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 5 - CA- 0 0 0 1 2 - S CT LAVON KAY PI TALO

v. GPCH- GP, I

NC. d / b / a GARDEN PARK

M EDICAL CENTER, AND DR. RONALD GRAHAM
D A T E O F JU D G M E N T : 10/ 25/ 2004 T RI AL J UDGE : HON. S T E P HE N B
. S I M P S ON COURT F ROM W HI CH APP EAL ED: HARRI S ON COU NTY CI RCUI T COURT AT T OR NE Y F OR AP P E L L ANT : DAVI D C
. M OR RI S ON A T T O R N E Y S F O R A P P E L L E E S : W IL L IA M E
. W H IT F IE L D , III G E O R G E F
. B L O S S , III M AR Y M AR GA RET A LEXA ND ER NATURE OF THE CAS E: CI VI L - M EDI CAL M ALP RACTI CE D I SPO SI T I O N : A FFIRM E D - 05/ 04/ 2006 M OT I ON F OR RE HE AR I NG F I L E D: M ANDAT E I S S UE D: EN BA NC. W ALLER, J UST I CE, FOR TH E COU RT: ¶1. L avon K ay Pi t al o appea l s fr om a j udgm ent of di sm issal of her m edi cal negl i gence
c o m p lain t ag a in st G a rd e n P a rk M e m o ria l C e n ter a n d D r. R o n a ld G ra h a m f o r f a ilu re to compl yw i t h not i ce pr ovi s i ons pr ovi ded byM i s s . C ode A nn. Sect i on 1 5 -1-36( 15) ( R ev. 2 0 0 3 ). W e a f

f ir m . F ACT S AND P ROCE DURAL HI S TORY ¶2. Pi t al o, a pat i ent of D r . G r aham, w as admi t t ed t o G ar den Par k on O ct ober 1, 2001, for

s houl ders ur gery . T he proc edur e w as unevent ful , and s he w as di s char ged the fol l ow i ng

### 2

m or ni ng. Pi t al o al l eged t hat w i t hi n t w enty - four hour s of bei ng r el eas ed by D r . G r aham, s he

w as rus hed t o t he em er gencyr oom atO cea n Spr i ngs H os pi t al w her e s he w as di agnos ed and t r eat ed fora col l aps ed l ung. Pi t al o’ s condi t i on r equi r ed s ur gi cal i ns er t i on of a c hes t tube, and

s he w as r e- hos pi t al i zed f oral m os ta w eek. ¶3
. O n S ep tem b er 25 , 2 0 0 3 , P it alo fil ed a l aw su it ag ains t D r. G rah am an d G ard en P ark all eg ing n eg li g en ce in the irign o ri n g h er n u m ero u s co m p lai n ts o f c h est p ain a n d their fa il u re t o exami ne herbefor e r el eas i ng her fr om t he hos pi t al
. H eramended compl ai ntw as fi l ed on Ju n e 2 , 2 0 0 4
. T h e re a f

ter , D r. G ra h a m a n d G a rd e n P a rk c o llec tiv e ly re n e w e d th e ir p re v io u sly fi l ed M ot i ons t o D i s m i s s bas ed on t he st atut e of l i m i t at i ons , not i ce of cl ai m , and fa i l ur e of Pi t al o t o fi l e the r equi r ed ce r t i fi cat e w i t h hercompl ai nt pur s uant t o M i s s . C ode A nn. Sect i ons 15- 1- 36 ( Re v . 2 0 0 3 ) a n d 1 1
- 1
- 5 8 ( Re v . 2 0 0 2 )
. A J u d g me n to f Di s mi s s a l was g r a n t e d on O ct ober26, 2004, and fol l ow i ng cons i der at i on of pos t - t r i al m ot i ons , a ti m elyappea l w as f ile d
. A N A L Y S IS W het her i t w as E rror f or t he C i rcui t C ourt t o D i sm iss P it al o’ s C ause of A ct i on f

or F ai l ure t o C om pl y w i t h M i s s . C ode A nn. Sect i on 15- 1- 36? ¶4. O n appea l , Pi t al o ar gues i t w as err or for t he t r i al cour t t o di s m i s s her caus e of ac t i on beca us e s he fa i l ed t o s end a l et t ert o t he def endantas pr ovi ded i n M i s s . C ode A nn. Sect i on 15- 1- 36( 15) ( R ev. 2003)
. M i s s . C ode A nn. Sect i on 15- 1- 36 w as amend ed i n t he s peci al

s es s i on of the M i s s i s s i ppi L egi s l atur e on t or tr eform in 2 0 0 2
. Sect i on 15 w as added a nd beca m e ef

fec t i ve Janua r y 1, 2003. I tr equi r es t hatan ac t i on bas ed on pr ofes s i onal negl i gence

### T h e statute sp ecif ically states: 1 

### No ac ti on base d upo n the heal th careprov ider ' s profess ional negli gence m ay be be gun unl e s s the de fe ndant ha s be e n gi ve n at l e a s t s i xty ( 60) day s ' p ri or writte n n otic e of the inte ntion to begin the action. No partic ular fo rm of no ti ce i s r e qui r e d, but

i t s ha l l not i fy the de fe ndant of the l e ga l ba s i s of the c l a i m and the ty pe of loss sust ai ned, includ ing with spec ific it y the nat ure of the injuri es s uffe r e d. I f the not i c e i s s e rve d wi thi n s i xty ( 60) day s pri or

t o the e xpi r at i on of the a ppl i c abl e s t at

ut e of l i mi t at i ons , the t i m e for the c omm e nc e m e nt of the actio n sh all b e ex ten d ed six ty (6 0 ) d ay s f ro m th e serv ice o f

th e n o tice f

o r said h ealthcare p ro v id ers an d o th ers. T h is sub sectio n sh all n o t b e ap p licab le w ith r e s p e c t t o any d e f

e n d ant w h o s e n ame i s unkn o w n t o th e p l a i nt i f f at th e t i me of fili ng the c om

plai nt and w ho is identi fied ther ei n b y a fic ti ti ou s nam e. Miss . Cod e Ann . § 15 -1-36(15 ) ( Rev. 20 03 ). 3 o f a h e a l t h c a r e p r o v i d e rm a y n o t b e g i n u n l e s s t h e d e f e n d a n th a s b e e n g i v e n a tl e a s t6 0 d a ys pr i orw r i t t en not i ce of

t he i nt ent i on t o begi n t he ac t i on. 1 ¶ 5
. W h e n in ter p r e ti n g a s tatu te th a t is n o t am b ig u o u s, th is C o u rt w ill a p p lyth e p lain

m e a n in g o f

th e s ta tu te
. Claypool v. Mladineo , 7 2 4 S o . 2 d 3 7 3 , 3 8 2 (M iss. 1 9 9 8 ). In

c o n stru in g a sta tu te, th e C o u rt m u st s e e k th e in ten tio n o f th e L e g isla tu re , an d k n o w in g it,

m u s t a d o p t th a t in te rp re ta tio n w h ic h w ill m e e t th e re a l m e a n in g o f th e L e g is la tu re . Evans

v. B oyle Fl

ying Serv i ce, I

nc. , 680 So. 2d 821, 825 ( M i s s . 1996)
. W hen dr aft i ng M i s s . C ode A n n . S e c tio n 1 5 -1 -3 6 (1 5 ), th e L e g isla tu re d id n o t in c o rp o ra te a n y g iv e n e x c e p tio n s to th is

rul e w hi ch w oul d al l evi at e the pr er equi s i t e condi t i on of pr i orw r i t t en not i ce. Si m pl ys t at ed,

“ s h a ll” is m a n d a to ry, w h ile “ m a y ” is d is c re tio n a ry. Fra n k lin v . Fra n k lin , 858 So. 2d 110, 114 ( M i s s . 2 0 0 3 )
. Pi t a l o ’ s f a i l u r e t o s e n d n o t i c e o f h e ri n t e n tt o s u e c l e a r l yv i o l a t e s t he

m a n d a to ry in s tru c tio n s c o n c e rn in g n o tic e in M is s . C o d e A n n . S e c tio n 1 2 -1 -3 6 (1 5 ).

### 4

¶6. Pi t al o cont ends t hat even t hough s he fai l ed t o pr ovi de not i ce of her i nt ent t o s ue, t he ci r cui tcour t ’ s di s m i s s al of heract i on vi ol at es ourhol di ng i n Ja c ks on v. Ci t y of W i gg ins , 760 S o . 2 d 6 9 4 ( M i s s . 2 0 0 0 )
. P i t a l o ’ s c l a i m i s c l e a r l yd i s t i n g u i s h a b l e f r o m J acks on as t he pr es ent ca se conc erns m edi cal negl i gence act i ons underM i s s . C ode A nn. Sect i on 15- 1- 36 (R e v . 2 0 0 3 ) - n o t th e M iss iss ip p i T o rt C laim s A c t, an d P italo d id n o t at a n ytim e a ttem p t to
s end a not i ce of

i nt entt o s ue t o D r . G r aham or G ar den Par k, as had bee n done i n Jacks on . Pi t al o’ s ar gum ent s do not excus e t he abse nce of not i ce of an i nt ent t o s ue bei ng s ent t o t he defe ndant s i n t he pr es entcas e. CO NC L US I ON ¶7. P italo ’s f

a ilu re t o send t o d efen dan t s a noti ce of i ntentt o sue is an i nex cusa b le devi at i on fr om t he L egi s l atur e’ s r equi r ement s for pr oces s and not i ce unde rM i s s . C ode A nn. S e c t i o n 1 5
- 1
- 3 6 ( 1 5 ) , a n d s u c h f a i l u r e wa r r a n t s d i s mi s s a l o f h e rc l a i m. Ac c o r d i n g l y , we
a f f ir m th e ju d g m e n t o f

th e c ir c u it c o u rt
. ¶8. AF F I RM ED . S M I T H , C .J ., C O B B , P .J ., C A R L S O N , D I C K I N S O N A N D R A N D O L P H , J J ., CONCUR. EA S LE Y AND GRA VE S , J J . , CONCUR I N RE S UL T ONL Y W I THOUT S E P AR AT E W RI T T E N O P I NI ON . DI AZ , J . , NO T P AR T I CI P AT I NG .