Caves v. Yarbrough, et al.
| Docket Number: | 2006-CA-01857-SCT Linked Case(s): 2006-CA-01857-SCT ; 2006-CA-01857-SCT ; 2006-CA-01857-SCT |
|
| Supreme Court: |
Opinion Date: 11-01-2007 Opinion Author: DICKINSON, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Medical malpractice - Tort Claims Act - Section 11-46-11(3) - Statute of repose - Latent injury - Discovery rule Judge(s) Concurring: SMITH, C.J., CARLSON, RANDOLPH AND LAMAR, JJ. Judge(s) Concurring Separately: EASLEY, J. CONCURS IN PART WITH SEPARATE OPINION. Dissenting Author : GRAVES, J. Dissent Joined By : WALLER AND DIAZ, P.JJ. Concurs in Result Only: EASLEY, J. Procedural History: Summary Judgment Nature of the Case: CIVIL - MEDICAL MALPRACTICE |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 10-13-2006 Appealed from: Franklin County Circuit Court Judge: Forrest Johnson Disposition: Granted Appellee's Motion for Summary Judgment Case Number: 02-CV-026 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | Brief(s) Available: | ||
| Appellant: | IRENE CAVES, STATUTORY REPRESENTATIVE
OF THE WRONGFUL DEATH BENEFICIARIES
OF JIMMY CAVES |
JOEL W. HOWELL, III |
|
|
| Appellee: | BENJAMIN YARBROUGH, M.D., AND FRANKLIN COUNTY MEMORIAL HOSPITAL | JAMES SCOTT ROGERS, WADE G. MANOR LANE B. REED | ||
| Amicus #1: |
|
|||
| Amicus #2: | ||||
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 - Section 11-46-11(3) - Statute of repose - Latent injury - Discovery rule |
| Summary of the Facts: | Two years after her husband died, Irene Caves filed an action against Franklin County Memorial Hospital and Dr. Benjamin Yarbrough. The defendants filed a motion for summary judgment, asserting that Caves failed to comply with the one-year statutory limitation for bringing actions under the Tort Claims Act. The court granted both defendants summary judgment, and Caves appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Section 11-46-11(3) provides that all actions brought under the provisions of the Tort Claims Act shall be commenced within one year next after the date of the tortious, wrongful or otherwise actionable conduct on which the liability phase of the action is based, and that the limitations period shall control and be exclusive in all Tort Claims actions, notwithstanding the nature of the claim, the label or other characterization the claimant may use to describe it, or the provisions of any other statute of limitations. The statute says nothing whatsoever about the date of injury or the accrual of a cause of action. The alleged “tortious, wrongful or otherwise actionable conduct” of the Hospital and Dr. Yarbrough occurred – at the latest – on April 17, 2000. Notice of the claim was not provided to the Hospital until February 13, 2002, and was never provided to Dr. Yarbrough. Thus, notice of the claim was clearly outside the Act’s one-year limitation period, whether labeled a statute of limitations or a statute of repose. Caves argues that, because her husband’s injuries were latent, the running of the statute of limitations was delayed until they were discovered. However, the statute’s language precisely sets forth the date the limitation period begins to run, and it includes no provision for tolling. In Barnes v. Singing River Hosp., 733 So. 2d 199 (Miss. 1999) and subsequent cases, the Supreme Court, without citation of any authority to do so, “incorporated” a discovery rule into the Tort Claims Act. However, in recent years the Court has recognized its duty to apply a strict standard of statutory construction, applying the plain meaning of unambiguous statutes. The Barnes Court’s judicial imposition of a discovery provision in the MTCA contradicts the Pruett Court’s decision to abolish common-law sovereign immunity and leave sovereign immunity issues to the Legislature. In keeping with the Court’s constitutional prohibition from judicially amending statutes, Barnes and its progeny are overruled, insofar as they judicially amended the statutes of the Tort Claims Act by supplying a discovery rule tolling the Act’s one-year statute of repose. Applying the Act’s statute of repose as written, it is clear that Caves failed to commence her action within its one-year limitation, and it is therefore statutorily time- barred. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
