IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS
                         DISTRICT OF ST THOMAS AND ST JOHN
                                                  *‘l:******




FRANCIS B SERIEUX                                       )        CASE NO ST 19 CV 591
          Plaintiff,                                    )
               v                                        )        (Transferred from the
SCHNEIDER CLINIC and ST                                 )        Small Claims Division
THOMAS EAST END MEDICAL                                 )        Case No ST 19 SM 228)
CENTER CORPORATION                                      )
                 Defendants                             )
                                                        )
                                              

                             MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER


$11       THIS MATTER is before the court on Defendant St Thomas East End Medical Center

Corporation 3 (STEEMCC) Renewed Motion to Dismiss filed on May 12, 2021 and Plaintiff‘s

response filed on May 26, 2021


      I      FACTS AND BACKGROUND
112       Francis B Serieux ( ‘Serieux ) claims that in 2011 he was refused certain medical services

by STEEMCC and ‘Schneider Clinic ” Serieux alleges that physicians at both locations were

unwilling to sign his disability papers ‘ Serieux further suggests that other privately funded doctors

on island are unable to sign disability papers due to a policy instituted by these two publicly funded

organizations 2 He additionally accuses STEEMCC and Schneider Clinic of failing to transfer a

prescription from a Puerto Rican slip to one that could be used at a local Virgin Islands pharmacy 3

Moreover, Serieux contends that STEEMCC and Schneider Clinic unfairly denied him medical

attention This was, in his opinion, probably due to his being disabled, an individual on Medicaid,

and/or in response to his tape recording appointments to ensure he received adequate care 4


’ P1 5 Mot Giving Definite Statement 5 11 13
7 P1 ’s Mot Giving Definite Statement 5 2 5
3 P] ’s Mot Giving Definite Statement 1 8 10
4 P! s Mot Giving Definite Statement 2 1 3    3 12 14
                                                 

    Serzeux v Schnezder Clmzc
    2019 C V 00591
    Memorandum Opzmon and Order
    Page 2

    113      Serieux argues that a combination of the aforementioned factors led him to be bedridden

    and unable to claim disability for a ten (10) month period in 2011 This was followed by six (6)

\   months in 2012, six (6) months in 2013, and four (4) months in 2014 5 The entirety of this debt is

    equivalent to twenty six (26) months of missed payments, or five thousand two hundred ($5,200)

    dollars in disability support Serieux first demands ten thousand ($10,000 00) dollars in his Small

    Claims Complaint 6 Serieux later requests an additional payment of an unspecified amount that

    accounts for the singular value of his life 7

    114      It is unclear what, if any, illness Serieux suffers from It is also uncertain whether or not he

    believes the multiple heart attacks and strokes, that supposedly afflicted him, were due to the

    inactions of these medical service providers 8

    15       Schneider Clinic purports to be unaware of these claims due to the lack of specificity in

    Serieux s filings and the amount of time that has elapsed since these asserted events 9 STEEMCC,

    too, contests that due to the passage of time since the claim, it should be dismissed in accordance

    to the statute of limitations 10

    116      On November 6, 2019, Serieux filed his response to the Motion to Dismiss filed by

    STEEMCC on October 20, 2019, before the case was transferred from the Small Claims Division

    to the Superior Court The transfer was caused by Schneider Clinic 3 Motion to Transfer to Civil

    Court which was granted pursuant to Title 3 § 114(A) and Title 4 § 1 12(d) of the Virgin Islands

    Code




    5 Pl 5 Small Claims Compl 2 12 19
    6 Pl 5 Small Claims Compl 1 l9
    7 P1 3 Mot titled ‘Charge 1 Throwing out a case falsely for no reason, when their suppose to call it & Refusing
    to call or put a Judge on the case” 2 2 5 3 l 2
    8 P1 5 Mot Giving Definite Statement 6 l4 17 26 14 6
    9 Def 3 Mem in Support of Mot for More Definite Statement 2 20 21 3 8 ll
    '0 Def ’5 Renewed Mot to Dismiss l 5 l2
                                       

Serzeux v Schneider Clinic
2019 C V 0059]
Memorandum 0pmzon and Order
Page 3

117      Serieux subsequently filed a Motion to Continue on December 12, 2019, and Schneider

Clinic filed a Motion for More Definite Statement on December 16, 2019, which resulted in a letter

to the Court from Serieux on December 23, 2019, asking for the Marshals to serve relevant

documents on the Attorney General’s Office A Status Conference on January 28, 2020, conducted

by the Honorable Kathleen Mackay, resulted in Serieux being ordered to respond to STEEMCC’s

Motion to Dismiss and Schneider Clinic s Motion for More Definite Statement

18       Serieux responded to the Motion to Dismiss with an erroneously named Motion to

Continue He, likewise, responded to Schneider Clinic with a Motion Giving Definite Statement

in compliance with the February 14, 2020 deadline To accompany these motions, he filed six (6)

additional pleadings on February 12, 2020, for a total of (8) documents Wthh tangentially related

to the case Among these documents was a “Motion to Dismiss the Judge Off the Case ’ Serieux

later filed a Motion Stating Delaying of Case’ on March 3, 2020

119      STEEMCC responded with an additional Motion to Dismiss on June 18, 2020 Following

this Serieux submitted a Motion to Have Judge Mackay Removed on July 13, 2020 and a similar

motion entitled “Motion to Recuse” on the 24th of July Honorable Kathleen Mackay responded

with an Order of Recusal, removing herself from the case, on October 13, 2020

1110     STEEMCC filed a renewed Motion to Dismiss on May 12 2021 to which this Court

ordered a response no later than May 26, 2021 Serieux filed on May 26, 2021, an In Forma

Pauperzs request, to which he attached what might be interpreted as a response to the Renewed

Motion to Dismiss Serieux entitled his Motion, Charge 1 Throwing out a case falsely for no

reason, when their suppose to call it & Refiising to call or put a Judge on the case ” The Court will

accept this filing as being in compliance with the Court’s Order of May 14, 2021
                                                

Serzeux v Schnezder Clinic
2019 C V 0059]
Memorandum 0pmzon and Order
Page -I

        II       LEGAL STANDARD

             A      Statute of Limitations

1f11         The statute of limitations, where no contract is involved, is two years according to Title

5, § 31(5)(A) of the Virgin Islands Code ” Section 31(5)(A) states ‘ Two years                           An action
for libel, slander, assault, battery, seduction, false imprisonment, or for any injury to the person

or rights of another not arising on contract and not herein especially enumerated, or to set a31de

a sale of real property for non payment of real property taxes pursuant to Title 33, chapter 89,

subchapter III of this Code '2 Further, if the allegations, taken as true, show that relief is

barred by the applicable statute of limitations, a complaint is subject to dismissal for failure to

state a claim under [Virgin Islands] Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 12(b)(6) ’ '3

1112         Under Title 27, § 166d of the Virgin Islands Code, a medical malpractice claim must also

be made within two (2) years to be viable '4 Title 27 § 166d(a) ofthe Virgin Islands Code prov1des

the statute of limitations for medical malpractice claims in the Virgin Islands and mandates that

 no claim, whether in contract or tort, may be brought against a health care provider based upon

professional services or health care rendered or which should have been rendered unless filed

within two (2) years from the date of the alleged act, omission or neglect                    ”15 However, before a

case may be brought to the Superior Court for a medical malpractice claim, a plaintiff must file a

proposed complaint with the Medical Malpractice Action Review Committee (the Committee) ‘6

The Committee must review the complaint and obtain an expert opinion as to whether malpractice



‘1 See 5 VI C §31(5)(A)
1’ Id
‘3 See Petersen 1 Golden Otange Ctrs No SX 08 CV 202 2014 VI LEXIS 76 at *4 (VI Super Ct 2014)
(referring to the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted which
uses the same language as Rule 12(b)(6) of the Virgin Island Rules of Civil Procedure)
[4 Id

‘5 27 V I C § 166d(a)
'6 See 27 V I C § l66i(b)' see also Labeet \ 4cute Alternalne Medical GlOllp 72 V I 250 254 (V I Super Ct
2019)
                                                 

Seneux v Schnezder Clznzc
2019 C V 0059]
Memorandum Opzmon and Order
Page 5

occurred ‘7 The plaintiff may then file SUlt in court if the Committee does not receive an expert

opinion within ninety (90) days of filing the proposed complaint ‘8 Even if a complaint does not

explicitly state claims as medical malpractice, contract or tort claims based on health care or

professional services rendered or which should have been rendered on the plaintiff as a patient are

subject to the requirements of the Medical Malpractice Act (MMA) ‘9 The failure to comply with

the jurisdictional requirements of the MMA warrants dismissal 20

1113     Additionally, the “Discovery Rule              is a recognized exception to both 5 V I C §

31(5)(A) and 27 V I C §l66d “Under the discovery rule, if the injury or its cause is not

immediately evident to the plaintiff, the limitation period is tolled ‘until the plaintiffknows, or

reasonably should know (1) that he or she has been injured; and (2) that the injury has been

caused by another party's conduct           2'

         B        Obligations of a Pro Se litigant


1114     Pleadings ofpro se litigants in Civil cases are usually to be construed liberally 22 But, this

does not mean pro se litigants need not follow court procedures and rules 23 Pro se litigants are




'7 See 27 V I C § 166i(b)
[8 Id

‘9 See Labeet, 72 V I at 253 (including plaintiff's claims of intentional and negligent infliction of emotional
distress as medical malpractice complaints even though they were not expressly listed in the complaint as
medical malpractice)
7" See B/ady 1 Cm!) on, 55 V I 802, 815 816 (V I 201 1) (dismissing a plaintiff’s claims for failing to first file a
proposed complaint with the Medical Malpractice Action Review Committee); see also Raymond Benjamin \
4ssefa 72 V I 815 824 (V I 2020) (following the Virgin Islands Supreme Court 5 Brady precedent which
requires either that the plaintiff has complied with the requirements of the MMA or that the defendant is not
covered by the MMA)
2' Hamel t Ross No 660/1996 1999 VI LEXIS 49 at *5 6 (VI Terr Ct June 15 1999) (citing Joseph \
Hess Oil 

 182 n 8 (3d Cir 1989 )
2 See Banco Populm De P R 1 Pan er N0 ST 2015 CV 00056 2021 V1 SUPER 65U at *26 (VI Super Ct
2021) see also Richaldson L RlChflldSOI’l 

 (V I Terr Ct 1978)
23 See Comelms t Bank ofhota Scotia, 67 V I 806, 823 (V I 2017) (citing Simpson v Golden (SImpson l), 56
V I 272, 280 (V I 2010) (affording pro se litigants additional leniency but not excusing them from complying
with relevant procedural and substantive rules)
                                               

Se; zeux v Schnezder Clmzc
2019 C V 00591
Memo; andum Opinion and Order
Page 6

still expected to comply with the rules of civil procedure, and apro se litigant s apparent ignorance

of the rules of the Court does not provide good cause to excuse failure to comply w1th those rules 24

$15          Moreover, ‘pro se litigants are to be accorded substantial justice despite any defects in the

pleading ”25 Courts have traditionally given pro se litigants greater leeway where they have not

followed the technical rules of pleading and procedure ”26 This includes full consideration of the

content of incorrectly captioned motions 27 However, the Court cannot make an exception for a

pro se litigant 3 failure to follow the law 28

       III      ANALYSIS

             A Serieux failed to comply with the Statute of Limitations and file in a timely
                manner
{[16         Serieux filed his initial complaint for recovery of debt in Small Claims Court on

October 4, 2019 He alleged the disability payments he could not claim due to the actions of

the Defendants date between 2011 and 2014 This court cannot adjudicate this claim because

it is barred by the statute of limitations outlined in 5 V I C § 31(5)(A) This action for debt

does not stem from any contractual obligation or breach thereof, but rather the implied duty of

a physician that arises from non binding principles of the profession Even if Serieux had

intended to allege additional malpractice claims related to his unspecified illness, rather than

the disability debt he filed for, he would be unable to do so This is due to the two (2) year




7“ See 1d ; see also Sykes 1 Blockbuste/ I Idea 

 (3d Cir 2006) (confirming the District
Court’s finding that a pro se plaintiff’s ignorance of the rules would not provide good cause for failure to timely
serve the defendants)
 5 Creque \ Roebuck 

 (V I Terr Ct 1979) (citing Richardson 14 V I at 294)
26 See Simon i Walden of the Bureau of Couemons, 69 V I 963, 967 (V I 2018) (citing Simpson t Golden, 56
V I 272 280 (VI 2012) see also Appleton i Hanigan V I 262 267 (VI 2014) see also Tablon t Grace 6
F 3d 147 153 n 2 (3d Cir 1993)
’7 See Stmon, 69 V I at 967 (stating “While this Court has instructed the Superior Court to look beyond the
caption of the filing when construing pro se pleadings, it has repeatedly cautioned that ‘it is the substance [of the
filing] that controls the legal standard that the Court should apply ) (quoting Anthony i FirstBank V1 58 V I
224 228 n 5(V12013)
’8 See Cor nelius, 67 V I at 823 (providing that leniency towards pm se litigants is ‘ not a license [excusing
compliance] with relevant rules of procedural and substantive law”) (quoting Simpson I, 56 V I at 280)
                                        

Se) zeux v Schneider Clinic
2019 C V 00591
Memorandum Opinion and 0; d6)
Page 7

statute of limitations set by 27 V I C § 166d, as well as the strict jurisdictional requirements to

file medical malpractice claims with the Medical Malpractice Action Committee set by 27

V I C § l66i(b) Even the Discovery Rule does not provide for tolling in Serieux’s claims

This is because he has been aware of both clinics actions, and the personal consequences

thereof, since the alleged problems began in 2011

1117     Here, Serieux brought claims as a patient against a Schneider Clinic and STEEMC

Although he asserted an action for debt in Small Claims Court, the allegations in his complaint

read as negligence on the part of a medical provider The Court could also liberally construe

Serieux 3 claims as a breach of contract between doctor and patient As either a tort or breach

of contract claim asserted by a patient against a health care provider, this is an action subject

to the requirements of the MMA, which provides a two (2) year statute of limitations for

patients asserting contract or tort claims against a health care provider Serieux s allegations

arise from actions that occurred between 2011 and 2014, which is well outside of the two year

statute of limitations provided by the MMA Additionally, the jurisdictional requirements of

the MMA require that Serieux was to first file a proposed complaint with the Medical

Malpractice Action Review Committee Lacking evidence that Serieux first filed with the

MMA means that this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction and must dismiss his claims 29

         B   Serieux’s pro se pleadings are to be afforded substantial justice despite certain
             defects

1118     STEEMCC suggests the case be dismissed because courts have consistently held that pro

se litigants are required to comply with the Rules of the Court as any other litigant ”30 This

reasoning neglects to account for the greater leeway’ afforded to pro se individuals 3‘ It is evident




9 See Labeet 72 V I at 254
3" Def 5 Mot to Dismiss l
3‘ See Appleton 61 VI at 267
                                        

Serleux v Schneider C[mm
2019 C V 00591
Memorandum 0pmzon and OIder
Page 8

that Serieux fails to comply to the rules governing the filing a CIVll claim including V I R Civ P

10(b) and V I R Civ P 8(a)(2), as is declared in Schneider s Motion for More Definite Statement

Yet, such “defects in the pleading” are not sufficient rationale for dismissal 3° STEEMCC fails to

acknowledge this precedent when they cited “lack of response’ in their Renewed Motion to

Dismiss The Plaintiff did, in fact, attempt to the best of his ability to answer within the allotted

timeframe The motion he filed, ‘ Charge 1 Throwing out a case falsely for no reason, when their

suppose to call it & Refining to call or put a Judge on the case,’ can be construed as a response,33

which this Court has done Therefore, this Court is not persuaded to dismiss for Plaintiff‘s error in

captioning his response to the renewed motion to dismiss


       IV       CONCLUSION
{[19        The Court finds, whether it considers Serieux 5 claims as a debt claim or a medical

malpractice claim, this Court lacks jurisdiction due to Plaintiff’s failure to timely file this in

accordance with the applicable statute of limitations The Court is persuaded, however, that

Plaintiff was aware of this matter back in 2011 when he was unable to claim ten (10) disability

payments The Court finds that Plaintiff initiated an action for debt and or medical malpractice

which under Virgin Islands law has a two (2) year statute of limitations period Thus, Plaintiff had

to initiate his claim by 2013, which he did not do, as he waited until 2019 to file this matter


1120        Accordingly, it is


            ORDERED that Defendant s (STEEMCC s) Renewed Motion to Dismiss is hereby

GRANTED, and it is fin‘ther




37 See Cleque 

33 See Simon 69 V I at 967
                                           

Serteux v Schnezder Clmzc
2019 C V 00591
Memorandum 0171111011 and Order
Page 9

         ORDERED that the matter is dismissed with prejudice, and it is further

       ORDERED that a copy of this Memorandum Opinion & Order shall be directed to
counsel of record



DATED July _Z_Z_ 2021
                          to                            A',
                                                               l RID M TEJO
                                                    u         ‘\ uperior Court of the Virgin Islands
A TE
TAqg' CH RLES
(:1 {9m Con .’ ’
                                   O
A ‘      5      '
                    4“ ‘.          >       \
Donna I Donovan
C rt         erk Superv        r       ’   /wD/‘