Simpson v. Lovelace, et al.
| Docket Number: | 2003-CA-01154-COA | |
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 11-02-2004 Opinion Author: Irving, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Medical malpractice - Statute of limitations - Discovery rule Judge(s) Concurring: King, C.J., Lee, P.J., Myers, Griffis, Barnes and Ishee, JJ. Dissenting Author : Chandler, J. Dissent Joined By : Bridges, P.J. Procedural History: Summary Judgment Nature of the Case: CIVIL - MEDICAL MALPRACTICE |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 05-15-2003 Appealed from: Lafayette County Circuit Court Judge: Andrew K. Howorth Disposition: THE TRIAL COURT FOUND THAT THE CLAIM WAS FILED BEYOND THE APPLICABLE WAS FILED BEYOND THE APPLICABLE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS, AND GRANTED MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF DEFENDANTS Case Number: L02-546 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Dennis A. Simpson v. Dr. Michael H. Lovelace, The Surgery Consultants of Oxford, P.A. and Baptist Memorial Hospital - North Mississippi, Inc. |
JANELLE MARIE LOWREY
ROY O. PARKER |
||
| Appellee: | Dennis A. Simpson v. Dr. Michael H. Lovelace, The Surgery Consultants of Oxford, P.A. and Baptist Memorial Hospital - North Mississippi, Inc. | S. DUKE GOZA ROBERT S. MINK SHELBY KIRK MILAM |
|
|
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 - Discovery rule |
| Summary of the Facts: | Dennis Simpson filed a medical malpractice action against Dr. Michael Lovelace, the Surgery Consultants of Oxford, John Doe, Jane Doe and ABC Corporation, alleging that Dr. Lovelace negligently operated on his right leg, and as a result, caused him to sustain multiple damages. Shortly thereafter, Simpson amended his complaint to add Baptist Memorial Hospital as a defendant. Dr. Lovelace and the Surgery Consultants of Oxford filed a motion for summary judgment, asserting that the statute of limitations had expired. The judge granted the motion, and Simpson appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Simpson argues that he did not become aware that he had an actionable injury until October 12, 2001, when Dr. Nichols informed him of Dr. Lovelace’s alleged negligence and that the statute of limitations began to run on that particular date. Dr. Lovelace and the other defendants argue that since Simpson knew that there was a problem with his leg in 1998, he had until August 28, 2000, to file a claim. The two-year statute of limitations does not commence running until the patient discovers or should have discovered that he has a cause of action. The operative time is when the patient can reasonably be held to have knowledge of the injury itself, the cause of the injury, and the causative relationship between the injury and the conduct of the medical practitioner. The record is clear that Simpson complained of problems immediately after his surgery in 1998 that should have put him on notice that there was a problem. Simpson knew from the very beginning that something was not quite right. Since he chose to ignore the problem and thereby not discover the specific reasons for his pain, swelling and numbness which were recurrent at the cite of the surgery performed by Dr. Lovelace, the discovery rule does not apply. Simpson’s suit is barred by the applicable two-year statute of limitations. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
