Case Caption: Palton vs. VI Government Hospitals & Health Facilities Corp.Case Number: SCT-CIV-2023-0029Date: 03/23/2026Author: Willocks, Harold W.L. Citation: 2026 VI 4 Summary: In an appeal of a motion by the respondent to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction,
a threshold matter, section 166i—which establishes “non-waivable jurisdictional conditions that must be satisfied in order to vest the Superior Court with subject matter jurisdiction to hear an individual's medical malpractice claims” under the VIMMA, does not set a deadline for a claimant to satisfy the statutory pre-filing conditions. It is undisputed by the parties that Appellant filed a proposed complaint with the Committee on January 28, 2019,’ satisfying the first condition under section 166i. It is likewise undisputed that after the Committee failed to respond within 90 days, Appellant filed her complaint in the Superior Court on April 29, 2019, thereby satisfying the second condition. At that point the Superior Court’s jurisdiction was properly vested. Thus the parties and the Superior Court mistakenly characterized the statute of limitations issue as a jurisdictional challenge, and it was error to grant the defense motion to dismiss this matter on that basis. On the statute of limitation issues, the Superior Court abused its discretion in failing to address the plailntiff’s statutory tolling argument, which should have been considered independtntly from the fraudulent concealment doctrine. It also erred in ruling that the statute of limitations was not tolled under the discovery rule and the fraudulent concealment doctrine, relying on representations of counsel rather than the complaint’s allegations – and considering matters outside the pleadings on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion. For the foregoing reasons, the Superior Court’s June 9, 2023 Order dismissing the action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and the ruling that the VIMMA’s two-year statute of limitations was not tolled are reversed. This matter is remanded for further proceedings to allow the parties a reasonable opportunity to present all pertinent materials as required under Rule 12(d) and for the Superior Court to first address the VIMMA’s statutory tolling provision under section 1 66d(a), and, if necessary, the discovery rule and the fraudulent concealment doctrine.Attachment: Open Document or Opinion