Gray v. Univ. of Miss. Sch. of Med.
| Docket Number: | 2006-CA-01601-COA Linked Case(s): 2006-CA-01601-SCT ; 2006-CA-01601-COA ; 2006-CT-01601-SCT ; 2006-CT-01601-SCT |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 03-04-2008 Opinion Author: CHANDLER, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Medical malpractice - Tort Claims Act - Statute of limitations - Discovery rule - M.R.A.P. 41(a) - Claim splitting Judge(s) Concurring: KING, C.J., LEE AND MYERS, P.JJ., IRVING, GRIFFIS, BARNES, ISHEE, ROBERTS AND CARLTON, JJ. Procedural History: Summary Judgment Nature of the Case: CIVIL - MEDICAL MALPRACTICE |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 08-15-2006 Appealed from: Hinds County Circuit Court Judge: W. Swan Yerger Disposition: SUMMARY JUDGMENT AWARDED TO HOSPITAL Case Number: 251-06-28CIV |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | Brief(s) Available: | ||
| Appellant: | JONATHAN CRAIG GRAY, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL WRONGFUL DEATH BENEFICIARIES OF HUGHLENE GRAY, DECEASED |
JAMES W. NOBLES, JR. |
||
| Appellee: | THE UNIVERSITY OF MISSISSIPPI SCHOOL OF MEDICINE AND THE UNIVERSITY OF MISSISSIPPI MEDICAL CENTER HOSPITALS DIVISION OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI | STEPHEN P. KRUGER, JAN F. GADOW |
|
|
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 - Tort Claims Act - Statute of limitations - Discovery rule - M.R.A.P. 41(a) - Claim splitting |
| Summary of the Facts: | Jonathan Gray, individually and on behalf of the wrongful death beneficiaries of Hughlene Gray, filed a medical malpractice suit against the University of Mississippi School of Medicine and the University of Mississippi Medical Center Hospitals. The court granted partial summary judgment in favor of UMMC. Gray appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Discovery rule The trial court determined that Gray had one year from the date of any actionable conduct in which to file suit, which was tolled for ninety-five days by the filing of the notice of claim. As UMMC did not deny the claim, Gray had ninety days from the date the tolling period expired in which to file suit. In total, he had 550 days to file the complaint. Gray filed the complaint on January 6, 2006, alleging the acts of negligence that occurred over an approximate one-year period commencing on January 12, 2004. Subtracting 550 days from the date the complaint was filed, the trial court correctly determined that any claims for actionable conduct that occurred prior to July 5, 2004, were time-barred. Gray argues that, due to UMMC's untimely production of medical records, the limitations period should be tolled by the discovery rule. In the recent case of Caves v. Yarbrough, No. 2006-CA-01857-SCT, the Supreme Court held that the discovery rule does not apply to the Tort Claims Act’s one-year limitations period. Because no mandate has issued in Caves due to a pending motion for rehearing under M.R.A.P. 41(a), the opinion is not final. However, Gray's argument also fails applying pre-Caves precedent. The record reflects that Gray made reasonably diligent efforts to obtain the decedent's medical records, which UMMC admittedly did not produce timely. However, the mere untimely receipt of medical records is not sufficient to toll the statute of limitations. The operative time is when the plaintiff knew, or reasonably should have known, of some negligent conduct, whether through receipt of medical records or from some other source of knowledge, such as personal observation or other means. Viewed in the light most favorable to Gray, the facts show that the decedent was aware of the allegedly negligent acts when she filed the notice of claim on January 10, 2005. Moreover, no evidence beyond Gray's statements in his brief and arguments before the trial court shows that Gray actually consulted with an expert before filing the complaint. Because the decedent knew of the acts of negligence alleged in the complaint on January 10, 2005, there could have been no tolling of the limitations period under the discovery rule. Issue 2: Claim splitting Gray argues that the acts of negligence alleged in his complaint comprise a single claim and that the grant of summary judgment as to any alleged acts of negligence which occurred before July 5, 2004, resulted in erroneous claim splitting. Claim splitting occurs when a plaintiff attempts to bring in a second forum claims that were part of a single body of operative facts already litigated in another forum. The dismissal of Gray's claims based on actionable conduct that occurred before July 5, 2004, in no way implicated claim splitting because the claims were dismissed with prejudice as time-barred. There is no potential for the claims to be successfully raised in subsequent litigation. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
