Saul v. South Cent. Reg'l Med. Ctr., Inc.
| Docket Number: | 2008-CA-01474-SCT | |
| Supreme Court: | Opinion Link Opinion Date: 01-07-2010 Opinion Author: Waller, C.J. Holding: Reversed and remanded in part, reversed and rendered in part. |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Wrongful death - Tort Claims Act - Statute of limitations - Notice of claim - Section 11-46-11 Judge(s) Concurring: Carlson, P.J., Dickinson, Randolph, Lamar, Chandler and Pierce, JJ. Judge(s) Concurring Separately: Kitchens, J., Concurs in Part With Separate Written Opinion Joined by Graves, P.J. Procedural History: Dismissal Nature of the Case: CIVIL - WRONGFUL DEATH |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 08-20-2008 Appealed from: Jones County Circuit Court Judge: Billy Joe Landrum Disposition: The Jones County Circuit Court granted the hospital’s motion to dismiss the wrongful-death suit against it, finding that the one-year statute of limitations barred Saul’s claims. Case Number: 2007-64-CV6 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | Brief(s) Available: | ||
| Appellant: | GAIL SAUL, FOR AND ON BEHALF OF ALL
WRONGFUL DEATH HEIRS OF RAYMOND L.
COOK, AND RAYMOND COOK, INDIVIDUALLY,
BY AND THROUGH GAIL SAUL, HIS PERSONAL
REPRESENTATIVE |
ROBIN L. ROBERTS |
|
|
| Appellee: | SOUTH CENTRAL REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER, INC. | RICHARD O. BURSON, GRAYSON LACEY | ||
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: | Wrongful death - Tort Claims Act - Statute of limitations - Notice of claim - Section 11-46-11 |
| Summary of the Facts: | Gail Saul brought suit, pursuant to the Mississippi Tort Claims Act, against South Central Regional Medical Center for the alleged wrongful death of her father, Raymond Cook. The court granted the hospital’s motion to dismiss the wrongful-death suit against it, finding that the one-year statute of limitations barred Saul’s claims. Saul appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Statute of limitations Saul argues that the discovery rule tolled the statute of limitations for her wrongful-death action until she obtained her father’s medical records. The one-year limitations period for claims under the Act does not begin to run until all the elements of a tort exist. The operative question is whether statutory notice was provided within a year next following the earliest date the decedent or his personal representative, by exercise of reasonable diligence, should have known of the injury and the acts or omission which caused them. The wrongful-death statute allows an action which includes not only the beneficiaries’ wrongful-death claims, such as loss of consortium, society, and companionship, but also the decedent’s own pre-death survival-type claims, such as claims for his or her personal injury, property damage, and medical expenses. The statute of limitations for wrongful-death claims, however, cannot begin to run until, at the earliest, the date of death, and the date the wrongful death claimant’s damages accrued. Since SCRMC received the notice-of-claim letter on the one-year anniversary of Cook’s death, Saul’s wrongful-death claims were timely brought. However, applying the discovery rule to the facts of this case, the Court cannot determine whether Saul’s survival-type claims were timely brought. Thus, the case is remanded. If the fact-finder determines that Cook did discover, or should have discovered, SCRMC’s allegedly negligent act or omission before he died, then Saul’s survival-type claims against SCRMC were untimely because SCRMC received the notice-of-claim letter exactly one year after Cook’s death. However, if Cook did not discover these elements, then all of Saul’s claims were timely brought. Issue 2: Notice of claim Pursuant to section 11-46-11(1), a potential plaintiff must provide the governmental entity ninety days’ written notice before filing suit. Subsection (2) of section 11-46-11 provides the seven required categories of information which must be included in the notice of claim. According to SCRMC, even if Saul’s action is not barred by the statute of limitations, the case should be dismissed because the notice-of-claim letter was insufficient. Although the written notice identified Saul as one of Cook’s surviving children, it did not give her address. Instead, the notice-of-claim letter gave the address of Dale Cook, because Dale sent the notice. Thus, SCRMC asserts that notice was insufficient because it did not identify Saul’s residence. The written notice-of-claim letter sent by Dale Cook contained a statement of the facts upon which the claim was based, including the circumstances which brought about Raymond Cook’s injuries, and the time, place, and extent of those injuries, including his alleged wrongful death. The notice also included the names of all persons known to be involved, including Saul, Dale Cook, Dewayne Cook, the doctor who performed the surgery, and the allegedly negligent hospital and nursing staff. The letter also specified the amount of money damages sought by Saul and the Cooks. Finally, the letter gave the residence address of Dale Cook, one of the persons making the claim and the person who sent the notice. Therefore, the notice-of-claim letter complied fully with the requirements of section 11-46-11(2). |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
