WALDRUP v. EADS
| Docket Number: | 2014-CA-01085-COA Linked Case(s): 2014-CA-01085-COA 2014-CA-01085-COA |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 12-01-2015 Opinion Author: Judge Maxwell Holding: Affirmed in part, reversed and rendered in part. |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Medical malpractice - Statute of limitations - Section 15-1-36(15) - Presuit notice - Discovery rule - Sanctions - Section 11-55-5(1) - Section 11-55-3 - Frivolous claim |
|
Synopsis provided by:  If you are interested in subscribing to the weekly synopses of all Mississippi Supreme Court and Court of Appeals hand downs please contact Tammy Upton in the MLI Press office. |
|
| Topic: | Medical malpractice - Statute of limitations - Section 15-1-36(15) - Presuit notice - Discovery rule - Sanctions - Section 11-55-5(1) - Section 11-55-3 - Frivolous claim |
| Summary of the Facts: | Mary Lindsey died while a patient at Grace Health and Rehab of Grenada. Donna Waldrup, Lindsey’s daughter, as representative of Lindsey’s wrongful-death beneficiaries, sent the mandatory notice-of-suit letter to Dr. Joseph Roberts—the physician primarily responsible for Lindsey’s care at Grace. Waldrup later filed a wrongful-death suit against Dr. Roberts. Five days later, Waldrup sent a notice-of-suit letter to Stephanie Eads, the nurse practitioner responsible for Lindsey’s care. Waldrup also amended her complaint to name Eads as a defendant. Eads waived service of process and then filed a motion to dismiss. The court denied the motion to dismiss and allowed Waldrup to proceed with discovery. Six months later, Eads renewed her motion to dismiss and, alternatively, filed for summary judgment. She also filed a motion for attorney’s fees and expenses under the Mississippi Litigation Accountability Act. The court granted summary judgment in Eads’ favor and also granted Eads’ motion for attorney’s fees and costs. The court found Waldrup’s action against Eads was frivolous because it was filed after the statute of limitations had expired. The court awarded $12,000 as sanctions. The circuit court certified its dismissal of Eads and award of sanctions as a final judgment. Waldrup appeals, and Eads cross-appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Statute of limitations Waldrup filed her presuit notice the same day she filed her suit. So even if Waldrup’s complaint was timely, it was obviously not preceded by the mandatory sixty days’ presuit notice required by section 15-1-36(15). At a minimum, Waldrup’s failure to satisfy the presuit-notice requirement mandates dismissal without prejudice. The circuit judge, however, found Waldrup’s complaint against Eads was not timely. The two-year statute of limitations for medical malpractice claims begins to run from the date the alleged act, omission or neglect shall or with reasonable diligence might have been first known or discovered. The focus of the inquiry is when a plaintiff, exercising reasonable diligence, should have first discovered the negligence, rather than the injury. Waldrup argues that the focus should be when she and her family received the official autopsy report on how Lindsey died, which was four months after Lindsey’s death. However, the statute is not automatically tolled while waiting on an autopsy report, medical records, or expert opinion. Instead, the focus is on whether the date of the autopsy report was the first time Waldrup, having exercised reasonable diligence, should have discovered Eads had been medically negligent. What the evidence shows is that even before their mother’s death, she and her siblings were dissatisfied with the nursing care provided at Grace. Hours before Lindsey died, she called Waldrup crying because the nurses would not send her to the hospital. As soon as Lindsey died, Waldrup and other family members demanded answers and an autopsy. And months before the autopsy report was officially signed, they were already talking about suing Eads. Moreover, Waldrup sued Lindsey’s doctor within two years of her death and admitted that it was an oversight not to sue Eads at the same time. These facts indisputably show that, by the time of Lindsey’s death, Waldrup’s suspicions and actions were enough to satisfy the statutory requirement of discovery of the alleged medical negligence on the part of Eads. So the statute of limitations had run by the time Waldrup simultaneously filed her presuit notice and lawsuit. Issue 2: Sanctions Waldrup’s attempt to avoid dismissal by asserting the discovery rule was not sanctionable under section 11-55-5(1). Section 11-55-3 defines “without substantial justification” as “frivolous, groundless in fact or in law, or vexatious.” A claim is frivolous only when, objectively speaking, the pleader or movant had no hope of success. Because the application of the discovery rule is a fact-intensive process, Waldrup’s discovery-rule argument, objectively speaking, was not frivolous. Thus, it was an abuse of discretion to deem Waldrup’s claim as having no hope of success. The sanctions award is reversed and judgment rendered in favor of Waldrup on this issue. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
