Estate of Fedrick v. Quorum Health Res., Inc.
| Docket Number: | 2007-CT-00465-SCT Linked Case(s): 2007-CA-00465-COA ; 2007-CA-00465-COA ; 2007-CT-00465-SCT ; 2007-CT-00465-SCT |
|
| Supreme Court: | Opinion Link Opinion Date: 07-22-2010 Opinion Author: Kitchens, J. Holding: Reversed and remanded. |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Wrongful death - Tort Claims Act - Survival claims - Continuing tort doctrine Judge(s) Concurring: Waller, C.J., Carlson and Graves, P.JJ., Dickinson, Randolph, Lamar, Chandler and Pierce, JJ. Procedural History: Summary Judgment Nature of the Case: CIVIL - WRONGFUL DEATH Writ of Certiorari: yes Appealed from Court of Appeals |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 02-06-2007 Appealed from: NESHOBA COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT Judge: Vernon Cotten Disposition: The County and Quorum successfully moved for summary judgment, arguing that the Mississippi Tort Claims Act’s (MTCA’s) one-year statute of limitations had run. The Court of Appeals affirmed the grant of summary judgment as to the estate’s “survival” claims, but reversed the trial court’s grant of summary judgment as to the estate’s “wrongful death” claims in accordance with this Court’s decision in Caves v. Yarbrough, 991 So. 2d 142 (Miss. 2008). Estate of Fedrick v. Quorum Health Servs., 2009 WL 4807310 (Miss. Ct. App. Dec. 15, 2009). Case Number: 00-CV-0252-NS-C |
|
| Note: | This case reverses a previous judgment by the Court of Appeals. See the original COA opinion at: http://www.mssc.state.ms.us/Images/Opinions/CO51934.pdf | |
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | Brief(s) Available: | ||
| Appellant: | The Estate of Eula Mae Fedrick By and Through Sue Sykes, Administratrix |
F. M. TURNER, III |
|
|
| Appellee: | Quorum Health Resources, Inc., Neshoba County and Marvin Page | WILLIAM W. McKINLEY, JR., MARK P. CARAWAY, CORY LOUIS RADICIONI | ||
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 - Survival claims - Continuing tort doctrine |
| Summary of the Facts: | Eula Mae Fedrick died while she was a resident of the Neshoba County Nursing Home. Ms. Fedrick’s estate filed a wrongful-death action under section 11-7-13 against Neshoba County and Quorum Health Services, Inc., and others. The County and Quorum successfully moved for summary judgment. The estate appealed, and the Court of Appeals affirmed the grant of summary judgment as to the estate’s “survival” claims, but reversed the trial court’s grant of summary judgment as to the estate’s “wrongful death” claims. The Supreme Court granted certiorari. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | The estate responded to the motion for summary judgment with a detailed affidavit from Dr. Michael Baldinger. Dr. Baldinger opined that the defendants failed to provide sufficient nutrition to Ms. Fedrick, which led to significant weight loss, malnutrition, and, ultimately, her death. Specifically, Dr. Baldinger opined that the defendants “failed to provide timely restorative therapy or assistive devices when Ms. Fedrick’s ability to feed herself became compromised” and “failed to assess the sufficiency of Ms. Fedrick’s dietary intake and take steps to seek additional nutrition therapy.” Dr. Baldinger opined that “[h]ad her need for additional assistance been recognized in a timely manner, months earlier than it was, it is likely that [Ms. Fedrick’s] weight loss could have been prevented, thus extending her life.” The Court of Appeals focused on the words “months earlier” and determined that any negligence on behalf of the defendants had occurred before August 17, 1999, one year before the estate provided its notice of claim. The Court of Appeals held that the continuing-tort doctrine did not apply to toll the statute of limitations, isolating the alleged tortious omissions to the date the nursing home should have realized that Ms. Fedrick needed assistance feeding herself. A continuing tort is one inflicted over a period of time; it involves a wrongful conduct that is repeated until desisted, and each day creates a separate cause of action. A continuing tort sufficient to toll a statute of limitations is occasioned by continual unlawful acts, not by continual ill effects from an original violation. Taking the facts in the light most favorable to the estate, the continuing tort doctrine should be considered in the instant case. According to Dr. Baldinger’s affidavit, the nursing home was negligent by not placing Ms. Fedrick on the restorative feeding program before September 17, 1999. Ms. Fedrick needed feeding assistance throughout this entire period; therefore, a tortious omission may have occurred every day that the defendants failed to provide her this kind of assistance. These allegations fit within the definition of a continuing tort. If proven, the alleged failure to provide Ms. Fedrick proper nutrition was a negligent omission that was repeated until September 17, 1999, the date the nursing home placed Ms. Fedrick on a feeding-assistance program. Because the estate provided its notice of claim just ten months later, the one-year statute of limitations may not have run on the estate’s “survival” claims. Therefore, the Court of Appeals erred in refusing to apply the continuing-tort doctrine and holding that the estate’s “survival” claims were barred, as a matter of law, by the one-year statute of limitations found in the Tort Claims Act. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
