Curtis v. Seekins

• Court: Superior Court of Maine
• Decided: February 5, 2008
• Docket: CUMap-07-48
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

STATE OF MAINE SUPERIOR COURT CUMBERLAND, ss. '-­ ! ", : - CIVIL ACTION DOCKEJ:--,NO: AP-07~ / ........ '-,; I .·w >,_

2G~J8 FEB - S A 10= 38 ;;2/JjJtj;y.. p.) A C - C LA {Y\,- ~~ BARRY CURTIS, JR.,

Plaintiff, ORDER v.

RONALD 1. SEEKINS, DDS, PA, DONALD L. GARBRECHT I.AW UFIRARY Defendant, FEB ]~\ ?nns This case comes before the Court on appeal by Barry Curtis, Jr. (Mr.

Curtis) pursuant to M.R. Civ. P. 76D of a dismissal entered in District Court of

his small claims action against Appellee, Ronald 1. Seekins, DDS (Dr. Seekins).

PROCEDURAL AND FACTUAL BACKGROUND Mr. Curtis filed a complaint in District Court on April 10, 2007 seeking

damages from Dr. Seekins for Dr. Seekins' alleged failure to complete dental

work. The failure to complete the work allegedly caused Mr. Curtis great

discomfort. On June 13, 2007 Mr. Curtis filed an amended complaint on a breach

of contract theory alleging that Dr. Seekins failed to complete dental work that

was billed and paid for. Dr. Seekins' motion to dismiss was granted on July 19,

2006 with prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction (Beaudoin, J.).

On July 29,2007, Mr. Curtis filed a motion to modify the dismissal to be

without prejudice in order that he might file the claim correctly pursuant to

procedures set forth in the Maine Health Security Act (MHSA). 24 M.R.S.A. §§

2501 -2987. That motion was denied.

On appeal the parties argue whether or not MHSA applies to this action.

Mr. Curtis asserts that it does not apply because it is not an action in negligence.

1 Dr. Seekins counters that MHSA applies regardless because it is broadly

construed to encompass all claims brought against healthcare practitioners.

DISCUSSION

I. Standard of Review

A party may appeal a judgment of the district court to the Superior Court,

and this Court's review of a district court judgment is restricted to legal

questions. M.R. Civ. P. 76D. Factual determinations of the district court will be

upheld unless they are "clearly erroneous." Id. When considering a motion to

dismiss for subject matter jurisdiction, the court"does not draw inferences

favorable to the pleader, but should consider any material outside the pleadings

submitted by the pleader and the movant." Davric Maine Corp. v. Bangor Historic

Track, Inc., 2000 11E 102, err 6, 751 A.2d 1024, 1028 (citations and quotations

omitted). "Jurisdiction is the essential basis upon which all court powers rest,

and even willing submission by the parties of their dispute cannot confer it."

Fletcher v. Feeney, 400 A.2d 1084, 1089 (Me. 1979) (citations omitted).

II. Maine Health Security Act (MHSA)

Mr. Curtis asserts that his claim, amended as a claim for breach of

contract, does not fall under the procedural dictates of the MHSA. The MHSA

was enacted in response to a perceived "national crisis in the availability and cost

of medical malpractice insurance." Saunders v. Tisher, 2006 !VIE 94, err 15, 902 A.2d

830, 834. Any action "for professional negligence against a health care provider

or practi tioner" must be brought under MHSA. Id. err 12, 902 A.2d at 833. An

action for professional negligence is defined as "any action for damages for

injury or death against any health care provider, its agents or employees, or

health care practitioner, his agents or employees whether based upon tort or

2 breach of contract or otherwise, arising out of the provision or failure to provide

health care services." 24 M.R.S. § 2502(6) (2007).

The law has been broadly construed to incorporate any claims that

"necessarily implicate a [doctor's] capacity as a health care provider or health

care practitioner. " Saunders, 2006 ME 94,

"Legislature essentially made the MHSA applicable to any case that could

implicate medical malpractice insurance." Id.

In Mr. Curtis' amended complaint he asserts that Dr. Seekins never

completed the repair of his teeth, for which Dr. Seekins had already been paid.

This would be a breach of contract claim for failure to provide services; a claim

squarely within the definition of an action for professional negligence under

section 2502(6). Accordingly, the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction

to hear this matter.

III. Dismissal for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction

"Whenever it appears by suggestion of the parties or otherwise that the

court lacks jurisdiction of the subject matter, the court shall dismiss the action."

M.R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3). Dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is generally

considered a dismissal not upon the merits. See M.R. Civ. P. 41(b)(3).

Accordingly Mr. Curtis may re-file pursuant to procedures set forth in the Maine

Health Security Act should he choose to do so.

3 Therefore, the entry is:

The District Court Order dismissing this action is AFFIRMED.

Plaintiff has leave to re-file his complaint pursuant 24 M.R.S.A. §§ 2501 -2987.

The clerk shall incorporate this Order into the docket by reference pursuant to M.R. Civ. P. 79(a).

Dated at Portland, Maine this I~

4 IF COURTS and County Box 287 ine 04112-0287

BARRY CURTIS JR 60 ALDHORTH STREET PORTLAND ME 04103

)F COURTS land County Box 287 line 04112-0287

REBECCA FARNUM ESQ PO BOX 4630 PORTLAND ME 04112