I N T H E SUPR EM E C O UR T O F M I SS I SS I PPI NO. 2 0 0 9 - CA- 0 0 1 5 8 - S CT S CO T T P RI NGL E, ASNE

XT FR I EN D A ND L E G A L G U A R D I A N O F S. W . P R I N GL E, A M I NOR
v. JAM ES J. KR AM

ER , M . D . AN D KR AM

H EA RST BEH AVIOR AL I

NSTI TUTE, LLC D A T E O F JU D G M E N T : 12/ 29/ 2008 T RI AL J UDGE : HON. S AM AC S
. RI CH AR DS ON COURT F ROM W HI CH APP EAL ED: RANKI N COUN TY CI RCUI T COURT AT T OR NE YS F OR AP P E L L ANT : DE NNI S L . HOR N S HI RL E Y P AYNE AT T OR NE YS F OR AP P E L L E E S : RO BE RT S
. ADDI S ON J OH N A LFRED W AI TS NA TUR E OF THE C ASE: CI VI L - W RO NG FUL D EATH D I SPO SI T I O N : R E V E R SE D A N D R E M A N D E D - 07/ 29/ 2010 M OT I ON F OR RE HE AR I NG F I L E D: M ANDAT E I S S UE D:
B E F O R E C A R L SO N , P . J. , R A N D O L P H A N D K I T C H E N S, JJ. KI TCHEN S , J UST I CE, FOR TH E COU RT: ¶1. A f

t erhi s f i r s tw rongful death, m edical neg l i gen ce sui tw as di sm i ssed w i thout pr ej udi ce f

orf ai l ur e t o c om pl y w i th the s t atut ory pr es ui tnot i ce r equi r ement s of M i s s i s s i ppi C o d e S e c tio n 1 5 -1-3 6 (15 ) (R ev . 2 0 0 3 ), S co ttP ri n g le, o n b eh alf of h is da u g h ter, fi led th is act i on agai ns tB r entw ood B ehavi or al H eal thcar e, L L C , J ames J . K r amer , M . D . , and K ra m h e a rst B e h a v io ra l In stitu te, L L C . T h e tria l co u rt d ism iss e d th e su b se q u e n t law su it w ith pr ej udi ce, concl udi ng thatthe s t atut e of l i m i t at i ons had run. B ased on our r ece ntdeci s i on

### 2

i n A r ceo v. Tolli ver( “T olli ver II ”) , 19 So. 3d 67 ( M i s s . 2009) , i f a medi cal m al pr act i ce
caus e of act i on i s abat ed f

orf ai l ur e t o gi ve pr es ui tnot i ce, the gene r al s avi ng s t atut e of M issi ssipp i C o d e S ec ti o n 1 5 -1-6 9 (R ev . 2 0 0 3 ) pe rm it s the p lai n ti ff t o refi le w ith in on e y ea r, abs enta s how i ng of

bad f ai th i n f i l i ng the f

i r s tact i on. B eca use Pr i ngl e f i l ed thi s act i on
w i thin one y ear of t he date of the m and at e aff i rm i ng dis m i ssal of the fi rs tcase, and becau se
w e d o notf

i nd thatPr i ngl e ac t ed i n bad f ai th w hen he f

i l ed the f i r s tact i on, the s t atut e of lim ita tio n s d o e s n o t b a r h is p re s e n t c la im s . P rocedu ralHistory ¶2. L i s a Pr i ngl e di ed on February 28, 2003, w hi l e s he w as a pat i ent at t he B r entw ood B ehavi or al H eal thcar e f aci l i ty i n R anki n C ounty, M i s s i s s i ppi
. She w as r ece i vi ng tr eatm ent f r om J ames J . K r amer , M . D . , w ho w as doi ng bus i nes s as K ram hears tB ehavi or al I ns t i tut e, L L C , d o m icile d in M a d iso n C o u n ty , M iss iss ip p i. L isa an d S c o tt P rin g le h a d re c e n tly d iv o rc e d , a n d s h e w a s s u rv iv e d b y th e ird a u g h te r, S .W . ¶3. O n A ugus t31, 2004, ScottPr i ngl e, on behal f of S. W . , f i l ed a w r ongf

ul death, m edi cal
n e g lig e n c e a c tio n a g a in st B re n tw o o d , D r. K ra m e r, an d K ra m h e a rst in th e M a d iso n C o u n ty C i r cui tC our t . T hats ame day, Pr i ngl e al s o m ai l ed a noti ce-of
- cl ai m l ett eras r equi r ed by M iss iss ip p i C o d e S e c tio n 1 5 -1 -3 6 (1 5 ) (R e v . 2 0 0 3 ). T h e p a rties d o n o t d isp u te th a t th is l aw sui tw as f

i l ed w i thin the t w o-year st atute of l i m i t at i on s f

or m edical -m al pract i ce act i on s. M iss. C o d e A n n . § 1 5 -1-3 6 (1) (R ev . 2 0 0 3 ). ¶4
. T h e d efe n d an ts resp o n d ed w ith a m o ti o n t o dism iss for fa ilu re to p ro v id e tim e ly pr es ui tnot i ce. W hi l e thatm oti on w as pendi ng, Pr i ngl e f i l ed a s econd c om pl ai nti n t he

### 3

R a n k in C o u n ty C irc u it C o u rt. T h a t co m p lain t w a s s u b sta n tiv e ly id e n tica l to th e o n e P rin g le had f i l ed i n M adi s on C ount y. T he tr i al j udge gr ant ed the def endant s ’ m ot i on t o di s m i s s the M adi s on Coun ty a c t i on a nd d i s mi s s e d the f i r s tc ompl a i ntwi tho utp r e j ud i c e o n A ug us t3, 2005. A l though the j udge f ound thatthe not i ce of i nt ent“ cont ai n[ ed] t he inf or m at i on
nece s s ary t o pl ace the def endant s on not i ce of

a pot ent i al l aw s ui t , ” i tw as nots ents i xty days pr i ort o the s ui t ’ s bei ng f i l ed and, ther ef

or e, vi ol at ed M i s s i s s i ppi C ode Sect i on 15- 1- 36( 15) (R e v . 2 0 0 3 ). ¶5. O n A ugus t8, 2005, P r i ngl e f i l ed a not i ce of

appeal
. T he nextday, on A ugus t9, 2005, Pr i ngl e f i l ed a thi r d compl ai nti n the R anki n C ounty C i r cui tC our tw hi ch, s ubs t ant i vel y, w as i dent i cal t o t he f

i r s tand sec ond com pl ai nt s . T he def endant s agai n r es ponded w i th m ot i ons t o di s m i s s the s econd a nd thi r d compl ai nt s on the gr ound s t hat Pri ngl e had notabandone d th e M a d iso n C o u n ty law su it an d th a t th e M a d iso n C o u n ty C irc u it C o u rt h a d p rio rity ju risd ictio n . W h ile th e se m o tio n s to d ism iss w e re p e n d in g in th e R a n k in C o u n ty C irc u it C our t , thi s C our ti s s ued a p e rc u r i a m af f i r m ance of the pendi ng appea l on February 8, 2007. W i tho ut a w ri t t en o pini on , this C ou rtaff i rm ed the di sm i ssal w i tho ut pr ej ud ice o f the fi rs t compl ai ntf

i l ed i n M adi s on C ount y. T he mandat e i s s ued on M ar ch 1, 2007. O n J anuary 10, 2 0 0 8 , th e R a n k in C o u n ty C irc u it C o u rt su m m a rily d ism iss e d th e se c o n d a n d th ird c o m p lain ts
w i thoutpr ej udi ce. ¶6. O n February 7, 2008, 343 day s aft er t his C ou rtis sued i t s m andat e af f i r m i ng the di s m i s s a l o f

the f i r s tc ompl a i nt , Pr i ng l e f i l e d a f ou r th a nd f

i na l c ompl a i nt , a ga i n w i t h the R anki n C ounty C i r cui tC our t . T hi s f our th compl ai nti s now bef or e thi s C our t . T he

### On March 26, 2010, Brentwood wa s di sm is se d from t he a ppea l f oll owing a 1 

### settlement ag reement. 4 def endant s f i l ed mot i ons t o di s m i s s , ar gui ng thatthe tw o- years t atut e of l i m i t at i ons had run. Pr i ngl e r es ponded thatthe st at ute of l i m i t at i ons had notrun beca us e the gene r al s avi ng
s t atut e and the mi nors avi ng s t atut e t ol l ed the runni ng of the l i m i t at i ons p er i od. T he tr i al j ud ge, w ho had presi ded ov er all the proceedings i n b oth R ank i n an d M adis on C ou nti es, grant ed the defenda nts ’ m oti on t o d i sm i ss. ¶7. Pr i ngl e t i m el y appea l ed and r eques t s thatthe ca s e be r emanded and tr ans f err ed t o the C ir cu itC o u rto f M ad ison C o u n ty sh o u ld this C o u rtrule in h is f av o r. 1 I. T he G eneral Saving Stat ute is app l i cab l e un der T oll i ver II
. ¶8
. B e fo re b rie fi n g i n th e instan t ca se w as co m p let e, this C o u rti ssu ed its o p in io n in T oll i ver II, 19 So. 3d 67, hol di ng thatthe gene r al s avi ng s t atut e, f ound atM i s s i s s i ppi C ode S ec ti o n 1 5 -1-6 9 , ap p li es to toll the s tatu te of li m it ati o n s w h en a c ase is d ism iss e d fo r a pl ai nt i f f’ s f ai l ur e t o pr ovi de pr es ui tnot i ce i n a m edic al m al pr act i ce a ct i on. I n thatcas e, M yr t i s T ol l i ver ’ s daught erdi ed on J ul y 13, 2002. T ol l i verf i l ed a w r ongf

ul death act i on, fo u n d e d o n m e d ic a l n e g lig e n c e , o n Ju n e 4 , 2 0 0 4 , w ith o u t p ro v id in g th e s ta tu to ry n o tic e . I d. 19 S o. 3d at69. Fol l ow i ng t he t r i al cour t ’ s deni al of a m ot i on t o di s m i s s , t hi s C our tgr ant ed th e d e fe n d a n ts ’ m o tio n fo r i n te rl o c u to ry a p p e a l. I d. ( ci t i ng A r ceo v. T

ol li ver( “T ol li verI ”) , 949 So. 2d 691 ( M i s s . 2009) )
. I n thatf i r s tappea l , w e r ever s ed the tr i al courtand r ender ed j udgm enti n f

avorof the def endant s , di s m i s s i ng Tol l i ver ’ s c om pl ai ntw i thoutpr ej udi ce f or

### If

in any ac ti on, duly comme nce d wi thin the timeal lowe d, the writ sha llbe a bat ed, 2 

### or the a ction ot

her wis e avoide d or de fe at ed, by thedeath of any party the re to, or f

or any matter of for

m, or i f, af

te r ve rdi ct

for theplaintif

f, thejudgm ent

sha llbe arr es te d, or

if a judgment for theplaintif f s hal l bere ver se d on appe al , the pl ainti ff may comme ncea ne w ac ti on for

thesameca

use , at any timewithin oneyear a ft er the ab atement or othe r det er mination of

theoriginalsuit , or af

te r re ver sa l of thejudgme nt t her ein, and his exe cut or or a dminis trat or m ay, in c as e of theplaintif

f' s de ath, comme ncesuch new a ction, within t he said oneyear. Mis s. Code Ann. § 15-1- 69 (Re v. 2003)
. 5 fa ilu re to p ro v id e p re s u it n o tic e . T oll i ver I, 94 9 S o. 2d at 697 -98. T he m and at e on the fi rs t
a p p e a l is s u e d o n M a rc h 1 5 , 2 0 0 7 . T oll i ver II, 1 9 S o . 3 d a t 7 0
. ¶ 9
. T o lliv e r f

ile d a n o th e r c o m p la in t o n M a y 9 , 2 0 0 7 . I d. A l though she s enta l ett ert o the def endant s on February 28, 2007, i nf or m i ng t hem of

heri nt entt o s ue, the tr i al courtf ound thatt he l ett erdi d notsubs t ant i al l y com pl y w i th the r equi r ement s of M i s s i s s i ppi C ode Sect i on 1 5 -1 -3 6 (1 5 ). I

d . A c c o rd in g ly , th e tr ia l c o u rt d is m is s e d th e a c tio n w it h o u t p re ju d ic e . I

d. O n a p p e a l, th is C o u rt fo u n d th a t th e trial c o u rt p ro p e rly d ism iss e d th e a c tio n fo r fa ilu re to
c o m p ly w ith th e s ta tu to ry n o tic e re q u ir e m e n t. I d. T he ques t i on then b ecame w hethert he d ism iss a l sh o u ld h a v e b e e n w ith p re ju d ice b e c a u se , ac c o rd in g to th e d e fe n d a n ts, th e sta tu te of l i m i t at i on s had run by the t i m e T oll i ver f i l ed her s econ d co m plai nt. W e held that, becau se d i s mi s s a l f

o rf a i l u r e t o p r o v i d e t h e s t a tu t o ry n o t i c e wa s a d i s mi s s a l b a s e d o n a ma t t e ro f f o r m, the gener al s avi ng s t atut e w oul d appl y t o t ol l the s t atut e of l i m i t at i ons f

orone yea rf

r om the d a te o f t h is C o u rt ’s m a n d a te . I d. at 7 4 -75 (ap p lying M iss. C o d e A n n . § 1 5 -1-6 9 ). 2 N ev erthe less, this C o u rtfo u n d tha t dism issal w ith p rejud ice w as p rop er b ec au se th e p lai n ti ff
c o u ld u s e th e s a v in g s ta tu te to to ll th e s ta tu te o f l im ita tio n s b u t o n c e . I d. a t76. B eca us e the

### Th e so - c a l l e d “ t or t re f or m ” le gi s l at i onbe c am e e f

f e c t i veonSept e mbe r

1, 20 04 , two 3 

### day s after Prin gle filedhis first co mplaint. See, e .g. , Mi ss . CodeAnn. § 11- 1-60( 2)( a) (Supp. 20 09 ) (cappin g no neco no mic damages in medical malpractice cases at $50 0,0 00 ); M iss. Code Ann. § 11-11- 3(3) (Re v. 2004) (r equiring me dic alma lprac ti ceac ti ons t o be brought in t he c ounty whe retheal le ged wrongfulconduc t oc cur re d). 6 pl ai nt i f f’ s s econd a ct i on a l s o w as di s m i s s ed f orf ai l ur e t o pr ovi de not i ce, the gene r al s avi ng
s ta tu te d id n o t a p p ly to th is s e c o n d s u it. I d. ¶10. A ppl yi ng T

oll i ver II t o Pr i ngl e’ s c as e, the gene r al s avi ng s t atut e f ound at M i s s i s s i ppi C o d e S e c tio n 1 5 -1 -6 9 g a v e P rin g le o n e y e a r fro m th e d a te o f th is C o u rt’s m a n d a te to
com m ence a no ther act i on . T he m and at e i ssued on M arch 1, 20 07 , and P ri ng l e fi l ed h i s l ast compl ai nti n t he R anki n C ount y C i r cui tC our tw i thi n the yea r , on February 7, 2008. G i ven thatl es s than a ye arhad pas s ed, i n keepi ng w i t h t his C our t ’ s hol di ng i n T oll i ver II, the
s t atut e of l i m i t at i ons had notrun by the t i m e Pr i ngl e f i l ed thi s a ct i on. U nl i ke T oll i ver II, t he def endant s do notar gue thatther e w as i ns uf f i ci entpr es ui tnot i ce. T o the contr ary, the tr i al j udge f ound thatthe A ugus t30, 2004, not i ce “ cont ai n[ ed] the i nf or m at i on neces s ary t o pl ace the D ef endant s on not i ce of

a pot ent i al l aw s ui t . ” ¶11
. T he def

end ants recogn i ze t his C ou rt ’s ho l ding i n T oll iver II , bu tatt em pt t o dis t i ng uis h the ca s e, ar guing thatP ri ngl e may notbenef i tf r om the gene r al s avi ng s t atut e bec aus e he
a c ted in b a d fa ith w h e n filing th e first la w su it. A c c o rd in g to th e d e fe n d a n ts, fa ili n g to pr ovi de s i xty days ’ not i ce “ w as no acc i dentori nnocentm i s t ake, buta cons ci ous , t act i cal deci si on b y t he P l ai nt i f f t o avoi d t or tr ef

or m . ” A s w e r ecogni zed i n T oll i ver II, “[ i ] n t he 3
a b s e n c e o f g o o d fa ith in in itia tin g a n a c tio n , th e sa v in g sta tu te o ff e rs n o sh e lte r to a litig a n t.”

### 7

T oll i ver II, 19 So. 3d at75 n. 9 ( ci t i ng H aw kins v. S cottis h U

ni on and N

at ’l Ins . Co. , 110 M iss . 2 3 , 6 9 S o . 7 1 0 (1 9 1 5 ); Mars hall v. K an. Cit y S. R y. Co. , 7 S o . 3 d 2 1 0 , 2 14 (M i ss. 2 0 0 9 ))
. ¶ 1 2
. P r i n g l e c o u n t e r s th a th e wa s a c t i n g i n g o o d f a i th , b e c a u s e th e l a w i n e f f e c ta tth e t i me he f i l ed hi s f i r s tact i on di d notr equi r e di s m i s s al of a s ui tfor f

ai l ur e t o gi ve pr es ui tnot i ce. I ns t ead, thi s C ou r thad hel d thatthe r emedy f orf ai l ur e t o gi ve the s t atut ory not i ce w as f or th e d e fe n d a n t to re q u e st a sta y , an d , if th e d e fe n d a n t fa iled to re q u e st a sta y , th e iss u e w o u ld b e d e e m e d to h a v e b e e n w a iv e d
. S e e , e .g ., W ill ia m s v. Cla

y Co u n ty , 861 So. 2d 953, 977 (M is s . 2 0 0 3 ), over r ul ed by U . of Mis s . Me d. Ctr. v. Eas te r ling , 92 8 S o. 2d 81 5, 82 0 (M i ss. 2 0 0 6 ). ¶13. T her e i s l i t t l e cas e l aw fr om t hi s C our ti nt erpr et i ng w hatcons t i tut es bad f ai th i n f i l i ng
an act i on f

orpurpos es of

the gene r al s avi ng s t atut e. L ong ago, i n H awkins , t hi s C our tnot ed
an exa m pl e of

bad f ai th: C ase s m igh t be su p p o sed , p erh ap s, w h ere the w an t of j u ri sd ict ion in the co u rt w as so cl ear tha tthe b r i ng i ng o f a s ui tthe r e i n w ou l d s ho w s uch gross negl igence and i ndi

f f er ence as t o cutthe party of f f rom the be nef

i tof the s avi ng s t atut e, as if

an ac t i on of

ej ectm ents houl d be br oughti n a courtof admi r al ty, ora bi l l i n equi ty s houl d be f i l ed bef or e a j us t i ce of

the pea ce. H awkins , 69 So. a t712 ( M i s s . 1915) ( emphasi s added) ( quot i ng Sm ith v. McN eal , 10 9 U. S. 4 2 6 , 3 S
. C t. 3 1 9 , 2 7 L . E d
. 9 8 6 (18 8 3 )). ¶ 1 4
. G iv e n th e la w in e ff e c t a t th e tim e P rin g le filed h is first a c tio n , h e h a d n o re a so n to expec tthathi s cas e w oul d be di s m i s s ed f orf ai l i ng t o compl y s tr i ct l y w i th the m andat es of M i s s i s s i ppi C ode Sect i on 15- 1- 36( 15)
. T her ef or e, i tcannotbe sa i d t hatPr i ngl e ac t ed i n bad

### 8

f ai th w hen he i ni t i at ed the f i r s tl aw s ui t , and Pr i ngl e coul d a vai l hi m s el f of the gener al s avi ng
s ta tu te o f M is s is s ip p i C o d e S e c tio n 1 5 -1 -6 9
. II . V e n u e is p r o

p e rin R a n k in C o u n ty . ¶ 1 5 . P rin g le a sk s th a t th is c a se b e re m a n d e d a n d tra n sfe rre d to th e M a d iso n C o u n ty C irc u it C ou rt , w here i tori ginal l y w as f i l ed. M adis on C ou nty w as an ap propri at e ven ue o n A ug ust 30, 2004, buton and af

t erSept ember1, 2004, m edi cal m al pr act i ce ac t i ons w er e r equi r ed by the l egi s l atur e t o be f

i l ed i n the county w her e the al l eged ne gl i gence occurr ed. M i s s . C ode A nn . §1 1-11-3(3) ( R ev. 20 04 ). B ecause the o ri ginal sui thas bee n d i sm i ssed, and becau se th is a c tio n w a s filed o n F e b ru a ry 7 , 2 0 0 8 , a fte r th e v e n u e sta tu te w a s a m e n d e d , R a n k in C ounty i s the appr opr i at e venue . C oncl us i on ¶1 6. B eca us e of

thi s Court ’ s r e c e ntd e c i s i on i n T olli ver II, the trial ju d g e e rre d in dis m i ssi ng P ri ng l e’s com plai nt based o n the running of t he st atute of l i m i t at i on s. B ecause P rin g le d id n o t a c t in b a d fa ith w h e n h e filed h is firs t law su it, th e g e n e ra l sa v in g sta tu te p e rm itt e d h im to re file w ith in a y e a r. T h u s, th e ju d g m e n t i s r e v e rs e d , an d th e c a se is
rem and ed to the R ank i n C ou nty C i rcui tC ou rtforfur ther proceedings. ¶ 1 7 . RE VE RS ED AND RE M ANDE D. W AL LE R, C. J . , CARL S ON AND GRAVES , P . J J . , RANDOL P H, LA M AR, CH ANDL ER , AND PI ER CE J J . , CONCUR. DI CK I NS ON , J . , NO T P AR T I CI P AT I NG .