Johnson v. Rao
| Docket Number: | 2005-CA-02178-SCT | |
| Supreme Court: | Opinion Link Opinion Date: 03-22-2007 Opinion Author: EASLEY, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Medical malpractice - Service of process - M.R.C.P. 4 Judge(s) Concurring: SMITH, C.J., WALLER, P.J., CARLSON, DICKINSON AND RANDOLPH, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): COBB, P.J. Dissenting Author : GRAVES, J. Dissent Joined By : DIAZ, J. Procedural History: Dismissal Nature of the Case: CIVIL - MEDICAL MALPRACTICE |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 10-07-2005 Appealed from: Grenada County Circuit Court Judge: Clarence E. Morgan, III Disposition: Dismissed Appellant's case with prejudice because service of process was insufficient & the statute of limitations had run Case Number: 2004-0626 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | IRMA COHEN JOHNSON |
WENDY SCHENIQUE WILSON
WILLIE T. ABSTON |
||
| Appellee: | GUTTI RAO, M.D. | CLINTON M. GUENTHER |
|
|
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 - Service of process - M.R.C.P. 4 |
| Summary of the Facts: | Irma Johnson filed a medical malpractice action against Grenada Lake Medical Center and Dr. Gutti Rao. Grenada Lake filed a motion to dismiss because of Johnson’s failure to comply with section 11-46-11. Dr. Rao also filed a motion to dismiss because of Johnson’s failure to give notice pursuant to section 15-1-36. The court granted the defendant’s motions to dismiss and dismissed the case without prejudice. Johnson again filed suit against Dr. Rao. A deputy sheriff delivered a copy of the complaint and summons to Dr. Rao’s receptionist. Dr. Rao filed a motion to dismiss alleging insufficient service of process and failure to comply with the requirements of section 11-1-58. The court concluded that service of process was insufficient and dismissed the case with prejudice. Johnson appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Johnson argues that the court erred in finding that Dr. Rao was not properly served process pursuant to M.R.C.P. 4, because Dr. Rao’s receptionist was acting as Dr. Rao’s agent to accept service of process on his behalf. Agent includes only agents vested with some general authority and discretion, and does not to extend to mere employees having no independent powers. Dr. Rao’s receptionist testified that she was not authorized by Dr. Rao to accept service of process; that she was not aware that the papers were regarding a lawsuit against Dr. Rao; that she had never accepted service of process on behalf of Dr. Rao or anyone else, in the past; and that the deputy did not ask to see Dr. Rao and did not inform her that he was there to serve process on Dr. Rao. Nothing in the record reveals that she was authorized to accept process or that Powell had ever accepted service of process on prior occasions. Further, nothing in the record contradicts that she did not have authority to accept service of process on behalf of Dr. Rao. Therefore, the court did not err in granting Dr. Rao’s motion to dismiss Johnson’s compliant due to insufficient service of process. This issue is dispositive of the appeal. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
