Pringle v. Kramer


<- Return to Search Results


Docket Number: 2009-CA-00158-SCT
Oral Argument: 05-25-2010
 

 

* 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: 07-29-2010
Opinion Author: Kitchens, J.
Holding: Reversed and remanded.
Additional Case Information: Topic: Wrongful death - Statute of limitations - Saving statute - Section 15-1-69 - Bad faith - Section 15-1-36(15)
Judge(s) Concurring: Waller, C.J., Carlson and Graves, P.JJ., Randolph, Lamar, Chandler and Pierce, JJ.
Non Participating Judge(s): Dickinson, J.
Procedural History: Dismissal
Nature of the Case: CIVIL - WRONGFUL DEATH; Dismissal
Trial Court: Date of Trial Judgment: 12-29-2008
Appealed from: RANKIN COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
Judge: Samac Richardson
Disposition: After his first wrongful death, medical negligence suit was dismissed without prejudice for failure to comply with the statutory presuit notice requirements of Mississippi Code Section 15-1-36(15) (Rev. 2003), Scott Pringle, on behalf of his daughter, filed this action against Brentwood Behavioral Healthcare, LLC, James J. Kramer, M.D., and Kramhearst Behavioral Institute, LLC. The trial court dismissed the subsequent lawsuit with prejudice, concluding that the statute of limitations had run.
Case Number: 2008-43
  Party Name: Attorney Name:   Brief(s) Available:
Appellant: Scott Pringle, as Next Friend and Legal Guardian of S. W. Pringle, a Minor




 DENNIS L. HORN, SHIRLEY PAYNE



  
  • Appellant #1 Brief
    		•
    Appellee: James J. Kramer, M.D. and Kramhearst Behavioral Institute, LLC ROBERT S. ADDISON, JOHN ALFRED WAITS  
    Appellee #2:  
    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 - Statute of limitations - Saving statute - Section 15-1-69 - Bad faith - Section 15-1-36(15)
    Summary of the Facts: After his first wrongful death-medical negligence suit was dismissed without prejudice for failure to comply with the statutory presuit notice requirements of section 15-1-36(15), Scott Pringle, on behalf of his daughter, filed this action against Brentwood Behavioral Healthcare, LLC, James J. Kramer, M.D., and Kramhearst Behavioral Institute, LLC. The trial court dismissed the subsequent lawsuit with prejudice, concluding that the statute of limitations had run. Pringle appeals.
    Summary of Opinion Analysis: Before briefing in this case was complete, the Court issued its opinion in Arceo v. Tolliver, 19 So. 3d 67, holding that the general saving statute, found at section 15-1-69, applies to toll the statute of limitations when a case is dismissed for a plaintiff’s failure to provide presuit notice in a medical malpractice action. Applying that case to Pringle’s case, the general saving statute found at section 15-1-69 gave Pringle one year from the date of the Supreme Court’s mandate to commence another action. The mandate issued on March 1, 2007, and Pringle filed his last complaint in the Rankin County Circuit Court within the year, on February 7, 2008. Given that less than a year had passed, the statute of limitations had not run by the time Pringle filed this action. The defendants do not argue and the trial court did not find that there was insufficient presuit notice. The defendants do argue, however, that Pringle may not benefit from the general saving statute because he acted in bad faith when filing the first lawsuit. Given the law in effect at the time Pringle filed his first action, he had no reason to expect that his case would be dismissed for failing to comply strictly with the mandates of section 15-1-36(15). Therefore, it cannot be said that Pringle acted in bad faith when he initiated the first lawsuit, and Pringle could avail himself of the general saving statute. Pringle asks that this case be remanded and transferred to the Madison County Circuit Court, where it originally was filed. Because the original suit has been dismissed, and because this action was filed on February 7, 2008, after the venue statute was amended, Rankin County is the appropriate venue.


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