In Johnson v. Maryland State Police, 331 Md. 285, 628 A.2d 162 (1993), two sixteen-year-old girls were injured when their vehicle collided with a State Police car responding to a call. Id. at 288. The teens filed claims against the State thirteen months after the accident, pursuant to the Maryland Tort Claims Act ("MTCA"). Id. The statute in effect at the time, Md. Code (1984, 1993 Repl. Vol.), 12-106(b)(1) of the State Government Article ("S.G."), had a notice requirement that provided that no tort action could be filed against the State unless "the claimant submits a written claim to the Treasurer or a designee of the Treasurer within 180 days after the injury to person or property that is the basis of the claim." Id. at 288-89. Because the plaintiffs failed to file the requisite notice within the statutory period, the circuit court dismissed the case. Id. at 289. On appeal, the teens argued that, because of their minority status at the time of the accident, the MTCA'S 180-day notice requirement violated their constitutional rights to equal protection under the law and unreasonably restricted their right of access to the courts. Id. at 292. The Court of Appeals rejected that contention. Id. at 298. It explained that the MTCA's "administrative claim requirement is not a statute of limitations. Instead, it is 'a condition precedent to the initiation of an action under the Act.'" Id. at 290 (quoting Simpson v. Moore, 323 Md. 215, 219, 592 A.2d 1090 (1991)). The Court said, id. at 296: The 180-day administrative claim requirement allows the State to predict its potential tort liability more accurately, so that it may enact a more accurate annual budget. In addition, the claim requirement enables the State to make early decisions on the merits of particular claims, and allows the State to take remedial safety measures more quickly, thereby minimizing the cost of litigation for the taxpayers. Of equal note, the Court rejected the appellants' claim under Article 19 of the Maryland Declaration of Rights that a minor's access to the courts is impaired by the notice requirement of the MTCA. Id. at 297. In its view, the statutory notice constituted a reasonable restriction that did not give rise to a constitutional violation. Id. The Court of Appeals focused on the Legislature's right to condition a waiver of sovereign immunity on compliance with the notice requirement. It said, id. at 297-98: Article 19 has never been interpreted to mean that the State must allow itself, as such, to be sued at all. Before the State waived its governmental immunity, a person injured by the negligence of a State employee would have had an action in tort against that State employee personally, but would have had no action whatsoever against the State. The statutory scheme under attack substitutes the State, with its financial resources, as the defendant. In exchange for this benefit to potential plaintiffs, the Legislature has determined that the State must have prompt notice of claims against it. Thus, the State's waiver of immunity, although conditioned upon filing a claim within 180 days of the injury, benefits a potential plaintiff by assuring that any judgment eventually obtained will be satisfied. We cannot say that the administrative claim condition imposed on potential plaintiffs in actions against the State is unreasonable in light of the benefit to potential plaintiffs. Thus, the Johnson Court agreed "with those cases holding that administrative claim requirements, in statutes waiving state governmental tort immunity, do not violate equal protection principles." Id. at 296. It explained that "whether, and to what extent, there should be state governmental immunity from tort suits has long been regarded as the prerogative of the Maryland General Assembly." Id. The Court said, id.: "By enacting the Maryland Tort Claims Act, the General Assembly chose to allow some tort suits against the State. As the full application of sovereign immunity does not violate the federal and state constitutions, this partial or conditional waiver of sovereign immunity, retaining the same classification between victims of public torts and victims of private torts, but with less onerous consequences, does not violate constitutional equal protection principles...." In Johnson v. Maryland State Police, "the plaintiffs pointed out that the State created several reports of the accident, that the State interviewed the plaintiffs immediately after the accident, and that the State unsuccessfully prosecuted Johnson for an alleged traffic violation." The Court of Appeals, however, rejected the plaintiffs' contention that they substantially complied with the Maryland Tort Claims Act (MTCA): The facts relied on by the plaintiffs might show that the State suffered no prejudice as a result of the plaintiffs' failure to comply with the administrative claim requirement. Nevertheless, the plaintiffs' argument confuses "substantial compliance" with "lack of prejudice." Id.