Pope v. Brock, et al.
| Docket Number: | 2004-CA-00774-SCT Linked Case(s): 2004-CA-00774-SCT |
|
| Supreme Court: | Opinion Link Opinion Date: 09-08-2005 Opinion Author: DICKINSON, J. Holding: Reversed and Remanded |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Medical malpractice - Statute of limitations - Section 15-1-36(15) - Section 15-1-57 - Section 15-1-36(2) - Borrowed statute doctrine Judge(s) Concurring: Smith, C.J., Waller and Cobb, P.JJ., Easley and Carlson, JJ. Judge(s) Concurring Separately: Graves, J. Non Participating Judge(s): Diaz, J. Concur in Part, Concur in Result 1: Randolph, J., without separate written opinion Procedural History: Dismissal Nature of the Case: CIVIL - MEDICAL MALPRACTICE |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 03-25-2004 Appealed from: Bolivar County Circuit Court Judge: Larry O. Lewis Disposition: The trial court granted the motions to dismiss on March 25, 2004. Case Number: 2004-0006 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | GINGER M. POPE, ADMINISTRATRIX OF THE ESTATE OF NANCY SPRINGER, DECEASED |
TAMEKIA ROCHELLE GOLIDAY,
ELLIS TURNAGE |
||
| Appellee: | DR. CHARLES F. BROCK AND DR. STEVEN G. CLARK | CLINTON M. GUENTHER, KIMBERLY NELSON HOWLAND |
|
|
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) - Section 15-1-57 - Section 15-1-36(2) - Borrowed statute doctrine |
| Summary of the Facts: | Ginger Pope, Administratrix of the Estate of Nancy Springer, served written notice on Dr. Charles Brock, Dr. Steven Clark, Dr. James Wise, Bolivar Medical Center and University of Mississippi Medical Center on May 30, 2003, advising them of the estate’s claim of professional negligence. In what she believed was compliance with a statutorily required sixty-day notice period, Pope waited until July 30, 2003, and then filed a wrongful death suit in Hinds County Circuit Court against the five health care providers, alleging that their negligence caused Springer’s death. Dr. Brock, Dr. Clark, and BMC filed motions to dismiss, claiming the suit was barred by the statute of limitations. The court granted the motions to dismiss, and Pope appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Where the required notice of claim is given within sixty days of the running of the two-year statute of limitations, section 15-1-36(15), in isolation, may fairly be read to provide for a new statute of limitations which expires sixty days from the service of the notice. However, the statute’s language, “shall be extended,” may be fairly read to provide a sixty-day tolling of the two-year statute. If the former interpretation prevails, Pope filed suit too late. But if the latter prevails, the suit was timely filed. Pope argues that a literal application of all of the provisions of section 15-1-36(15) leads to unreasonable and absurd results. There are two significant clues regarding the meaning of the statute. Since Pope was prohibited by law from filing suit during the sixty-day notice period, section 15-1-57 clearly and unambiguously prohibits use of any of the sixty-day notice period in computing the running of the statute of limitations. Since Pope originally had two years to file suit under section 15-1-36(2), and since Pope was “prohibited by law” from filing suit for the sixty-day period, a literal application of the wording of the statute results in a statute of limitations period of two years and sixty days, which expired on August 1, 2003. The interpretation most faithful to the language of the statute requires a sixty-day tolling of the two-year statute of limitations provided by section 15-1-36(2). The Borrowed Statute doctrine may also be applied, not as controlling, but as helpful authority. In interpreting the similar California statute, the Supreme Court of California has held that the statute of limitations is tolled during the ninety day notice period. Therefore, the case is reversed and remanded. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
