OPINION

We return to this appeal following decision of the certified question of law by the Court of Appeals of Maryland. The question certified by the panel to that court was as follows:

Whether, for purposes of the limitations period in Md.Code Ann., Cts. & Jud. Proc. § 5-109(a), as tolled by section 5-109(b) for actions by claimants under age eleven, an action by parents brought on behalf of a child who was under age eleven at the time of his injury is time-barred when the claim is filed more than three years after the parents discovered the child’s injury but within three years of the child’s discovery of the injury?

The relevant facts of this case were never in dispute. Christopher Piselli was 10 years old when his parents took him to the 75th Street Medical Center [“the Center”] on August 2, 1993, after observing him limping. Dr. Lynn Yarborough, M.D., interpreted a single x-ray of his upper leg and hip, and diagnosed it as normal. Three days later, however, Christopher was admitted to John Hopkins hospital for emergency care of what turned out to be an acutely slipped capital femoral epiphy-sis. This condition is often preceded by a separation of the growth plate in the hip, a pre-slip, though no such pre-slip was noted on his earlier visit to the Center.

A few months later, Christopher began to develop avascular necrosis in his injured leg, which resulted in the cessation of further growth in that leg. Significant medical problems emerged from his condition.

On July 24, 1998, Christopher’s parents sued appellees, Dr. Yarborough and the Center, on their own behalf and as Christopher’s “next friends.” They alleged that appellees’ medical care of Christopher was negligent and below the appropriate standard of care. Appellees moved for summary judgment, contending that the statute of limitations had run for the action. The district court denied the motion, finding that it involved a genuine factual dispute, and put to the jury, along with determinations on the merits, the questions of when Christopher discovered his injury and when his parents discovered it. After trial, the jury returned a verdict in favor of Dr. Yarborough, but against the Center, finding that the latter deviated from the accepted standard of care in its treatment of Christopher and that this deviation was the proximate cause of his injury. The jury awarded damages of $410,000 for Christopher and $28,000 for his parents. The jury also found that Christopher did not discover his injury until 1999, after the *117 action was filed, but that his parents discovered it in November 1993.

On the basis of the jury’s findings as to the timing of the parents’ discovery of Christopher’s injury, the district court ruled, as a matter of law, that the action was time-barred under Md.Code Ann., Cts. & Jud. Proc. § 5-109, which states in pertinent part:

(a) Limitations. — An action for damages for an injury arising out of the rendering of or failure to render professional service by a health care provider ... shall be filed within the earlier of:

(1) Five years of the time the injury was committed; or

(2) Three years of the date the injury was discovered.

Because Christopher’s parents discovered his injury in November 1993, the court reasoned that they had three years from that time to file their action, and thus that their 1998 filing was untimely.

On appeal, we were concerned with whether the time at which discovery of the injury should be set, for purposes of the statute of limitations codified at Md.Code Ann., Cts. & Jud. Proc. § 5-109, in an action brought by parents on their minor child’s behalf, should be established according to the discovery of the injury by the parents, or according to the discovery of the injury by the minor child. Because we concluded that this question was not settled within Maryland law, we certified the above-referenced question to the Court of Appeals of Maryland. **

II.

The Maryland Court of Appeals answered our certified question by holding that the statute of limitations embodied within § 5-109, which restricts minors’ remedy and access to the courts, violates Article 19 of the Maryland Declaration of Rights because it amounted to an “unreasonable restriction upon a child’s remedy and [] access to the courts.” Piselli v. 75th Street Medical, Misc. No. 2 at 27 (Md. Oct. 8, 2002) (emphasis added). As a result, the Court of Appeals farther held that the time periods in § 5-109 “do not begin running against a child’s claim until the child reaches the age of 18.” Id. at 13-14.

The Court of Appeals of Maryland thus instructs us that:

[I]n light of Article 19 of the Maryland Declaration of Rights, the three and five-year time periods prescribed by § 5-109(a) did not commence running against Christopher’s claim until he attained the age of 18, which was after this action was filed.

Id. at 32.

In light of the Maryland Court of Appeals’ instruction, we conclude that the claims that Christopher’s parents brought on his behalf were not time-barred and we reinstate the jury’s verdict for Christopher in the amount of $410,000. We remand the case to the district court so that the court may consider appellants’ motion for costs and fees.

*118 CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated herein, the judgment of the district court is reversed and the case is remanded for further proceedings.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.