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 - I A- 0 0 9 0 9 - S CT UNI VERS

I TY OF M

I S S I S S I PP I M EDICAL CENTER
v. L AT I S HA Mc GEE, I

NDI VI DUA L L Y A ND ON B EH A L F O F T H E H EI R SO F L A U RA WI L L I A MS
D A T E O F JU D G M E N T : 05/ 24/ 2007 TRI AL J UD GE: HO N. TOM I E T. GR EEN COURT F ROM W HI CH APP EAL ED: HI NDS COUNTY CI RCUI T COURT AT T OR NE YS F OR AP P E L L ANT : S T E P HANI E CA S E E DGAR J OS E P H L
. M c NAMARA ATT ORNEY F OR APP EL LE E: KATRI NA M
. BI BB GI BBS NATURE OF THE CAS E: CI VI L - M EDI CAL M ALP RACTI CE DI S P OS I T I ON: AF F I RMED I N P AR T AND R E M ANDE D; R E V E R S E D IN P A R T A N D R E N D E R E D . - 12/ 11/ 2008 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. S M I TH, CH I EF J UST I CE, FOR TH E COU RT: ¶1. D ef

endantU ni ver s i ty of

M i s s i s s i ppi M edi cal C ent er(“ U M M C ”) appeal s t he deni al
o f its m o tio n fo r su m m a ry ju d g m e n t b y th e C irc u it C o u rt o f H in d s C o u n ty , M iss iss ip p i. U M M C al l eges on appea l thatthe t r i al cour tcom m i t t ed a l egal er r ori n det erm i ni ng w hether the s tatu te o f li m it ati o n s h ad ru n o n P lai n ti ff L ati sh a M cG ee ’s claim
. R elyin g o n this C o u rt ’s
re c e n t d e c is io n , Caves v. Y arbr ough , No
. 2 0 0 6
- CA
- 0 1 8 5 7
- S CT , ( M i s s . S e p t . 2 5 , 2 0 0 8 ) , we fin d th a t th e sta tu te o f lim itatio n s fo r th e su rv iv a l cla im s, th a t is, the c laim s W ill iam s c o u ld

### 2

have br oughthad dea th notens ued, began t o run on Sept ember7, 2004. A nd, beca us e the
s t atut or i l y- r equi r ed not i ce w as notpr ovi ded w i thi n one ye arof thatda t e, the st at ute of l i m i t at i ons has expi r ed on t hos e cl ai m s . W e f ur therhol d thatthe s t atut e of l i m i t at i ons f

ort he
w r ongf ul
- death cl ai m , thati s , the cl ai m t hatbel ongs t o M cG ee, began t o run on D ece m ber 19, 2004, the dat e of

de ath. Si nce not i ce of

thatcl ai m w as r ece i ved on N ovember28, 2005,
w hi ch w as w i thi n one yea rof W i l l i ams’ s death and ther ef or e, the one- years t atut e of l i m i t at i ons f

orthe cl ai m , t he s t atut e of l i m i t at i ons w as t ol l ed f orn i nety- fi ve days f

r om t he dat e of the not i ce, and the cl ai m anthad ni nety days ther eaf t ert o br i ng s ui t . Becaus e s ui tw as b r o u g h twi th i n th e p e r i o d a l l o we d , M c Ge e ma y p r o c e e d wi th h e rc l a i m.

F ACT S AND P ROCE DURAL HI S TORY ¶ 2
. T h e d e c e d e n t , L a u r a W i l l i a ms , u n d e rwe n ta t o t a l a b d o mi n a l h y s t e r e c t o my a t UM M C on Sept ember1, 2004. D ur i ng thi s s ur gery, U M M C phys i ci ans al s o removed a ca ncer ous
a b d o m in a l m a ss a n d a c a n c e ro u s in tes tin a l m a ss f ro m W ill iam s, w h o h a d b e e n p re v io u sly d i a g n o s e d wi th s ma l l
- b o we l c a n c e r . S i x d a y s l a t e r , o n S e p t e mb e r7 , 2 0 0 4 , W i l l i a ms pr es ent ed t o the U M M C emer gency de part m entw i th compl ai nt s of abdom i nal pai n, naus ea,
v o mi t i n g , a n d a d e c r e a s e d a p p e t i t e . Upo n e x a mi n a t i o n , i twa s d i s c o v e r e d th a ta l a p a r o t o my
s ponge had be en l ef

ti nadvert ent l y i n W i l l i ams’ s abdomen dur i ng h erSept ember1, 2004,
o p e ra tio n a t U M M C . T h u s, the d e c e d e n t ha d o n e y e a r to se e k re d re ss fro m U M C C fo r th is mi s t a k e . W i th W i l l i a ms ’ s c o n s e n t , UM M C p h y s i c i a n s p e r f o r me d a n e x p l o r a t o ry l a p a r o t o my
o n S e p te m b e r 8 , 2 0 0 4 , d u ri n g w h ic h th e y re m o v e d th e la p a ro to m y s p o n g e .

### 3

¶3. I n O ct ober of 2004, W i l l i ams vi s i t ed C entr al M i s s i s s i ppi M edi cal C ent er , w her e s he
w a s to ld th a t th e c a n c e r h a d sp re a d th ro u g h o u t h e r b o d y . W ill iam s d ied o f m e tas tatic
a d e n o c a rc in o m a a n d a n o x ic b ra in in ju ry o n D e c e m b e r 1 9 , 2 0 0 4
. ¶ 4
. P l a i n t i f

f L a t i s h a M c Ge e , W i l l i a ms ’ s d a u g h t e r , s e n ta n o t i c e - o f
- c l a i m l e t t e rt o UM M C
o n N o v e m b e r 2 1 , 2 0 0 5 , w h ich U M M C rec e iv e d o n N o v e m b e r 2 8 , 2 0 0 5
. M c G e e filed su it agai ns tU M M C on February 21, 2006. M cG ee c l ai m ed m edical n egl i gence , al l egi ng t hat U M M C had f

a i l e d t o p r ov i de he a l th c a r e i n a c c or da nc e w i th mi ni mal s t a nd a r ds of
com petency an d thatU M M C ’s neg l i gen ce w as a proxim at e caus e o f W i l l i am s’ s i njur i es. M cG ee al so cl ai m ed un der the t heo ry o f res ipsa l oq uitur th a tth e s p o n g e l e f ti n W i l l i a ms
w as und er the ex cl usi ve co ntr ol of U M M C and proxim at el y cau sed W i ll i am s’ s i njur i es, i ncl udi ng herdeath. T he i nj ur i es attr i but ed t o U M C ’ s negl i gence i ncl ud ed pai n and
su fferi n g , m en tal an g u ish, disab il ity , co st of m ed ical an d h o sp it al serv ices, an d lost future
earni ngs . U M M C fi l ed a m ot i on f ors um m ary j udgm entcont endi ng thatthe s t atut e of l i m i t at i on s had run on W i l l i am s’ s res i psa loquitur c l a i m a n d th e me d i c a l
- n e g l i g e n c e c l a i ms
ar i s i ng bef

or e N ovember28, 2004. ¶5. T he tr i al courtde ni ed U M M C ’ s mot i on f ors um m ary j udgm ent , w i thout expl anat i on. U M M C f

i l ed a pe t i t i on f

ori nt er l ocut ory appea l w i th thi s C our t , s eeki ng t o appeal the tr i al
court ’ s deni al of

i t s m ot i on f

ors um m ary j ud gm ent . T hi s C our tgr ant ed U M M C ’ s pet i t i on fo r in ter lo c u to ry a p p e a l. DI S CU S S I ON I . W HET HER T HE T RI AL COURT ER RE D I N DE NYI NG S UM M ARY J UDG M ENT.

### 4

¶6. U M M C ar gues that the tr i al court err ed i n denyi ng i t s m ot i on f or s um m ary j udgm ent i n thati tfai l ed to ap ply t he proper law w i th regar d t o the st atute of l i m i t at i on s. T h is C o u rt revi ew s quest i on s of l aw d e n o v o , inclu d ing st atute- of- l i m i t at i on s i ssues. Chim ento v. Ful ler , 9 6 5 S o . 2 d 6 6 8 , 6 7 3 (M iss. 2 0 0 7 ). ¶ 7
. U M M C is a n ins tru m e n t of the S tate o f M iss iss ip p i an d is su b jec t to th e re q u ire m e n ts
o f t h e M is s is s ip p i T o rt C la im s A c t ( “ M T C A ” ). D avis v. Hoss , 86 9 S o. 2d 39 7, 40 1 (M i ss. 2 0 0 4 ) ( c itin g M is s . C o d e A n n . § 1 1 -4 6 -1 (j ))
. ¶8. M i ssi ssi pp i C od e A nn otat ed S ect i on 11 -46-11(3) s t at es: A l l a ct i ons br oughtunderthe pr ovi s i ons of thi s chapt ers hal l be comm ence d w i t hin one ( 1) yearnextaf t erthe dat e of

the t or t i ous , w r ongf

ul orotherw i se act i onabl e conduc ton w hi ch the l i abi l i ty pha s e of the ac t i on i s bas ed, and not af t er ; pr ovi ded, how ever , thatthe f i l i ng of a not i ce of

clai m as r equi r ed by su b sec ti o n (1 ) o f this se cti o n sh all se rve to toll the s tatu te of li m it ati o n s for a per i od of ni nety- f i ve ( 95) da ys f

r om the dat e the chi ef

exec ut i ve of

f i cerof the s t at e age ncy r ece i ves t he not i ce of c l ai m , orf

orone hundr ed tw enty ( 120) days f r om t he dat e t he chi ef

exec ut i ve of

f i cerorothers t atut or i l y des i gnat ed of f i ci al of a m uni ci pal i ty, county orotherpol i t i cal s ubdi vi s i on r ece i ves the not i ce of cl ai m , du ri ng w hich t i m e no act i on m ay be m ai ntai ned by the cl ai m ant unl ess the cl ai m anthas re cei ved a not i ce of deni al of

cl ai m . A f

t erthe t ol l i ng per i od h a s e x p ire d , th e c laim a n t sh a ll th e n h a v e a n a d d iti o n a l n in e ty (9 0 ) d a y s to file a n y a c tio n a g a in s t th e g o v e rn m e n ta l e n tity se rv e d w ith p ro p e r c la im n o tic e . .

. . T he l i m i t at i ons per i od pr ovi ded her ei n s hal l cont r ol and sha l l be exc l us i ve in a ll a c tio n s s u b

je c t to a n d b ro u g h t u n d e r th e p ro v is io n s o f th is c h a p te r . . . . M iss. C o d e A n n . § 1 1 -46 -11 (3) (R ev . 2 0 0 2 ) . ¶9. T hi s C our t r ece nt l y has expl ai ned w hen t he st at ute of l i m i t at i ons begi ns t o run f or
su rv iv a l c la im s a n d w ro n g fu l- d e a th c la im s u n d e r t h e M T C A
. Caves v. Y arbr ough , N o. 20 06- C A -01 8 5 7 -S C T at 6, (M iss. S ep t. 2 5 , 2 0 0 8 ). In a su itu n d er the w ron g ful-de ath s tatu te, there
m a y b e se v e ra l d iffe re n t k in d s o f c laim s, a n d e a c h k in d o f c laim is su b jec t to its o w n sta tu te

### For inst anc e, wher e the pl ainti ff brings a cl ai m t hat thedeath res ult ed in a l oss of 1 

### soc ie ty and companions hip, the st at uteof lim it ations begins to run on the dateof the de ath, wh en th e element o f damag es accrues. 5 of l i m i t at i ons . T he l i m i t at i on per i od begi ns t o run on the ea r l i es tdat e al l of the el ement s of

1
a to rt a re p re s e n t. Caves , N o. 2006- C A
- 01857- SC T a t8- 9, 11. Fur ther , thi s Courtapp l i es
a d is c o v e r y r u le to M T C A c la im s . Caves , N o. 2006- C A
- 01857- SC T at5- 6. I n s um m ary, “the M T C A ’ s one - years t atut e of l i m i t at i ons be gi ns t o run w hen the cl ai m antknow s , orby
exer ci s e of

r eas onabl e di l i gence s houl d know , of both the damage ori nj ury, and the ac tor
om i s s i on w hi ch pr oxi m at el y caus ed i t . ” Caves , N o. 2006- C A
- 01857- SC T at23. ¶10. T he pert i nent f

act s ar e undi s put ed. T he negl i gent act occurr ed on Sept ember 1 w hen d o c to rs le ft th e sp o n g e in W ill iam s. O n S e p tem b e r 7 , W ill iam s a rriv e d a t U M M C w ith compl ai nt s of

abdomi nal pai n, naus ea, vom i t i ng, and a dec r eas ed appe t i t e. O n Sept ember7, doct ors atU M M C di s cover ed thata s ponge had be en l ef ti ns i de W i l l i ams. T hus , on S e p tem b e r 7 , a ll th e e lem e n ts o f W ill iam s’s n e g lig e n c e c laim w e re p re se n t, an d th e sta tu te of l i m i t at i ons began t o run. O n Sept ember8, the doct or s r emoved t he l apar ot om y s ponge fr o m W illia m s . ¶11. T he s t atut e of

l i m i t at i ons f

orcl ai m s W i l l i ams coul d have br oughtbegan t o run on S e p t e mb e r7 , 2 0 0 4 , a n d e x p i r e d o n e y e a rl a t e r . Th e s t a tu t e o f l i mi t a t i o n s f

o rM c Ge e ’ s c l a i m, how ever , di d notbegi n t o run unt i l , atthe ear l i es t , D ece m ber19, 2004, the dat e of death, and the dat e M cG ee’ s damages acc rued. T he not i ce- of
- cl ai m l ett erw as r ece i ved on N ovember 2 8 , 2 0 0 5 , w ith in th e o n e -y e a r s ta tu te o f l im ita tio n s .Th e n oti ce- of -cl aim letter provi ded

that “[ t] heinj uri es to M s. La ura W ill iam s o ccu

rre d 2 between August 2004 and December 19, 2004.” While the notice of claim provided thata sponge ha d be enle ft

ins ideW ill iam s d

uringthehy ste rec tom

y, it also pro vided

that “M s. W ill iam s, wh o h as a history of congest ive he art failure, stopped breathing.” The family was told that it was unknown ho w long she had been without oxygen. Ms. Williams was one-hundred-pe rcent bra in-de ad an d died onDe ce mber19 , 2 00 4. Furthe rmo re , Dr
. MukundP at el , anexpe rtforMc Ge e, st at edth atWil li ams was hospitali zed for the peri ods of August 10-19, 2004; September 8-11, 2004; Octobe r 21- No ve m be r 12 , 2 00 4; and

No ve m be r 14 -D ece m

ber 19, 2004. Dr . P ate l st ate d th at Will iam s died from can cer and

an ox ic brain inj ury . Whil e Dr
. Patelulti m ate ly co nc luded th at thes po ng e adde d to Will iams’ s morbidity, his opinion was appe nded to McGee’s Respons e to Defendants’ Mot ion for Summary Judgm ent. UMMC moved f or summ ary judgment on the sole bas is that the statut e of limitatio ns ha d e xp ire d o n th e res ipsa loqui tur cl ai m. 

### 6 ¶1 2
. T h e p arti es d ispu te w h ethe r Je nkins a ppl i es t o thi s cas e s i nce i tw as deci ded i n 2006,
a n d th e c o m p la in t i n th is c a s e w a s fi le d in 2 0 0 5
. Je nkins v. P e n s a c o la He a lth T r u s t, I n c ., 9 3 3 S o . 2 d 9 2 3 (M is s . 2 0 0 6 ). F ir s t, Je nkins sim p ly reit era tes th e h o lding o f T hir oux v. A u stin , 7 4 9 S o . 2 d 1 0 4 0 (M iss . 1 9 9 9 ), w h ich h e ld th a t th e p e rtin e n t sta tu te o f lim itatio n s in
a c a s e b ro u g h t u n d e r t h e w ro n g fu l- d e a th s ta tu te is th a t o f t h e u n d e rl y in g to rt . Je nkins , 933 S o . 2 d a t 9 2 6 . T h e re fo re , Thir ouxgoverned thi s cas e atthe t i m e the cl ai m w as f i l ed, and the add i t i on al go verni ng cases –Caves and Je nkins – a p p ly r e tr o a c tiv e ly to th e p re s e n t c a s e . See Cle v e land

v. Mann , 9 4 2 S o . 2 d 1 0 8 , 1 1 3 (M iss. 2 0 0 6 ) (“all jud ici al de cisi o n s ap p ly retroac ti v ely u n less the C o u rth as sp ec if icall y stat ed the ru li n g is pro sp ec ti v e” ). ¶13. H ow ever , f

ora w r ongf

ul
- death cl ai m b rough tu nd er t he M T C A , the t orti s not
c o mp l e t e u n t i l th e f

i n a l e l e me n to f

th e t o r tma n i f

e s t s a n d th e c a u s e o f

a c t i o n i s k n o wn . At th e e a rl ie s t, th is is th e d a te o f d e a th
. Caves , N o . 2 0 0 6 -C A -0 1 8 5 7 -S C T a t 2 3
. ¶14. M cG ee, thr ough heratt orney, s enta not i ce- of
- cl ai m l ett ert o U M M C on N ovember 21, 2005. T he not i ce of cl ai m w as r ece i ved by U M M C on N ovember28, 2005. Pur s uant 2 to S e c tio n 1 1 -4 6 -1 1 (3 ), th e sta tu te o f lim itatio n s is to lled fo r n in e ty -fiv e d a y s “ fro m th e d a te

### 7

the chi ef exec ut i ve of

the s t at e age ncy r ece i ves the not i ce of the cl ai m . ” M i s s . C ode A nn. § 11- 46- 11( 3) ( R ev. 2002) ( emphasi s added)
. T heref ore, the s t atut e of

l i m i t at i ons f

ort he
w r ongf ul
- death cl ai m s w as t ol l ed on N ovember28, 2005, and di d notexpi r e unt i l M ar ch 3, 2006. ¶15. A f

t er r evi ew i ng the evi dence bef or e the tr i al court , thi s C our t f i nds that the s t atut e of l i m i t at i ons f

orthe s ur vi val cl ai m has expi r ed. CO NC L US I ON ¶16. T he pl ai nt i f

f’ s s ur vi val cl ai m occurr ed m or e than one year pr i or t o pr ovi di ng not i ce; thus , thatcl ai m i s bar r ed by t he st atut e of l i m i t at i ons . T he w r ongf ul
- death cl ai m i s notbarr ed. A ccor di ngl y, t hi s C our tr ever s es the tr i al court ’ s deni al of s um m ary judgm ent on the
s u r v i v a l c l a i m a n d r e n d e r s s u mma r y j u d g me n tf o rUM M C o n th a tc l a i m. Th i s Co u r ta f f i r ms the deni al of

s um m ary j udgm entas t o t he w r ongf ul
- death cl ai m and r emands thi s cas e f or f u r th e rp r o c e e d i n g s o n th e wr o n g f u l
- d e a th c l a i m. ¶ 1 7
. AF F I RM ED I N PART AND REM ANDE D; RE VE RS ED I N P ART AND RE NDE RE D. W AL LER AN D D I AZ, P. JJ . , EA SLE Y , C A R LSO N , D I C K I N SO N , R A N D O LPH AND L AM AR, J J . , CONCUR. GRAVE S , J . , CONCURS I N RE S UL T ONL Y.