Opinion
Civil Action No. CCB-07-503.
July 18, 2008
MEMORANDUM
Now pending before the court is a motion to reconsider or alternatively for limited discovery filed by plaintiffs John H. and Evelyn M. Quillin against defendants C.B. Fleet Holding Company, Inc. ("Fleet"), Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., Wal-Mart Stores East, Inc., and Wal-Mart Stores East, LP (collectively "Wal-Mart"). Relevant to this motion, the court previously granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment finding that Quillin had failed to file suit within the time prescribed by the applicable Maryland statute of limitations. Quillin v. C.B. Fleet Holding Co., Inc., 2007 WL 3103903 (D. Md. 2007). More specifically, the court found that Quillin was on inquiry notice as of March 11, 2003, and that a reasonable investigation at that time would have revealed sufficient information concerning injury, probable cause, and potential manufacturer wrongdoing or product defect to support a cause of action. Quillin moves for reconsideration primarily on the basis of newly discovered information indicating that Fleet itself lacked knowledge in 2003 of the potential link between its Phospho-soda product and nephrocalcinosis, the specific medical diagnosis Quillin now claims to have suffered.
To the extent that Quillin seeks reconsideration on the grounds that the court misconstrued or misapplied Maryland law, those arguments are not compelling. In order to prove that a claimant was on inquiry notice in a products liability case, a defendant must prove that: "(1) the plaintiff knew of facts sufficient to cause a reasonable person to investigate further, and (2) a diligent investigation would have revealed that the plaintiff" suffered injury, that the injury was probably caused by the defendant, and that there was likely manufacturer wrongdoing or product defect. Pennwalt Corp. v. Nasios, 550 A.2d 1155, 1163-64, 1165 (Md. 1988).
Quillin is now arguing for the first time in his reconsideration motion that his medical records, in hindsight, appear to describe the symptoms of nephrocalcinosis. He did not rely on or refer to this diagnosis in his complaint, nor has he offered any medical expert opinion to support that diagnosis.
ANALYSIS
Courts have generally recognized three grounds for granting a motion for reconsideration: (1) an intervening change in controlling law; (2) to account for new evidence; or (3) to correct a clear error of law or prevent manifest injustice. See EEOC v. Lockheed Martin Corp., 116 F.3d 110, 112 (4th Cir. 1997); Potter v. Potter, 199 F.R.D. 550, 552 (D. Md. 2001). Although "there are `circumstances when a motion to reconsider may perform a valuable function,' . . . it [is] improper to use such a motion to `ask the Court to rethink what the Court ha[s] already thought through — rightly or wrongly.'" Potter, 199 F.R.D. at 552 (quoting Above the Belt, Inc. v. Bohannan Roofing, Inc., 99 F.R.D. 99 (E.D. Va. 1983)).The new evidence offered by Quillin is taken from an affidavit of an attorney representing Fleet in a lawsuit filed in New York concerning Phospho-soda and acute renal failure. Krieger v. C.B. Fleet Holding Co., Inc., Index No. 110380/05 (N.Y.Sup.Ct. 2005). The affidavit, which was filed on October 15, 2007, after this court's summary judgment ruling, states that "[t]here were no cases of nephrocalcinosis reported in the medical literature as to Fleet Phospho-soda until March of 2003, and the rare cases of renal failure prior to then were almost always the result of overdose or use in a contraindicated patient." (Pl.'s Mem. at Ex. A, Holzka Aff. at 5 n. 1; see also id. at ¶ 13.) The defendants challenge this newly introduced evidence as inadmissible for not having been in existence at the time of the court's prior ruling. See Boyd v. Bulala, 672 F. Supp. 915, 922 (W.D. Va. 1987).
As a threshold matter, it is not the existence of the affidavit that satisfies the newly discovered evidence standard, but rather the apparent admission by Fleet that it lacked knowledge until March of 2003 that nephrocalcinosis may be causally linked to Phospho-soda. Even if the admission by Fleet is deemed newly discovered evidence, however, Quillin has not demonstrated that reconsideration is appropriate.
First, Quillin never identified the specific diagnosis of nephrocalcinosis until this motion for reconsideration. Quillin previously represented to the court that Phospho-soda caused his renal failure. In order to have had knowledge of a potential claim, Quillin need not have been able to specify the exact diagnosis, but rather must have been able to more generally link Phospho-soda to his kidney failure. The fact that Fleet may not have known about the link to the specific diagnosis of nephrocalcinosis until March 2003 does not alter the court's previous finding that Quillin was aware of facts and circumstances that indicated he had suffered injury, that the injury was probably caused by the defendants, and that there might be manufacturer wrongdoing or product defect.
By contrast, in Storke v. C.B. Fleet Holding Co., WDQ-05-1671 (D. Md. Dec. 19, 2005), filed in December of 2004, the plaintiffs based their complaint on a renal biopsy, which revealed calcium deposits in the kidney consistent with "nephrocalcinosis" and permanent kidney damage.
Second, as discussed in the court's prior ruling, Maryland law does not toll the statute of limitations for those who "slumber" on their rights. See Pennwalt Corp. v. Nasios, 550 A.2d 1155, 1159 (Md. 1988). Despite indicating to his doctors that his ingestion of Phospho-soda may be related to his dehydration and subsequent renal failure, Quillin failed to inquire into or investigate the cause of his condition. The Fourth Circuit has noted, "in cases involving medical issues, a reasonably diligent investigation must, at a minimum, include an attempt to obtain and review all available medical records." Hartnett v. Schering Corp., 2 F.3d 90, 93 (4th Cir. 1993). Here, Quillin, unfortunately, did nothing.
Attempting to reconstruct what his doctors might have told him had he made inquiries some five years ago would result in evidence at best speculative. Quillin does not fall in the category of those who did inquire but were deterred from further inquiry by a medical expert's response.
Finally, as noted in the court's prior ruling, there was information available in early 2003 concerning a possible link between oral sodium phosphate laxatives and kidney failure. Even the reports now relied upon by Quillin concerning nephrocalcinosis were published around the time of his injury. Quillin, however, did not bring this action until more than four years after the March 11, 2003 inquiry notice date. Therefore, for the reasons stated in the court's prior ruling and this memorandum, Quillin's claim is barred by the § 5-101 Maryland statute of limitations.
A separate order follows.