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 7 - CT - 0 0 4 6 5 - S CT
T HE ES T AT E O F E UL A MAE FE DR ICK BY AN D T H R O U GH S U E S Y K ES , A D M IN IST RA T R IX v. Q UOR U M H E A L T H R ES O U R C ES , I N C ., NES HOBA CO UNT Y A ND MARV I N P AG E ON W RI T OF CE RT I ORARI D A T E O F JU D G M E N T : 02/ 06/ 2007 TRI AL J UD GE: HO N. VER NO N R
. CO TTEN COURT F ROM W HI CH APP EAL ED: NES HOBA COU NTY CI RCUI T COURT A T T O R N E Y F O R A P P E L L A N T : F
. M
. T U R N E R , III 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 W . M c K IN L E Y , J R
. M AR K P
. CA RA W AY CO RY L OUI S RA DI CI ONI 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/ 22/ 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:
EN BA NC. KI TCHEN S , J UST I CE, FOR TH E COU RT: ¶1. E ul a M ae Fedr i ck di ed w hil e she w as a resi den to f the N es hoba C ounty N ur s i ng H om e. M s . Fedr i ck’ s es t at e f i l ed a w r ongf

ul
- death act i on underM i s s i s s i ppi C ode Sect i on 11- 7- 13 (R ev. 2 00 4) agai ns tN es hoba C ounty and Q uorum H eal th R es our ces , I nc. , and ot her s . The County a nd Q uo rum s uc c e s s f ul l y move d f

ors umm a ry j ud gmen t , a r gu i ng t hatT he compl ai ntal s o named M arvi n Page, the nur s i ng hom e l i cens ee, var i ous J ohn 1 D oes , and otherunnamed ent i t i es . O n appea l , the es t at e di d notcont es tthe di s m i s s al of Page. 

### 2 the M i s s i s s i ppi T ortCl ai m s A ct ’ s ( M T C A ’ s ) one- years t atut e of l i m i t at i ons had run. T he 1 C o u rt o f A p p e a ls a ffirm e d th e g ra n t o f su m m a ry ju d g m e n t as to th e e sta te’ s “ su rv iv a l” cl ai m s , butr ever s ed the tr i al cour t ’ s gra ntof s um m ary j udgm entas t o the es t at e’ s “w r ongf ul death” cl ai m s i n acc or dance w i th thi s C ourt ’ s deci s i on i n Caves v. Y arbr ough , 991 So. 2d 1 4 2 (M is s . 2 0 0 8 ). E s tate of Fedr ick v. Q uorum Heal th R es. , I nc. , 20 09 W L 48 07 31 0 (M i ss. C t. A p p . D ec . 15 , 20 0 9 ). F ind ing th at th e tr ial co u rterred in n o t app lying the c o n ti n u ing -t o rt doctr i ne t o the es t at e’ s cl ai m s t hatthe def endant s di d notpr ovi de M s . Fedr i ck pr oper
n u tr it ion , w e re v erse the ju d g m en t of th e C o u rto f A p p e a ls, rev erse the g ran t of su m m ary j ud gm ent, and rem and the case to the N eshob a C ou nty C i rcui tC ou rtforfurther proceedings. I
. The I s s ue on Revi ew ¶2
. A s a p reli m inary m att er, p u rsua n t to M issi ssipp i R u le o f A p p ell ate P roc ed u re 1 7 (h),
w e li m itou r rev iew o f th is case to the n arro w issue o f w h ethe r th e d efe n d an ts’ all eg ed fail u re t o ens ur e thatM s . Fedr i ck r ece i ved pr opernutr i t i on c ons t i tut ed a c ont i nui ng t orts uf f i ci ent t o t ol l the s t atut e of

l i m i t at i ons a s t o the “s urvi val ” cl ai m s . W e do notaddr es s w hetherthe tr ia l c o u rte rr e d in fi n d in g th a t Q u o ru m w a s e n title d to M T C A im m u n ity
. ¶3. W e al s o not e that , i n i t s s uppl ement al br i ef f ol l ow i ng ourgr antof

the es t at e’ s pet i t i on f o rwr i to f

c e rt i o r a r i , t h e e s t a t e a l l e g e d th a tQu o ru m h a d wa i v e d a n y r i g h tt o a s s e rtM TCA im m u n ity b y fa ili n g to p lea d th is a ffirm a tiv e d e fe n se in its a n sw e r. Q u o ru m re sp o n d e d w ith

### 3

a mot i on t o s tr i ke thi s port i on of the es t at e’ s s uppl ement al br i ef , a r gui ng thatthe es t at e w as
r ai s i ng thi s i s s ue f

orthe f i r s tt i m e. I n a s i ngl e-

j us t i ce or der , this is sue w as pas s ed f or
cons i der at i on w i th the mer i t s of the appe al
. B ecaus e w e ar e l i m i t i ng ourr evi ew t o the i s s ue sta ted a b o v e , Q u o ru m ’s m o tio n to strik e c e rta in p a g e s o f th e e sta te’ s s u p p lem e n tal b rie f is d is m is s e d a s m o o t. I I
. C ont i nui ng Tort

D octr i ne ¶4. M s . Fedr i ck w as a r es i dent of the N es hoba C ounty N ur s i ng H om e unt i l her death on O ct ober4, 1999. H eres t at e pr ovi ded N es hoba C ounty a not i ce- of
- cl ai m l ett eron A ugus t17, 2000, r oughl y t en mont hs af t erthe dat e of

herdeath. N es hoba C ounty and Q uorum f i l ed a
m ot i on f ors um m ary j udgm enta r gui ng that , be caus e the es t at e f ai l ed t o a l l ege any act s of negl i gence w hi ch had occurr ed w i thi n one ye arof A ugus t17, 2000, the s t atut e of l i m i t at i ons fou n d in M issi ssipp i C o d e S ec ti o n 1 1 -46 -11 (3) (R ev . 2 0 0 2 ) ha d run , b arring the e stat e’s
c la im s . ¶ 5
. T h e e sta te re sp o n d e d to th e m o tio n fo r su m m a ry ju d g m e n t w ith a d e taile d a ffid a v it f r om D r . M i chae l B al di nger . D r . B al di ngeropi ned thatthe defend ant s f ai l ed t o pr ovi de
s uf f i c i e ntn utr i t i on t o M s . Fe dr i c k, whi c h l e d t o s i gn i f i c a ntwei gh tl os s , mal nu tr i t i on, and,
u lti m a tely , h e r d e a th . S p e c ifica lly , D r. B a ld in g e r o p in e d th a t th e d e fe n d a n ts “ fa iled to pr ovi de t i m el y r es t or at i ve ther apy oras s i s t i ve devi ces w hen M s. F edri ck’ s abi l i ty t o f eed h erse lf b ec am e c o m p rom ised ” a n d “fa il ed to as sess the s u ffi cien cy o f M s. F ed ri ck ’s dietary i nt ake a nd t ake s t eps t o s eek a ddi t i on al nutr i t i on ther apy. ” D r . B al di ngergave adet ai l ed

### 4

analysi s of def

i ci encies found i n M s. F edri ck’s m edical r ecords, bu tno t ed thatthese d e fi c ie n c ie s w e re n o t “ a ll- in c lu s iv e .” ¶6
. D r . B al di nger ’ s a f f i da vi ts t a t e d tha tM s . Fe dr i c k w as on a “r es t or at i ve f eedi ng pr ogr am” ato ne t i m e, butw as r emoved f r om the pr ogr am som e t i m e ar ound J une 1999. D e sp ite in d ica tio n s th a t M s. F e d ric k w a s n o t rec e iv in g p ro p e r n u triti o n w ith o u t th e b e n e fit
o f th a t p ro g ra m , the d e fe n d a n ts d id n o t p lac e h e r b a c k o n th e fe e d in g p ro g ra m u n til Sept ember17, 1999. D r . Bal di ngeropi ned that“[ h] ad herneed f oraddi t i onal as s i s t ance been recogn i zed in a t i m el y m ann er, m on ths earl i er than itw as, i ti s l i kely that [ M s. F edri ck’s]
w e ig h t lo s s c o u ld h a v e b e e n p re v e n te d , th u s e x te n d in g h e r l if e .” ¶7. T he C ourtof

A ppeal s f

ocus ed on the w or ds “mont hs ear l i er ” and de t erm i ned that any
n eg li g en ce o n b eh alf of the d efe n d an ts ha d o cc u rred b efo re A u g u st 17 , 1 9 9 9 , o n e y ea r be fore th e e s ta te p ro v id e d its n o tic e o f c la im
. Fedr ick , 20 09 W L 48 07 31 0 at *4. In other w ords, the C ourtof

A ppeal s hel d thatthe cont i nui ng- t ortdoc tr i ne di d notappl y t o t ol l the s t atut e of l i m i t at i ons , i s ol at i ng the al l eged t ort i ous om i s s i ons t o the dat e the nur s i ng hom e s houl d have
r eal i zed thatM s . Fedr i ck nee ded as s i s t ance f eedi ng her s el f

. Fol l ow i ng thi s C ourt ’ s di r ect i ve i n Caves , the C ourtof

A ppeal s hel d t hat“w hi l e the cl ai m s M s . F edr i ck coul d have br ought had she no tdi ed are r end ered un t i m el y b y ap pli cat i on of the o ne-year st atute of l i m i t at i on s, the es t at e’ s cl ai m s f

orl os s of

s oci ety and compani ons hi p di d notacc rue unt i l M s . Fedr i ck di ed. ” Fedr ick , 2 0 0 9 W L 4 8 0 7 3 1 0 a t * 5
. ¶8. T hi s Courtr ece nt l y di s cus s ed the cont i nui ng- t ortdoctr i ne i n P ier ce v. Cook , 992 So. 2 d 6 1 2 , 6 1 9 (M iss. 2 0 0 8 ):

### 5

[ W ] her e a t orti nvolves a cont i nui ng orr epea t ed i nj ury, the caus e of act i on acc rues at , and l i m i t at i ons begi n t o run f r om , the dat e of

the l as ti nj ury, or w hen the t ort i ous act s ceas e. W her e the t ort i ous acthas bee n com pl et ed, or the t ort i ous act s have c eas ed, the per i od of l i m i t at i ons w i l l notbe ext ended on the gr ound of

a cont i nui ng w r ong. A “con t i nu i ng t ort ” is one inf l i ct ed o ver a peri od of t i m e; i ti nv olves a w rongful con du ctthat i s r epeated un t i l desi st ed, and each d ay c rea tes a s epa r a t e c a us e o f

a c t i on . A co nt i nu i ng t orts uf f i c i e ntt o t ol l a s t a tut e of lim itatio n s is o c c a sio n e d b y c o n tin u a l u n law fu l ac ts, n o t by c o n tin u a l il l ef fe c ts f r om an or i gi nal vi ol at i on. I d. ( quot i ng Steve ns v. L ake , 6 1 5 S o . 2 d 1 1 7 7 , 1 1 8 3 (M iss. 1 9 9 3 )). ¶9. T aki ng the f

act s i n the l i ght m os t f

avor abl e t o the es t at e, w e f i nd that the cont i nui ngto rt d o c trin e sh o u ld b e co n sid e re d in th e in sta n t ca se . A c c o rd in g to D r. B a ld in g e r’s a ffid a v it, the nur s i ng hom e w as negl i gentby notpl aci ng M s . Fedr i ck on the r es t orat i ve f eedi ng p ro g ra m b e fo re S e p tem b e r 1 7 , 1 9 9 9 . M s. F e d ric k n e e d e d fe e d in g a ss ista n c e th ro u g h o u t th is
e n tire p e rio d ; th e re fo re , a to rtio u s o m iss io n m a y h a v e o c c u rre d e v e ry d a y th a t th e d e fe n d a n ts fail ed to p rov ide h er this k ind o f assist an ce . T h ese all eg ati o n s fi t w ith in the d efinit ion o f a
c o n tin u in g to rt, th a t i s , “ o n e in flic ted o v e r a p e rio d o f tim e . . . w ro n g fu l co n d u c t th a t is
r epea t ed unt i l des i s t ed. ” I d . I f pr oven, the al l eged f

ai l ure t o pr ovi de M s . Fedr i ck pr oper nutr i t i on w as a negl i gentom i s s i on thatw as r epea t ed unt i l Sept ember17, 1999, the dat e the
n u rsin g h o m e p lac e d M s. F e d ric k o n a fe e d in g -a ss ista n c e p ro g ra m . B e c a u se th e e sta te pr ovi ded i t s not i ce of

cl ai m j us tt en mont hs l at er , the one- years t atut e of l i m i t at i ons m ay not h a v e ru n o n the es tate ’s “ su rv iv a l” c laim s. T h e re fo re , w e fin d tha t th e C o u rt o f A p p e a ls
e rre d in re fu sin g to a p p ly th e c o n tin u in g -to rt d o c trin e a n d h o ld in g th a t th e e sta te’ s “ su rv iv a l”
c la im s w e re b a rr e d , a s a m a tte r o f la w , b y th e M T C A ’s o n e -y e a r s ta tu te o f l im ita tio n s . W e

### 6

r ever s e the gr antof

s um m ary j udgm enti n f avorof N es hoba C ounty and Q uorum H eal th and
rem and the case to the N eshob a C ou nty C i rcui tC ou rtforfurther proceedings. ¶ 1 0
. R E V E R S E D A N D R E M A N D E D . W AL L E R, C. J . , CA RL S ON AN D GRAVE S , P . J J . , DI CK I NS ON , RA ND OL P H, LA M AR, CHANDL ER , AND P I ER CE J J . , CONCUR.