now adopt the same interpretation of the time of the injury for the purposes of the notice requirement of the LGTCA.” Moreover, Piselli is factually distinguishable from the case sub judice, because it involved a tort action against a private party, not a governmental entity, and it turned on C.J. § 5-109, titled “Actions against health care providers.” Thus, the Piselli Court discussed limitations in the context of a common law tort action against a medical provider; it did not address a legislatively created right of suit against a local governmental entity, for which the Legislature has waived immunity conditioned upon the provision of notice of the claim within the statutorily prescribed period. Cf. Baltimore County v. RTKL Associates, Inc., 380 Md. 670, 674, 846 A.2d 433 (2004) (<HOLDING>) Therefore, for purposes of limitations in
holding that the alien tort statute itself is not a waiver of sovereign immunity recognizing that the state enjoys sovereign immunity in regard to tort actions unless the legislature waived immunity pursuant to a specific statute recognizing that immunity may be waived holding that state could not assert sovereign immunity defense where the state had waived immunity in state court and agreed to remove suit to federal court holding that an act of legislature may be required to waive sovereign immunity