Scaggs v. GPCH-GP, Inc.
| Docket Number: | 2005-CA-00917-SCT | |
| Oral Argument: | 03-13-2006 | |
* This video is best viewed in the most current version of Google Chrome, Internet Explorer with Windows Media Player plug-in, or Safari (Mac Users). |
||
| Supreme Court: | Opinion Link Opinion Date: 06-15-2006 Opinion Author: Smith, C.J. Holding: REVERSED AND REMANDED |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Medical malpractice - Statute of limitations - Sixty-days notice - Section 15-1-36 - Section 15-1-57 Judge(s) Concurring: Waller, P.J., Easley, Carlson, Dickinson and Randolph, JJ. Judge(s) Concurring Separately: Graves, J., Specially Concurs With Separate Written Opinion Joined by Diaz and Carlson, JJ Concurs in Result Only: Cobb, P.J., and Diaz, J. Procedural History: Dismissal Nature of the Case: CIVIL - MEDICAL MALPRACTICE |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 04-29-2005 Appealed from: Harrison County Circuit Court Judge: Jerry O. Terry, Sr. Disposition: Granted Appellee's Motion to Dismiss Case Number: A2401-04-00109 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | MARY SCAGGS
|
WOODROW W. PRINGLE, III |
||
| Appellee: | GPCH-GP, INC. d/b/a GARDEN PARK MEDICAL CENTER | WILLIAM E. WHITFIELD, III, KIMBERLY S. ROSETTI |
|
|
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 - Sixty-days notice - Section 15-1-36 - Section 15-1-57 |
| Summary of the Facts: | Mary Scaggs filed a medical malpractice action against Garden Park Medical Center, arising out of injuries she sustained during a preoperative procedure. Garden Park filed a motion to dismiss the suit on the basis that the applicable statute of limitations had expired. The trial court determined the suit was time barred and granted Garden Park’s motion. Scaggs appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Scaggs argues the trial court erred in dismissing her case on the basis that the suit was filed outside the applicable period of limitations in accordance with section 15-1-36. The reasonable interpretation of sections 15-1-36(15) and 15-1-57 requires that the sixty-day notice period may not be used in calculating the statute of limitations, whether notice is given before or during the final sixty-day period of the statute of limitations. Whenever a plaintiff files the statutorily required sixty days of notice, the time to file an action is effectively extended by sixty days. Here, the alleged injury occurred on March 14, 2002. Thus, Scaggs had until May 13, 2004, had she complied with the provisions of 15-1-36 and 15-1-57. Scaggs provided notice to Garden Park of her intention to file suit on December 10, 2002, by actual written notification to Garden Park of her intention to bring an action. Scaggs’ second written notification of her intent to pursue a claim on January 28, 2004, did not serve as notice of a new claim as it was in effect a mere reminder to Garden Park that the possible claim for negligence continued to exist. Therefore, the sixty-day notice period commenced on December 10, 2002 and expired on February 7, 2002. In accordance with section 15-1-57 the sixty-day notice period should not be calculated in the applicable two-year statute of limitations. Therefore, Scaggs’ time to file suit was extended sixty days past the two-year anniversary of her alleged injuries which occurred March 14, 2004. Scaggs properly filed her suit within the time frame in question on April 14, 2004. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
