The Jackson Clinic for Women, P. A., et al. v. Henley, et al.
| Docket Number: | 2005-IA-01833-SCT Linked Case(s): 2005-IA-01833-SCT ; 2005-TS-01833-SCT |
|
| Supreme Court: | Opinion Link Opinion Date: 08-09-2007 Opinion Author: CARLSON, J. Holding: Reversed and Rendered |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Medical malpractice - Statute of limitations - Discovery rule Judge(s) Concurring: SMITH, C.J., WALLER, P.J., EASLEY, DICKINSON, RANDOLPH AND LAMAR, JJ. Dissenting Author : GRAVES, J. Concurs in Result Only: DIAZ, P.J. WITH SEPARATE WRITTEN OPINION Procedural History: Summary Judgment Nature of the Case: CIVIL - MEDICAL MALPRACTICE |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 09-06-2005 Appealed from: Hinds County Circuit Court Judge: Tomie Green Disposition: Appellant's Motion for Summary Judgment was denied Case Number: 251-95-704CIV |
|
| Consolidated: 1999-IA-01286-SCT | ||
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | THE JACKSON CLINIC FOR WOMEN, P.A.,
MERCER LEE, III, M.D., DARDEN H. NORTH, M.D.
AND PARACELSUS WOMAN’S HOSPITAL, INC. |
WHITMAN B. JOHNSON, III
GAINES SPENCER BEARD, JR.
JOSEPH L. McNAMARA |
||
| Appellee: | LINDA P. HENLEY, EXECUTRIX OF THE ESTATE OF GRACE POLLES MOORE, DECEASED, AND ROBERT ALAN MOORE, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVES AND WRONGFUL DEATH BENEFICIARIES OF ROBERT ALAN MOORE, JR., DECEASED | DANA J. SWAN |
|
|
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: | The plaintiffs filed a medical malpractice action for wrongful death against the Jackson Clinic for Women, P.A.; Mercer Lee, III, M.D.; Darden H. North, M.D.; and Paracelsus Woman’s Hospital, Inc. The defendants filed a motion for summary judgment based on the statute of limitations, which the court denied. The defendants then filed a petition for interlocutory appeal, which the Supreme Court granted. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | The defendants argue that the discovery rule does not apply because Moore’s injury was not latent; Moore’s inability to find an expert witness to testify in her favor did not prevent her from filing suit; and Moore’s attorney had given Moore actual notice of a potential statute of limitations problem. However, Moore argues that the discovery rule does apply because she used reasonable diligence in discovering wrongdoing and that the statute of limitations began to run only after she was advised by the Mayo Clinic that negligent conduct had occurred in 1994. With regard to the discovery rule as applied to medical malpractice cases, the court should focus its inquiry on when a plaintiff, exercising reasonable diligence, should have first discovered the negligence, rather than the injury. In this case, Moore believed that some type of negligence had occurred while she was in the hospital talking to her sister. Moore then proceeded to hire an attorney, obtain her medical records, and make an outline of all of the acts that she deemed negligent. Since section 11-1-58, Laws, 2002, 3rd Executive Session, ch. 2, § 6, effective from and after Jan. 1, 2003 (requiring that attorney certificate of expert consultation must accompany complaint commencing medical malpractice action) does not apply to this case, Moore did not need an expert’s opinion in order to file suit. Accordingly, Moore knew that negligent conduct might have occurred no later than the date of her conversation with her sister while still in the hospital, shortly after her surgery of August 25, 1992. The statute of limitations clearly began to run by late August, 1992. Therefore, by the time Moore commenced her suit on August 7, 1995, the applicable two-year statute of limitations had long since run. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
