South Cent. Reg'l Med. Ctr. v. Guffy


<- Return to Search Results


Docket Number: 2005-IA-00684-SCT

Supreme Court: Opinion Link
Opinion Date: 06-01-2006
Opinion Author: EASLEY, J.
Holding: REVERSED AND RENDERED

Additional Case Information: Topic: Personal injury - Tort Claims Act - Written notice - Section 11-46-11(2) - Ninety-day waiting period - Section 11-46-11(1)
Judge(s) Concurring: SMITH, C.J., COBB, P.J., CARLSON AND DICKINSON, JJ.
Non Participating Judge(s): WALLER, P.J., AND RANDOLPH, J.
Dissenting Author : Diaz and Graves, JJ. AND GRAVES, JJ.
Procedural History: Dismissal
Nature of the Case: CIVIL - OTHER

Trial Court: Date of Trial Judgment: 03-15-2005
Appealed from: Jones County Circuit Court
Judge: Billy Joe Landrum
Disposition: Denied Appellant's Motion to Dismiss
Case Number: 2002-343-CV11

  Party Name: Attorney Name:  
Appellant: SOUTH CENTRAL REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER




RICHARD O. BURSON, WENDELL JOSEPH WIGGINS



 

Appellee: RHONDA GUFFY LEONARD B. MELVIN, JR.  

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: Personal injury - Tort Claims Act - Written notice - Section 11-46-11(2) - Ninety-day waiting period - Section 11-46-11(1)

Summary of the Facts: Rhonda Guffy filed suit against the South Central Regional Medical Center. The Hospital filed a motion to dismiss which the court denied. The Hospital sought interlocutory appeal of the trial court’s ruling, which the Supreme Court granted.

Summary of Opinion Analysis: Guffy suffered injuries when she stepped into a hole in the Hospital’s parking lot. Guffy was immediately taken to the Hospital’s emergency room where she was treated and released. Guffy filed suit against the Hospital fifty-five days after the accident on November 14, 2002. The Hospital filed its motion to dismiss Guffy’s complaint based on her failure to substantially comply with the notice requirements of the Tort Claims Act, because no written notice or letter was ever provided as required by section 11-46-11(2). Guffy argues that she substantially complied with the notice requirements based on a conversation she had with the risk manager at the Hospital to review her emergency room medical bill. Guffy also argues the Hospital was on notice because her attorney requested her medical records from the Hospital and informed an insurance adjuster that Guffy intended to file suit against the Hospital. However, Guffy never produced any documentation or correspondence at the hearing or in the record to demonstrate that any written notice pursuant to section 11-46-11(2) had been provided. Likewise, Guffy does not provide any details as to when the alleged conversations with the director or the insurance company took place. The record is clear that the complaint was filed fifty-five days after the accident occurred, and the Hospital was served four days later. Therefore, even though no written notice is contained in the record, Guffy clearly did not wait the statutory ninety days before commencing the action against the Hospital. The language of section 11-46-11(2) clearly states that every notice of claim shall contain a short and plain statement addressing the seven categories of information or facts upon which the claim is based and this shall be in writing. As such, the language is mandatory. The Court’s opinions in the past which have required “substantial compliance” with section 11-46-11(2) have caused confusion. The failure to provide any of the seven statutorily required categories of information falls short of the statutory requirement and amounts to non-compliance with section 11-46-11(2). However, where some information in each of the seven required categories is provided, the Court must determine whether the information is “substantial” enough to be in compliance with the statute. If it is, the result is “compliance,” not “substantial compliance” with the requirements under section 11-46-11(2). Due to the lack of any written notice in the record, Guffy failed to comply with the mandatory requirements of section 11-46-11(2) as none of the seven required categories of information are provided. Also, section 11-46-11(1) specifically requires the plaintiff to wait ninety days after providing notice before maintaining an action against a governmental entity. Strict compliance as to the ninety-day notice is required. The record clearly demonstrates that Guffy failed to strictly comply with this requirement.


Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court