Wright v. Quesnel, et al.
| Docket Number: | 2002-CA-00385-SCT Linked Case(s): 2002-CA-00385-SCT |
|
| Supreme Court: | Opinion Link Opinion Date: 07-01-2004 Opinion Author: Waller, P.J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Medical malpractice - Tort Claims Act - Employment status - Notice Judge(s) Concurring: Smith, C.J., Cobb, P.J., Easley, Dickinson and Randolph, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): Diaz and Carlson, JJ. Dissenting Author : Graves, J. Procedural History: Summary Judgment Nature of the Case: CIVIL - MEDICAL MALPRACTICE |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 02-28-2002 Appealed from: Panola County Circuit Court Judge: Ann H. Lamar Disposition: Granted Dr. Quesnel and SPCH's a motion for summary judgment based on immunity under the Mississippi Tort Claims Act (MTCA). Case Number: CV2001-44-LP1 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Regina Wright |
WILLIAM C. WALKER, JR. |
||
| Appellee: | George Quesnel, M.D. and South Panola Community Hospital | SHELBY KIRK MILAM S. DUKE GOZA |
|
|
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 - Employment status - Notice |
| Summary of the Facts: | Regina Wright filed suit against George Quesnel, M. D., and South Panola Community Hospital for the death of her unborn child. The court granted Dr. Quesnel and SPCH's motion for summary judgment based on immunity under the Tort Claims Act. Wright appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Employment status Wright argues that, despite SPCH's employment contract with Dr. Quesnel in which he is defined as an SPCH employee, SPCH held itself out to the public via its “Conditions of Admission Form” as not being Dr. Quesnel’s employer. In its answer, SPCH admitted that Dr. Quesnel was its employee during all times pertinent to the allegations of the complaint. A third party such as Wright cannot say that the legal effect of a contract between two other parties is different from that intended by the two other parties unless the third party can show that the contract was made for his or her benefit. SPCH's disclaimer of liability for Dr. Quesnel's acts does not change the legal status of Dr. Quesnel, especially when SPCH has admitted that Dr. Quesnel was its employee. Issue 2: Notice Wright argues that the court erred in determining that she had failed to comply with notice provisions. Although strict compliance with the Tort Claims Act notice provisions is no longer required, a complete failure to comply is not the same as substantial compliance. Wright filed a notice of claim but did not wait the statutorily-prescribed ninety day period before filing suit. Allowing a plaintiff to file suit before ninety days have passed since noticing the claim is tantamount to reading out the notice provisions. In addition, there is no issue of fact with respect to whether the discovery rule tolled the statute of limitations, because Wright did not offer any evidence that she could not have discovered the injury within the applicable statute of limitations. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
