district court declined to exercise jurisdiction over the state law
causes of action. W.C. takes no issue with this ruling.
3
genuine issue of fact about when he should be deemed to have known
that he had been harmed.
The district court held that the cause of action accrued on June 16,
1991, because that is when W.C. had sufficient knowledge that he
was infected and that it could have been caused by contact with the
prison dentist; "unequivocal notice" or near-certainty of the injury's
existence and its cause are not required to trigger the limitations
period. We affirm for the reasons set forth in the district court's mem-
orandum opinion. W.C. v. Robinson, Civil No. N-94-1881 (D. Md.
Aug. 20, 1996).
AFFIRMED
4