Lee v. Mem'l Hosp. at Gulfport
| Docket Number: | 2007-CA-01762-SCT Linked Case(s): 2007-CA-01762-SCT |
|
| Supreme Court: | Opinion Link Opinion Date: 12-11-2008 Opinion Author: Lamar, J. Holding: Reversed and Remanded |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Medical malpractice - Tort Claims Act - Notice of claim - Section 11-46-11 - Substantial compliance - Filing of complaint Judge(s) Concurring: Smith, C.J., Waller and Diaz, P.JJ., Easley, Graves and Randolph, JJ. Dissenting Author : Dickinson, J., with separate written opinion. Dissent Joined By : Carlson, J. Procedural History: Summary Judgment Nature of the Case: CIVIL - MEDICAL MALPRACTICE |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 09-17-2007 Appealed from: Harrison County Circuit Court Judge: Lisa P. Dodson Disposition: The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendant. Case Number: A2401-2006-394 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | Brief(s) Available: | ||
| Appellant: | Ruby Lee |
Robert W. Smith |
|
|
| Appellee: | Memorial Hospital at Gulfport | Patricia K. Simpson; FREDRICK B. FEENEY, III | ||
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 - Tort Claims Act - Notice of claim - Section 11-46-11 - Substantial compliance - Filing of complaint |
| Summary of the Facts: | Ruby Lee was hospitalized at Memorial Hospital at Gulfport to undergo a coronary artery bypass graft with closure of the sternum. After the procedure, various MHG employees provided Lee with post-operative care. Lee’s physician discovered that Lee had “multiple sternum fractures, devitalized cartilage, and the Robicsek wire reinforcement had completely pulled through the left sternum.” Prior to filing a complaint, Lee sent Gary Marchand, chief executive officer of MHG, notice of her claim. Marchand denied Lee’s claim by letter. Lee then filed a complaint alleging negligence of MHG through the theory of res ipsa loquitur. MHG moved for summary judgment which the court granted. Lee appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Pursuant to section 11-46-11, a notice of claim must be in writing and delivered in person or by registered or certified mail. Substantial compliance with the notice requirements of section 11-46-11(2) is required. Lee argues the trial judge applied strict compliance to the notice of claim. The trial judge explicitly stated that Lee’s notice of claim failed to provide information for all seven categories required by section 11-11-46(2). Based on the notice of claim, Lee substantially complied with the notice requirements of section 11-46-11(2). First, Lee listed the circumstances which brought about the injury. The circumstances included her hospitalization at MHG for an operation; post-operative care by MHG personnel; and the subsequent discovery of various injuries. Lee also provided the extent of her injuries. In light of her res ipsa loquitur claim, Lee provided sufficient dates of her injury when she informed MHG she had been hospitalized from July 25, 2005, to August 23, 2005, and her injuries were discovered on August 8, 2005. Lee set forth in her complaint that she was unconscious a majority of her time at MHG and was unable to verify who cared for her or when the injury occurred. If the identity of these persons is not known, obviously Lee was not required to provide their names. Lee clearly provided the place of her injury. Lee also stated her medical special damages exceeded $100,000, which substantially complies with the statutory requirement concerning notice of money damages sought. Last, the notice of claim contained the letterhead of Lee’s attorney, Lee’s name, and Lee’s date of birth. This is in substantial compliance with the statutory requirements. While there may be some cases in which the claimant’s residence is a critical issue, clearly it was not in this case. MHG argues that Lee failed to comply with section 11-46-11(1) when she filed her complaint less than ninety days after providing notice of claim. While section 11-46-11(1) provides a plaintiff must wait ninety days to file a complaint after filing a notice of claim, this section must be read in conjunction with section 11-46-11(3). Based on the plain language of section 11-46-11(3), Lee could file a complaint once she received notice of denial of the claim. Lee received a notice of denial of claim and then proceeded to file her complaint. Therefore, she committed no error by filing a complaint after receiving notice of denial of claim, but prior to ninety days. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
