Wayne Gen. Hosp., et al. v. Hayes


<- Return to Search Results


Docket Number: 2001-IA-00320-SCT
Linked Case(s): 2001-IA-00320-SCT

Supreme Court: Opinion Link
Opinion Date: 03-25-2004
Opinion Author: Smith, P.J.
Holding: Reversed and Remanded

Additional Case Information: Topic: Medical malpractice - Statute of limitations - Discovery rule - Venue - Dismissal of resident defendant - Community hospital - Section 11-46-13(2) - Notice of claim - M.R.A.P. 5(b)
Judge(s) Concurring: Pittman, C.J., Waller, P.J., Cobb, Carlson and Dickinson, JJ.
Non Participating Judge(s): Diaz and Graves, JJ.
Dissenting Author : Easley, J.
Nature of the Case: CIVIL - MEDICAL MALPRACTICE

Trial Court: Date of Trial Judgment: 02-05-2001
Appealed from: Hinds County Circuit Court
Judge: James E. Graves, Jr.
Disposition: Denied defendants' motion to transfer venue.
Case Number: 251-00-314-CIV

Note: The motion for rehearing filed by appellee is denied. The previous opinions of this Court are withdrawn and this opinion is substituted therefor. Reversed and Remanded. Easley, J., would grant.

  Party Name: Attorney Name:  
Appellant: Wayne General Hospital, Cirila Reyes, M.D., R. Kelvin Sherman, M.D., and William E. Powell, M.D.




MATTHEW D. MILLER ROBERT D. GHOLSON J. ROBERT RAMSAY



 

Appellee: Wanda Hayes, Individually and as Next Friend and Natural Guardian of LaTarius Hayes, a Minor on behalf of all who are entitled to recover under the wrongful death and survival statute for the death of Wa'Landra Mesha Hayes, Deceased GERALD PATRICK COLLIER  

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: Medical malpractice - Statute of limitations - Discovery rule - Venue - Dismissal of resident defendant - Community hospital - Section 11-46-13(2) - Notice of claim - M.R.A.P. 5(b)

Summary of the Facts: The motion for rehearing is denied, and these opinions are substituted for the original opinions. More than two years after the death of Wa’Landra Mesha Hayes, the plaintiffs filed a complaint in the Circuit Court of the First Judicial District of Hinds County, against Wayne General Hospital, the University of Mississippi Medical Center, Dr. Mark Dabagia, and Dr. Avinash Gulanikar (UMMC defendants), Dr. Kelvin Sherman, Dr. William Powell, Dr. Cirila Reyes, and John Doe Persons and Entities. Wayne General Hospital, Dr. Sherman, Dr. Powell, and Dr. Reyes are all residents of Wayne County, while the UMMC Defendants are all residents of Hinds County. The UMMC Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment, and the plaintiffs subsequently agreed to dismiss the UMMC Defendants from the action. After the dismissal, Wayne General Hospital, joined by Dr. Sherman and Dr. Powell, moved to transfer venue. The court denied the motion, and the Supreme Court granted an interlocutory appeal.

Summary of Opinion Analysis: Issue 1: Statute of limitations The defendants argue that venue in Hinds County was never proper since all claims against the UMMC Defendants were barred by the one year statute of limitations provided for in the Tort Claims Act. The plaintiffs argue that the discovery rule tolled the statute of limitations until the plaintiffs discovered the alleged negligence and omissions in the fall of 1999. The discovery rule applies the one-year MTCA statute of limitations. The operative time for the running of the statute of limitations is when the patient can reasonably be held to have knowledge of the injury itself, the cause of the injury, and the causative relationship between the injury and the conduct of the medical practitioner. To claim benefit of the discovery rule, a plaintiff must be reasonably diligent in investigating the circumstances surrounding the injury. Assuming without deciding that the injuries alleged here were latent, the discovery rule did not operate to toll the statute of limitations in this case. The plaintiffs were not reasonably diligent in investigating the cause of Wa’Landra’s injuries. The record does not reflect any type of investigation into Wa’Landra’s treatment prior to a chance meeting with a former employee of the hospital, which occurred approximately two years after her death. In addition, the plaintiffs, at the time of Wa’Landra’s death, had enough information such that they knew or reasonably should have known that some negligent conduct had occurred, even if they did not know with certainty that the conduct was negligent as a matter of law. Therefore, their action against the UMMC defendants was time barred. Issue 2: Improper joinder The defendants argue that this action should not have remained in Hinds County after the dismissal of the UMMC defendants, because the UMMC defendants were joined for no other purpose but to fix venue of this action in Hinds County. Where an action is properly brought in a county in which one of the defendants resides, it may be retained notwithstanding dismissal of the resident defendant, provided the action was begun in good faith in the bona fide belief that plaintiff had a cause of action against the resident defendant; the joinder of the local defendant was not fraudulent or frivolous, with the intention of depriving the non-resident defendant of his right to be sued in his own county; and there was a reasonable claim of liability asserted against the resident defendant. Here, in response to the UMMC defendants’ motion for summary judgment, the plaintiffs responded with two affidavits. The first was from a certified Family Nurse Practitioner and Clinical Nurse Specialist. A nurse is not qualified to testify as to the causal nexus between death and an alleged deviation from the standard of care. The second affidavit was from a doctor who made no mention of the UMMC defendants or their alleged negligence. In fact, the logical inference from the voluntary dismissal of the plaintiffs’ claims against the UMMC defendants is that their claims against the UMMC defendants were not capable of withstanding a motion for summary judgment. Thus, they failed to show that there was a reasonable claim of liability asserted against the resident defendant, and the judge erred in concluding that venue was proper in Hinds County after the voluntary dismissal of the UMMC defendants. Issue 3: Community hospital The defendants argue that Wayne General Hospital is a community hospital as defined in the Tort Claims Act and that under section 11-46-13(2), the only proper venue is Wayne County. Where a plaintiff files suit against an public entity protected by the Tort Claims Act other than the state of Mississippi or its employees, venue is proper only in the county or judicial district thereof in which the principal offices of the governing body of the political subdivision are located. Because Wayne General Hospital is a political subdivision of Wayne County, the only proper venue for the plaintiffs’ action against the hospital is Wayne County. Issue 4: Notice of claim Defendants argue that the judge erred in refusing to grant their motion to dismiss, because the plaintiffs failed to timely submit a notice of claim. Because the defendants did not include this assignment of error in their Petition for Interlocutory Appeal, this issue is procedurally barred under M.R.A.P. 5(b).


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