Univ. of Miss. Med. Ctr. V. Easterling
| Docket Number: | 2004-IA-02360-SCT Linked Case(s): 2004-IA-02360-SCT ; 2004-M-02360-SCT |
|
| Supreme Court: | Opinion Link Opinion Date: 04-06-2006 Opinion Author: Smith, C.J. Holding: REVERSED AND RENDERED |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Tort Claims Act - Compliance with ninety-day notice requirement - Section 11-46-11(1) Judge(s) Concurring: Waller and Cobb, P.JJ., Carlson, Dickinson and Randolph, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): Diaz, J. Dissenting Author : Easley, J. Dissent Joined By : Joined in Part by Graves, J. Procedural History: Summary Judgment Nature of the Case: CIVIL - TORTS-OTHER THAN PERSONAL INJURY & PROPERTY DAMAGE |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 11-03-2004 Appealed from: Hinds County Circuit Court Judge: Bobby DeLaughter Disposition: Denied Appellant's Motion for Summary Judgment Case Number: 251-02-001251-CIV |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | UNIVERSITY OF MISSISSIPPI MEDICAL
CENTER |
SENITH C. TIPTON, MELANIE MORANO McQUILLEN |
||
| Appellee: | ANGELA EASTERLING AS PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE WRONGFUL DEATH BENEFICIARY OF WADREANNA QUADASHSEA MAGEE | MARY JEANNE GIBSON, EDWARD GIBSON, CHARLES E. GIBSON |
|
|
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: | Tort Claims Act - Compliance with ninety-day notice requirement - Section 11-46-11(1) |
| Summary of the Facts: | Angela Easterling, mother and personal representative of Wadreanna Quadashsea Magee, filed suit against University of Mississippi Medical Center. Before service on UMMC, Easterling recognized her failure to comply with section 11-46-11. Rather than seeking a Rule 41(a)(1)(i) dismissal, and then complying with the statute, Easterling filed a Motion for Extension of Time to Complete Service of Process on January 17, 2003, stating, “Plaintiffs’ counsel has not served Defendants because the case is not ripe due to the notice required by § 11-46-11 of the Mississippi Code of 1972, as amended.” Easterling elected to file the notice of claim to UMMC on the same day, January 17, 2003. One month later, Easterling served process on UMMC. UMMC filed a Motion for Summary Judgment claiming Easterling failed to comply with section 11-46-11(1), which requires a plaintiff to send a state entity notice of a claim ninety days before filing suit. The trial court denied UMMC’s motion. UMMC filed a Motion Requesting Certification for Interlocutory Appeal which the court denied. UMMC appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | UMMC argues that because Easterling failed to give UMMC notice ninety days before filing her lawsuit, the trial court erred when it denied UMMC’s motion for summary judgment. Easterling claims she substantially complied with the requirement, or, in the alternative, UMMC waived the ninety-day notice period by not requesting a stay. Easterling failed to comply with the ninety-day notice requirement when she filed suit on September 19, 2002, almost four months before giving notice. Easterling had the option of dismissing her prematurely filed action, properly serving notice of her claim, and then waiting the ninety-day time period, and if Easterling’s claims against UMMC were still unresolved, Easterling could properly have filed her action. In order to make it perfectly clear to all that strict compliance is required, the case of City of Pascagoula v. Tomlinson, 741 So.2d 224 (Miss. 1999) and its progeny are overruled, but only as to those cases’ analysis of the ninety-day notice requirement. In other words, the rule set forth in Tomlinson, that the responsibility falls on the defendant to request a stay of the lawsuit when a plaintiff is not in compliance with the ninety-day notice requirement, is abrogated. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
