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 6 - CA- 0 0 0 8 2 - S CT RO BERT

S UT HER L AN

D
v. ES T AT E O F R OB ER T

M . RIT T ER , M . D.
D A T E O F JU D G M E N T : 12/ 13/ 2005 TRI AL J UD GE: HO N. W
. SW AN YER GER COURT F ROM W HI CH APP EAL ED: HI NDS COUNTY CI RCUI T COURT ATTO RN EYS FOR A PP ELLAN T: RI CK D. PATT S HANE F
. L ANGS T ON A T T O R N E Y S F O R A P P E L L E E : W H IT M A N B
. JO H N S O N , III S HE L L Y G. BU RN S 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 - 04/ 19/ 2007 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. CAR LS ON , J UST I CE, FOR TH E COU RT: ¶1. A ggr i eved by t he H i nds C ounty C i r cui t C our t ’ s gr ant of s um m ary j udgm ent i n f avor the E stat e o f R o b ert M
. R itter, M
. D
. , R o b e rt S u therlan d , a fo rm er p ati en t of D r. R itter, appea l s t o us . Fi ndi ng no err ori n the t r i al c our t ’ s gr antof s um m ary j udgm entand di s m i s s al
o f th i s c a s e , we a f

f i r m.

### Eli L illy w as namedas an o rigin al partyto th e s uit p ursu ant to a pro du cts liability 1 

### the ory. The tri alcourt grant ed s umm ar y judgm ent

only as to Dr. Rit

te r’ s e st at e; howeve r, thetria l c ourt

ther ea ft er

a ppropriate ly ent er ed finalj udgme nt cons is te nt with theprovi si ons of Mi ss . R. Civ. P. 54(b). Today’ s a ppea l doe s not

involve any cl ai ms as to El i Li lly. The que stions wer e a ske d by Dr. Ritte r’ s att orne y. 2 

### 2 F ACT S AND P ROCE ED I NGS I N T HE T RI AL COURT ¶2. I n J une, 1999, D r . R ober t M
. R i t t er , a ps ychi atr i s t , pr es cr i bed f or R ober tSut her l and Z yp rexa, a d rug m anu factured b y E l i L i l l y. S oo n aft er, S uther l and dev el op ed si de eff ect s, 1 i ncl udi ng abnorm al , i nvol unt ary m ovement s by w ay of l i p- l i cki ng and f

aci al tw i t chi ng. Sut herl and s ubs equent l y s t at ed underoath thatZ ypr exa c aus ed the mal adi es f orw hi ch he
so u g h t dam ag es. W ith o u t con su lt ing D r. R itter, S u therlan d stop p ed takin g Z y p rex a fo r a
s hor tper i od of t i m e buteventual l y re s um ed t aki ng t he drug. O n A pr i l 16, 2001, Sut her l and
c h e c k e d h im se lf i n to S t. D o m in ic- Ja c k so n M e m o ria l H o sp ital’s C h e m ica l D e p e n d e n c y U n it ( St
. D om i ni c)
. I n hi s depos i t i on, Sut her l and s t at ed the f ol l ow i ng: 2 Q
. O kay. N ow , di d you chec k yours el f i nt o D r . C r oni n or w er e you chec ked i n by s om eone? A
. I ch ec k ed m y self. Q
. O kay. A nd w hy di d you chec k your s el f i n? A
. T he Zypre xa w as des t r oyi ng m y l i f e. Q
. O kay. So you bel i eved w hen you che cked your s el f i n i tw as the Zypre xa? A
. I tw as nota bel i ef

, i tw as a know i ng. Q
. O kay. A . It w a s k n o w led g e o f it.

. . . . Q
. A n d w h il e y o u w e re in the h o sp it al at S t. D o m inic’s un d er D r. C ron in’s car e, w as t hatt he l as tt i m e you t ook Z ypr exa? A
. Y es, si r.

. . . .

### Tardive dys kin es iais a p o te nti al lyirre v er sib le syn dro me o f i nv o luntaryhyp er -kin etic 3 

### mov ements th at occurs in p redisp osedperso ns receiv ing exten dedneurolep tic (antip sych otic) drug therap y. Dr. Ritte r ha d by thi s tim e pa ss ed away. 4 

### Pursuant to M iss. Co de Ann . § 1 5-1 -36 (15 ) (Rev . 20 03 ), th e written no tice of claim 5 

### is re quired t o be gi ven at l ea st si xty days prior

to t he c omm enc em ent

of a me dic al malpractice su it. 3 Q
. A l l r i ght
. D i d–butm y under s t andi ng i s you fel tli ke t he Zypre xa w as caus i ng you pr obl ems al m os tf r om the get
- go. A
. Y es. Q
. A nd t hatyou s t opped i ti n ( s i c) atl eas tby A pr i l 2001? A
. St opped undert he di r ect i on of D r . K enneth C r oni n. ¶3. S u therlan d w as d isch arg ed from S t. D om i nic on A pri l 19, 200 1
. S u therlan d ’s di s char ge s um m ary s t at ed, “ t he Z ypr exa ha s been di s cont i nued and the pat i entr epor t s t hat h e fe e ls le s s fl a t a n d ‘z o m b ie ’ l ik e .” ¶4. O n January 31 , 20 02 , S uther l and soug ht fol l ow -up t reatm ent fr om D r. L ee V ou l t ers . T he r epor tof

D r . V oul t er s s t at es t hatS uther l and had t aken “Zypr exa w hi ch ca us ed a l otof bad s i de ef

f ect s , ” and D r . V oul t er s des cr i bed the condi t i on Sut her l and compl ai ned of as T ard ive D y sk ines ia S y n d rom e (T D S ). 3 ¶ 5
. O n Ja n u a ry 3 0 , 2 0 0 4 , tw o y e a rs a n d n in e m o n th s a ft e r h e w a s d isc h a rg e d fro m S t. D om i ni c, Sut her l and s entD r . R i t t er ’ s es t at e a N oti ce of Cl ai m . O n M ar ch 30, 2004, 4 5 Sut her l and f

i l ed s ui ti n the C i r cui tC our tf ort he Fi r s tJ udi ci al D i s t r i ctof H i nds C ount y, and i n due cour s e, t he tr i al cour tgr ant ed s um m ary j udgm enti n f avorof D r . R i t t er ’ s es t at e. J udge S w a n Y e rg e r’ s O rd e r o f S u m m a ry J u d g m e n t s ta te d , in tera lia :

### Counse l f or theparti eshavever

y ably pre se nte d and a ddre ss ed the i ss ues , c onsi st ent 6 

### with our c as e l aw, dea ling with late nt injurie s and thedis coveryru leas it conc er ns the 4 T he Pl ai nt i f

f , R ober tS ut her l and, al l eges m edi cal negl i gence on the partof t he l at e D r . Ri t t e r . Spe c i f i c a l l y, M r . Suthe r l a nd c l a i ms tha tD r . Ri t t e rw as negl i genti n pr es cr i bi ng t he medi cat i on Z ypr exa w hi ch, i n turn, caus ed a m edi cal condi t i on cal l ed t ar di ve dys ki nes i a s yndr om e exe m pl i f i ed by var i ous s ym pt oms. H oweve r , M r . Sut her l and l as tt ook Z ypr exa dur i ng A pr i l 2001, and y e t h e to o k n o ste p s to in iti a te le g a l ac tio n u n til Ja n u a ry 2 0 0 4 . T h is is pr obl emat i c s i nce M i s s i s s i ppi C ode A nnot at ed § 15- 1- 36, w hi ch governs m edical m al pract i ce cl ai m s r eads i n p ert i nen tpartas f oll ow s: [ N ] o cl ai m i n t or tm ay be broug ht aga i ns ta l i cens ed phys i ci an

. . . f or i nj ur i es orw r ongf

ul death ar i s i ng outof

t he cour s e of m edi cal , s ur gi cal orotherpr of es s i onal s ervi ces unl es s i ti s f i l ed w i t hi n t w o (2) year s f

r om the dat e the al l eged a ct , om i s s i on or neg l ects hall or w i t h reasonab l e dil i gen ce m i gh thav e been fi rs t k n o w n o r d is c o v e re d
. . . See § 1 5 -1-3 6 (2) M iss. C o d e A n n . (R ev . 2 0 0 3 ). ¶6
. A f

t er J ud ge Y e r ge r e nt e r e d a f i na l j ud gmen t of di s mi s s a l c on s i s t e nt w i t h t he or der g ra n tin g su m m a ry ju d g m e n t, S u th e rla n d p e rfe c ted h is a p p e a l to th is C o u rt. DI S CU S S I ON ¶7. T he par t i es i n essence co uch the i ssue t hat t his C our tm us tdeci de as w hether Sut her l and’ s i nj ur y w as l at ent s o t hatt he di s covery rul e w oul d appl y t o t ol l t he s t atut e of l i m i t at i ons . U pon r ef

l ect i on a s t o how t hi s C our thas pr evi ous l y deal tw i t h t hi s i s s ue i n t he
m edi cal m al pr act i ce c ont ext , w e r ecogni ze ourus e of the t erm , “l at enti nj ury” i n pr evi ous
cas es has l ed t o conf

us i on and mi s under s t andi ng of t he di s covery rul e, and w e ther ef or e t ake th is o p p o rtu n ity to c lar ify th e law . T h u s, w e re sta te th e iss u e fo r th e s a k e o f c lar ity in di s cus s i on. 6

### app licable statute of limitation s o n suchmatters as the runn ing or th e tollin g o f the ap plicab le

statute. H ow ever, whenwe read th e excellent briefs o f the p arties as theydutifullyaddress the seis sue s by a

pplying prior

deci si ons from thi s Court , theurgent nee d for cl arif ic ation of our prior ca se s be com es rea dily a

ppar ent s o a s to imme diate ly le nd aid to t he tri albenc h and bar in de al ing wi th t

hes e i ss ues in t

he m edi ca l m alpra ctic e are na. Again, this nee d for cl arif ic ation i s not

thefault of the partie s and couns el , but ins te ad i s dueto ambi guitie s wh ich w e hav e created inour prio r decisio ns. 5 W HE T HE R T HE DI S CO VE RY RU L E AP P LI E S T O T OL L T HE S TA TU TE OF LI M I TA TI ONS I N T HI S M ED I CAL M AL P RACT I CE CASE. ¶8. “The st andar d of r evi ew i n cons i der i ng on appeal a t ri al co urt ’s g rantordeni al of
s um m ary j udgm enti s de novo. ” P r i ce v. P urdue Pharm a Co. , 92 0 S o. 2d 47 9, 48 3 (M i ss. 2006) ( ci t i ng Satchf

ield v. R . R . Mor r is on & Son, I nc. , 8 7 2 S o . 2 d 6 6 1 , 6 6 3 (M iss. 2 0 0 4 )). “I n cons i der i ng t hi s i s s ue, w e mustexami ne al l the evi dent i ary mat t er s be f or e us , i ncl udi ng admi s s i ons i n pl eadi ngs , a ns w er s t o i nt err ogat or i es , de pos i t i ons , a nd af f i davi t s . ” I

d. ( ci t i ng A etn a Cas. & S u r. Co. v. B erry , 669 So. 2d 56, 70 (M i ss. 1996) )
. “The evi dence m us tbe vi ew ed i n t he l i ghtm os tf avor abl e t o t he part y agai ns tw hom the mot i on has been made. ” I d. ( ci t i ng Aetna , 669 So. 2d at70)
. “I s s ues of f acts uf f i ci entt o r equi r e a de ni al of a mot i on f

or
s um m ary j udgm entar e obvi ous l y pr es entw her e one pa r t y s w ear s t o one ver s i on of the mat t er i n i s s ue and the otherpart y t akes the oppos i t e pos i t i on. ” I d. ( c i t i ng A m er i can L egion L adni erP os t

N o. 42 v. O cean Spr ings , 562 So. 2d 103, 106 (M i s s . 1990) )
. “I f no genui ne i s s u e o f ma t e r i a l f

a c te x i s t s a n d th e m o v i n g p a r t y i s e n t i t l e d t o j u d g me n ta s a ma t t e ro f l a w,
s um m ary j udgm entsho uld be ent er ed i n t hatpart y’ s f avor . ” I d. ( ci t i ng Monsanto Co. v. H a ll , 912 So. 2d 134, 136 ( M i s s . 2005) )
. “ T he m ovantcarr i es t he bur den of demonstr at i ng

### 6

th a t n o g e n u in e iss u e o f m a ter ial fa c t ex ists, a n d th e n o n -m o v in g p a rty is g iv e n th e b e n e fit of the doubta s t o the exi s t ence of a mat er i al f

acti s s ue. ” I

d. ( ci t i ng Mo n sa n to , 912 So. 2d at136)
. “H ow ever, o ur deci s i ons w hi ch di s cus s thi s rul e ar e cl earthatw hen a mot i on f or
sum m ary j ud gm ent i s m ade an d sup p o rt ed as provi ded i n M i ss. R
. C i v. P
. 56 , an ad verse party m ay notr es tupon t he mer e al l egat i ons ordeni al s of the pl eadi ngs , buti ns t ead the
r es pons e musts etf

or t h s peci f

i c f act s s how i ng thatther e i s a ge nui ne i s s ue f ort r i al
. ” I

d. at 483- 84 ( ci t i ng Stuc ke

y v. Pr ov ide nt

Bank , 9 1 2 S o . 2 d 8 5 9 , 8 6 4 (M iss . 2 0 0 5 )). “ If a n y triab le i s s ues of f actexi s t , t he tr i al court ’ s deci s i on t o gr antsum m ary j udgm entw i l l be r ever s ed. O therw i s e, t he deci s i on i s af f i r m ed. ” I

d. a t484 ( ci t i ng Mil

lerv. Meeks , 762 So. 2d 302, 304 (M iss. 2 0 0 0 )). ¶9. S uthe rl an d a rgu es that h is i n j ury w as l at ent and, t hu s, t he d i scovery rul e app l i es. Sut her l and f

ur t herar gues t hatt he s t atut e of l i m i t at i ons di d notbegi n t o run unt i l J anuary 31, 2002, w hi ch i s t he date S ut her l and l earned thatt he condi t i on f r om w hi ch he s uf

f er ed w as
c a lled T D S . O n th e o th e r h a n d , D r. R itt e r’s es tate a rg u e s th a t Ju d g e Y e rg e r c o rre c tly h e ld thatthe s t atut e of

l i m i t at i ons began t o run, att he l at es t , i n A pr i l , 2001, w hen Sut her l and, by his ow n ad m i ssi on , kn ew t hat Zy prexa w as the cau se of hi s sym ptom s. Lat ent i nj ur y – undis cove r ed negl igence ¶10. T he w or d “l at ent ” m eans “[ h] i dden; conce al ed; dor m ant ; t hat w hi ch does notappea r upon the f

ace of a thi ng. ” B l ack’ s L aw D i ct i onary 794 ( 5 ed. 1979)
. “Lat ent ” has al s o been th def i ned as “pr es entbuti nvi s i bl e ori nact i ve; l yi ng hi dden and unde vel oped w i t hi n a per s on
orthi ng. ” W ebs t er ’ s N ew W or d D i ct i onary 762 ( 3r d C ol l ege e d. 1988)
. T hi s C our thas

### § 15-1- 49. Li mit ati ons applic ableto ac ti ons not othe rw is e spe ci fi cally pr ovide d 7 

### for . (1) A ll actio ns fo r wh ich n o o ther p eriodof limitatio n is pre sc ribed s hal l becomme nce d within three(3) years next af te r theca useof s uch a ction a cc rue d, and not a ft er . (2) Inaction s for whichno oth er p eriodof limitatio n is prescrib ed andwhichinvo lve latent injury or disease, th e cause of a ction doe s not

ac cr ue untilthe plaintif

f ha s di sc over ed, or by re as onabl e di li genc e s hould have di sc over ed, theinj ury. (3) T he p rov ision s of subsecti o n(2 ) of th is sectionshall ap ply to all p end ing andsub sequ entlyfiled actio ns. 7 d efine d a laten t i n

jury “a s o n e w h ere the ‘p lai n ti ff w il l be p rec lud ed fro m d isco v ering h arm
o r in ju ry b e c a u se o f th e se c re tiv e o r in h e re n tly u n d isc o v e ra b le n a tu re o f th e w ro n g d o in g in q u e s t i o n . . . [ o r ] wh e n i ti s u n r e a l i s t i c t o e x p e c ta l a y ma n t o p e r c e i v e t h e i n j u r y a tth e t i me of the w r ongf

ul act . ’ ” N

e g len v. B re a ze a le , 945 So. 2d 988, 991 ( M i s s . 2006) ( ci t i ng PPG A rchitectu ral

Fin ishes, Inc. v. L ow ery , 9 0 9 S o . 2 d 4 7 , 5 0 (M iss . 2 0 0 5 ); D onald v. A m oco P r od. Co. , 7 3 5 S o . 2 d 1 6 1 , 1 6 8 (M iss
. 1 9 9 9 )). T h u s, a la ten t i n ju ry is an inju ry w h ic h is hi dden oruns een. ¶1 1. T he c on f

us i on a s s oc i a t e d w i t h t he t e r m “l a t e nti nj ury” a pp a r ent l y r es ul t s f r om t he di f f er ence i n the l anguage of M i s s . Code A nn. § 15- 1- 49 ( R ev. 2003) , the gene r al s t atut e of l i m i t at i ons , w hi ch pr ovi des f ort ol l i ng of

the s t atut e of

l i m i t at i ons unt i l a “pl ai nt i f f has d is c o v e re d , o r b y re a s o n a b le d ilig e n c e sh o u ld h a v e d is c o v e re d ” a “ la te n t in ju ry o r d is e a s e .” 7 ¶1 2
. T h e d isco v ery rule for m ed ical n eg li g en ce ca ses, h o w ev er, is d if feren t. T h e inq u iry does notcent eron a l at enti nj ur y, butr atheron “the dat e the al l eged a ct , om i s s i on ornegl ect shal l or w i t h reasonab l e dil i gen ce m i gh thav e been fi rs tkn ow n o r di scovered .
. . . ” M i ss.

### Two exc eptions arefound in se ction 15- 1-36( 2) ( for ei gn obje ct le ft in pati ent ’s body 8 

### and f ra udule nt c once alme nt of

ca useof a ction) , ne it

her of whi ch a

pply in today’s ca se . 8 C ode A nn § 15- 1- 36( 2) ( R ev. 2003)
. T hus , i n medi cal ne gl i gence c as es , w e m us tf ocus our 8 i nqui ry on w hen a pl ai nt i f f , exer ci s i ng r eas onabl e di l i gence , s houl d have f i r s tdi s cover ed the negl i gence , r athert han the i nj ur y. I n ap pl yi ng the unambi guous l anguage of M i s s . C ode A nn. § 15- 1- 36( 2) , al t hough a hi dden oruns een i nj ury mi ghtve r y w el l s erve t o t r i ggert he di s covery rul e and t ol l t he st atut e of l i m i t at i ons , i ti s notbeca us e the i nj ury i t s el f i s hi dden
orunknow n, butr atherbeca us e the negl i gence w hi ch ca us ed the i nj ury i s unknow n. F u rth erm o re, i n the m ed ical m alpra cti ce co n text, the d isco v ery rule m ay ap p ly in c ase s w h ere th e i n jury i s no t lat en t at al l, bu t w h ere th e n eg li g en ce w h ich c au sed th e k n o w n i n jury is unknow n. Fori ns t ance , a pa t i entw ho unde r goes a medi cal pr ocedur e may devel op s er i ous compl i cat i ons w hi ch ar e cl ear l y know n. H ow ever , i f t he pat i enthas no r eas on t o know t hat the d o ctor’s n eg li g en ce in p erfo rm ing the p roc ed u re c au sed the c o m p li ca ti o n s, the d isco v ery
ru le w ill a p p ly , e v e n th o u g h th e in ju ry its e lf

is n o t la te n t a t a ll. ¶13. J udge Y er gercl ear l y unde r s t ood thi s di s t i nct i on a nd a ppl i ed i tt o the f act s of t hi s cas e. In h is O rderof S um m ary J ud gm ent, he st at ed t hat “[ b] y A pri l 200 1, atthe l at est , there exi s t ed a ba s i s f

ori ni t i at i on of

r eas onabl e di l i gence on M r . Sut her l and’ s par tsuch thatm i ght al l ow hi m t o di s coverD r . R i t t er ’ s al l eged ne gl i gence . ” ¶14. I n r ece nt cas es , w e have di s cus s ed t he di s covery rul e i n m edical m al pract i ce c as es br oughtundert he M i s s i s s i ppi T or tC l ai m s A ct , M i s s . C ode A nn. §§ 11- 46- 1, ets eq. ( R ev. 2002) ) ( M T C A ) conce r ni ng t he appl i cabi l i t y of t he di s covery rul e t o the M T C A ’ s one- year

### 9

s ta tu te o f l im ita tio n s fo u n d in s e c tio n 1 1 -4 6 -1 1 (3 ). W rig h t v. Q u e sn e l, 8 76 So
. 2d 362 (M iss . 2 0 0 4 ); W

ayne G en. Hos

p. v. H ayes , 868 So. 2d 997 ( M i s s . 2004)
. O t herc as es , s uch
as P P G A rchitectu ral

Fin ishes, Inc. v. L ow ery , 909 So. 2d 47 ( M i s s . 2005) , di s cus s t he di s covery rul e i n r el at i on t o the “ca t ch- al l ” s t atut e of l i m i t at i ons f

ound i n M i s s . C ode A nn. § 15- 1- 49 ( R ev. 2003) , w hi ch expr es s l y m ent i ons l at enti nj ur i es ordi s eas es . H ow ever , even i n H ayes , w e sta ted th a t o u r d isc o v e ry ru le w ill o n ly to ll th e sta tu te o f lim itatio n s “ u n til a pl ai nt i f f ‘ s houl d ha ve r eas onabl y know n of s om e negl i gentconduct , even i f t he pl ai nt i f

f does notknow w i t h abs ol ut e ce r t ai nt y t hatthe conduc tw as l egal l y negl i gent . ’ ” 868 So. 2d at 1000- 1001 ( quot i ng S a rr is v . Sm ith , 782 So. 2d 721, 725 ( M i s s . 2001))
. In PPG , w e s t at ed that“‘ a pl ai nt i f

f knew orr eas onabl y s houl d have know n thats om e negl i gentconducthad
occurr ed, even i f

t hey d id n o t kn o w w ith c e rta in ty t hatt he conduc tw as negl i gentas a mat t er of l aw . ’ ” 909 So. 2d at51 ( emphasi s i n or i gi nal ) ( ci t i ng H ayes , 8 6 8 S o . 2 d a t 1 0 0 0 ). ¶15. A ccor di ng t o t he f act s of t oday’ s cas e, w e f i nd t hat Sut her l and’ s ow n s us pi ci ons and act i ons ther eon, t ogetherw i t h the pas s age of t i m e f r om w hen Suther l and f

i r s tr ecogni zed the
a d v e rse e ffe c ts f

ro m th e Z y p re x a u n til S u th e rla n d c h e c k e d h im se lf in to th e h o sp ital in A p ril, 2001, w er e enough t o s at i s f y the s t atut ory r equi r ementof di s covery of

the al l eged medi cal
n eg li g en ce o n the p art of D r. R itter. S u therlan d origina ll y kn ew or su sp ec ted th at D r. R itter’s p re sc rip tio n o f Z y p re x a c a u se d h is u n d e sira b le s id e e ffe c ts n o late r th a n th e d a te o f h is di s charge fr om S t . D om i ni c on A pr i l 19, 2001, beca us e he s t at ed that“[ t ] he Zypre xa w as d e s tr o y in g m y lif

e ” a n d th a t “ [i]t w a s n o t a b e lie f, i t w a s a k n o w in g .”

### 10

¶16. B y hi s ow n admi s s i on, Sut her l and knew w ho, w hen, how , and by w hathe had bee n i nj ur ed s oon af

t err ece i ving t r eatm entand the Zypre xa pr es cr i pt i on f r om D r . R i t t er , and
ce rt ainly , n o later tha n the d ate o f h is disch arg e fro m S t. D o m inic. C o n side ri n g S u therlan d ’s act i ons , w e conc l ude t hatSut her l and knew t hatD r . R i t t er ’ s pr es cr i bi ng hi m Z ypr exa ha d
ca u sed h im to su ffer an i njury
. ¶17. I n s um , w e concl ude f r om the r ecor d be f

or e us t hat Sutherl and kn ew , soon aft er recei ving his t reatm ent f rom D r. R i t t er, that th e Z y p rex a had caused un desi red ef fect s. A l m os ttw o year s l at er , he che cked hi m s el f i nt o St
. D om i ni c on A pri l 16, 2001; cl ear l y by the tim e o f his d isch arg e fro m the h o sp it al on A p ri l 19 , 2 0 0 1 , an d h is t erm ination o f D r. R i t t eras hi s phys i ci an, Sut her l and w as on not i ce of D r . R i t t er ’ s all eged negl i gence . T heref ore, S uther l and un qu est i on ably kne w , atl eastby A pri l 20 01 , thatZ ypr exa w as caus i ng hi s tr oubl es and thatD r . Ri t t erha d pr es cr i bed the drug. B y r eas onabl e i nqui r y, Sut her l and shoul d, orw i t h r eas onabl e di l i gence mi ghtha ve di s cover ed t he al l eged negl i gence . T hu s, the di s covery rul e w oul d nott ol l t he st atut e of l i m i t at i ons beyond the dat e of A pr i l 19, 2001,
w hen Sut her l and w as di s char ged f r om t he hospi t al
. T her ef or e, the s t atut e of

l i m i t at i ons had lon g sinc e e x p ire d b y the ti m e S u therlan d su b m itted h is st atuto ry n o ti ce o f claim to D r. R i t t er ’ s es t at e on J anuary 30, 2004. CO NC L US I ON ¶18. For t he r eas ons s t at ed, t he j udgm ent of di s m i s s al ent er ed by t he C i r cui t C our t f ort he Fi r s tJ udi ci al D i s t r i ctof H i nds C ount y i s af

f i r m ed. ¶ 1 9
. AF F I RM ED .

### 11

S M I TH, C. J . , W AL LE R, P . J . , DI CKI NS ON AND RA NDOL P H, J J . , CONCUR. DI AZ , J . , DI S S EN TS W I TH S EPARATE W RI TTEN OPI NI ON J OI NED BY EASLE Y A N D G R A V E S , J J . C O B B , P .J ., N O T P A R T I C I P A T I N G .
DI AZ , J US T I CE , DI S S E NT I NG : ¶2 0
. B ec au se tod ay ’s op inion effecti v ely p rec lud es an y acti o n ag ains t a ph y sici an w h ere the p at i ent does no tdis cov er the inj ury before the on e-year s t atute of l i m i t at i on s, I m ust d iss e n t. ¶21. T he as s ert i on that“ w e m ust focus ou r i nq uiry o n w hen a plai nti ff , exerci si ng
re a s o n a b le d il ig e n c e , s h o u ld h a v e fi rs t d is c o v e re d th e n e g lig e n c e , ra th e r t h a n th e in ju ry ,” si m ply defi es l og i c. D i scovery o f the inj ury i s necessar i l y d i scovery o f negl i gen ce. A cause of act i on f ornegl i gence does notexi s tw i t houti nj ury. I ti s el ement ary t or tl aw t hati n or der t o pr ove negl i gence , a pl ai nt i f f m us tpr ove duty, b reach o f duty, pr oxi m at e ca us e, and an injury . Hol

lida y v. P izz a I

nn , 659 So. 2d 860, 864 ( M i s s . 1995) ( quot i ng Sk e lto n v. T w in Co u n ty R u ra l E lect. A ss’n , 611 So. 2d 9 31, 936 ( M i s s . 1992) )
. A ccor di ngl y, i n m edi cal
m al pr act i ce c as es , “the di s covery rul e pr ot ect s per s ons w i t h l at enti nj ur i es . ” N eglen v. B re a ze a le , 9 4 5 S o . 2 d 9 8 8 , 9 9 0 ( M is s . 2 0 0 6 ). See al s o Flor es v. E l

m er , 938 So. 2d 824 (M iss . 2 0 0 6 ) (a p p ly in g late n t in ju ry a n a ly sis to m e d ica l m a lp ra c tice c laim ); B lailock v. Hubbs , 91 9 So
. 2d 12 6 ( M i s s . 20 05 ) ( f i nd i ng i nj ur i e s w e r e no tl a t e nta nd t he r e f or e t he d isc o v e ry ru le d id n o t ap p ly ); W r i gh t v. Q u es nel , 8 7 6 S o . 2 d 3 6 2 (M iss. 2 0 0 4 ) (sam e); R obinson v. Singing R i verH os p. S ys. , 7 3 2 S o . 2 d 2 0 4 (M iss . 1 9 9 9 ) (s a m e ); W il liam s v.T he di s covery rul e al s o pr ot ect s m edi cal m al pr act i ce pl ai nt i f f s w ho w er e aw ar e that 9 an i nj ur y had occ ur r ed butcoul d notdi s coverthe ca us e of t he i nj ury unt i l the s t atut e of lim ita tio n s h a d ru n . S a rr is v . Sm ith , 7 8 2 S o . 2 d 7 2 1 (M iss . 2 0 0 1 ); P i ckens v. D onalds on , 7 4 8 S o . 2 d 6 8 4 (M iss . 1 9 9 9 ); Sm ith v. S an ders , 4 8 5 S o . 2 d 1 0 5 1 (M iss .1 9 8 6 ); B ar nes v. S in ging R i ver Hosp. S

ys. , 7 3 3 S o . 2 d 1 9 9 , 2 0 6 (M iss. 1 9 9 9 ).



### 12 K il go re , 618 So. 2d 51 ( M i s s . 1992) ( appl yi ng l at enti nj ury anal ys i s t o m edi cal m al pr act i ce claim ). 9 ¶ 2 2
. T h e m a

jo rity fin d s th a t th e “ c o n fu sio n ” o v e r th e a p p lica tio n o f late n t in ju ry a n a ly sis t o m edi cal m al pr act i ce cas es i s a r es ul t of t he l anguage f ound i n M i s s . C ode A nn. § 1 5
- 1
- 49. H o w e v e r, ev e n b e fo re th is s tatu te w a s a m e n d e d to in c lu d e a p ro v isio n fo r late n t in ju rie s, th is C o u rt re c o g n iz e d th e c o m m o n la w e x c e p tio n fo r l a te n t in ju ri e s . B ar nes , 733 So. 2d at205 ( M i s s . 1999) ( ci t i ng Schir o v. A m er i can T obacco Co. , 6 1 1 S o . 2 d 9 6 2 , 9 6 5 (M iss. 1 9 9 2 )). Fur therm or e, as expl ai ned i n Wil lia ms , [ t ] he appl i cabi l i t y of

M i s s . Code A nn. § 15- 1- 49 ( 1972) t o m edi cal m al pr act i ce act i ons w as s uppl ant ed by the ena ctm entof M i s s . C ode A nn. § 15- 1- 36 ( 1972) ( as am ended) , w hi ch cr eat ed a tw o years t atut e of l i m i t at i ons s peci f

i cal l y f or m edi cal m al pr act i ce ac t i ons . A l t hough t he new s t atut e s hor t ened the l i m i t at i on per i od, i tl i ber al i zed a nd mem or i al i zed t he def i ni t i on of “ acc rual , ” pr ovi di ng thatt he s t atut e begi ns t o run “ f r om the dat e t he al l eged a ct , om i s s i on ornegl ect s h a ll o r w ith re a s o n a b le d ilig e n c e m ig h t h a v e fir s t b e e n k n o w n o r d is c o v e re d .”
618 So. 2d at53- 54. T he C our tw enton t o s ay, “[ t ] he oper at i ve t i m e i s w hen the pl ai nt i f f can
r e a s on a bl y b e he l d t o ha ve kno w l edge of the i nj ur y i t s el f , t he ca us e of

t he i nj ury, and the causal r el at i ons hi p of

t he i nj ur y and the conduc tof t he medi cal pr act i t i oner . ” I d. at54 ( quot i ng Sm ith v. S an ders , 485 So. 2d 1051 ( M i s s . 1986) ) ( emphasi s s uppl i ed). T he

### 13

m aj or i ty, how ever , notonl y r ef us es t o r ecogni ze ourp r i orpr ece dent , butthe comm on l aw
a s w e ll. ¶23. T he maj or i t y hol ds t hatm edi cal m al pr act i ce pl ai nt i f f s mustf i l e t hei rc aus es of act i on
e v e n if th e y a re u n a w a re o f an y inju ry . H o w e v e r, ha d the p lain tiff i n this c a se filed a c laim bef or e hi s di agnos i s , hi s cas e w oul d have be en di s m i s s ed bec aus e he c oul d nothave pr oven
a n y in ju ry . It h a s b e e n lo n g e sta b lish e d th a t, “[a ] ca u se o f a c tio n m u st e x ist a n d b e c o m p lete bef or e an a ct i on can be comm ence d, and, w hen a sui tis begun bef or e the ca us e of

act i on
acc rues , i tw i l l gener al l y be di s m i s s ed i f pr oper obj ect i on i s m ade. ” O w ens -I l linois, I nc.
v. E dw ar ds , 573 So. 2d 704, 706 ( M i s s . 1990) ( quot i ng E s tate of K idd v. K idd , 435 So. 2d 6 3 2 , 6 3 5 (M is s . 1 9 8 3 ))
. ¶24
. F o r the forego i ng reas on s, t he m ajor i t y’s anal ysi s i s hi gh l y fl aw ed, and this C o u rt
s houl d notr emove t he l ong- es t abl i s hed l at enti nj ury exce pt i on f r om m edi cal m al pr act i ce cl ai m s. ¶25. R egar di ng t he l at enti nj ur y i s s ue, our s um m ary j udgm entj ur i s prudence demands that “the evi dence be vi ew ed i n t he l i ghtm os tf avor abl e t o the part y agai ns tw hom t he mot i on has been made. ” G an t

v. Man ess , 786 So. 2d 401, 403 ( M i s s . 2001) ( ci t i ng Mas s achuse tt s B ay I ns. Co. v. Joyner , 7 6 3 S o . 2 d 8 7 7 , 8 7 8 (M iss. 2 0 0 0 )). A c c o rdin g to ca se law , “d isco v ery [ of an i nj ur y ordi s eas e] i s an i s s ue of f actt o be dec i ded by a j ury w her e ther e i s a genui ne di s put e. ” Schir o v. A m er i can T obacco Co. , 611 So. 2d 962 ( M i s s . 1992)
. I n r evi ew i ng t he
r ecor d, ther e r em ai ns an i s s ue of f actas t o w hetherM r . Sut her l and had know l edge of t he i njury o r w as aw are of

his sym ptom s.

### 14

¶2 6
. Fi rs t , the m aj ori ty im properl y co nstrues the im m ediat e si de-ef fect s that M r. S uther l and
ex p erien ce d an d h is sub seq u en t “po tential ly irrev ersible sy n d rom e” as on e and the sam e. M r. Suther l and expe r i ence d a numberof s ym ptom s w hil e t aking Z yp rexa, i ncludi ng ov ers edati on and i ncr eas ed anxi ety. O nce he s t opped t aki ng the m edi cat i on, M r . Suther l and t es t i f i ed that these i m m ediat e si de-ef fect s eventual l y st op ped
. Itw as notun t i l his vis i tw i t h D r. V ou l t ers , w her e he w as f

i nal l y di agnos ed w i t h T D S, thathe w as aw ar e of any pot ent i al l y perm anent
n e u ro lo g ica l d iso rd e r. A s D r. H iatt, M r. S u th e rla n d ’s e x p e rt, sta ted in h is s w o rn a ffid a v it, “R ober tSuther l and coul d notha ve know n thatthe t ar di ve dys ki nes i a w as c aus ed by t he Z ypr exa pr es cr i bed by D r. R i t t erunt i l af t erhe w as di agnos ed w i t h t ar di ve dys ki nes i a on J anuary 31, 2002. ” ¶27. A ccor di ng t o the C ent er f or t he Study of A ut i s m , “[ t ] ar di ve dys ki nes i a m ay appe ar anyw her e f

r om thr ee m ont hs t o severalyears af t eri ni t i al use of

t hes e m edi cat i ons . ” St ephen M . E d e ls o n , T

a rd ive D y sk in e sia , C en ter for th e S tud y o f A u ti sm (1 9 9 5 ) (em p h asis ad d ed ). T her ef or e , w hi l e M r . Suthe r l a nd may h a ve be e n a w a r e of s ome i mm e di a t e a dv e r s e s i de
e ffe c ts, h e h a s s u ffic ien tly d e m o n stra ted th a t n e ith e r h e n o r a n y m e d ica l p ro fe ss io n a l co u ld hav e kn ow n o f any pe rm anen tneu rol og i cal dam age un t i l he w as di agn osed b y D r. V ou l t ers . B y A p ri l 20 0 1 , M r. S u therlan d h ad alread y so u g h t a s ec o n d o p inion a t S t. D o m inic, y et th ere i s no m ent i on of

T D S i n any of

hi s m edi cal r ecor ds f

r om t hi s t i m e. I f

ai l t o s ee w hatf

ur ther “r eas onabl e di l i gence ” M r . Sut her l and coul d have exer ci s ed i n orde rt o di s coverhi s r es ul t i ng sy n d rom e, w h ich m ay t ak e y ea rs t o de v elop
. M r. S u therlan d st ated i n his de p o sit ion that D r. R itter ne v er told h im that T D S w as a p o ssible side -effec t. M r. S u therlan d also stat ed that D r.

### 15

R i t t ert ol d hi m t o cont i nue taki ng the drug and thati tw as “s af e. ” These f

act s ar e f ur ther
s u p p o rt e d b y D r. R itte r’ s n o te s . ¶ 2 8
. S e c o n d , M r. S u th e rla n d ’s m e d ica l re c o rd s in d ica te th a t he w a s re fe rre d to S t. D o m in ic “bec aus e of

pos s i bl e X anax a bus e, ” and notbeca us e of t he advers e s i de ef

f ect s he exper i ence d w i t h Z ypr exa. I n hi s mot i on f ors um m ary j udgement , D r . R i t t ers t at es t hat“at th a t tim e h e e x p re s s e d a s p e c if ic p e rc e iv e d n e e d to g e t ‘o ff o f Z y p re x a .’ S e e E x h ib it ‘ G ’.” Y et , Exhi bi tG c ons i s t s of a s i ngl e page f

r om M r . Suther l and’ s medi cal r ecor ds w hi ch makes
no m ent i on of

Z ypr exa. Fur t herm or e, M r . Sut her l and w as t aki ng a numberof drugs , and t est i fi ed thatatt he ti m e he ch ecked i nto St. D om i nic, he w anted t o “ co m e o ff tho se
m e d ic a tio n s ,” in c lu d in g X a n a x a n d Z y p re x a . ¶ 2 9
. W e h a v e h e ld th a t in c a s e s in v o lv in g s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t “[i]f the re is d o u b t as to
w h e th e r o r n o t a fa c t is s u e e x is ts , it s h o u ld b e re s o lv e d in fa v o r o f t h e n o n -m o v in g p a rt y .” A etn a Casu alt

y & S u r. Co. v. B erry , 669 So. 2d 56, 70 ( M i s s . 1996) ( ci t i ng R a tl if f v. R a tl if f , 500 So. 2d 981, 981 ( M i s s . 1986) )
. T he r ecor d demonstr at es s ubs t ant i al doubta s t o w hether
a fa c t issu e e x ists. T h e re fo re , b e c a u se th e re a re m a ter ial iss u e s o f fa c t th a t sh o u ld b e lef t to the j ury, s um m ary j udgementw as i m pr operand the ca s e aga i ns tD r . R i t t ers houl d pr ocee d. EA S LE Y AND GRA VE S , J J . , J OI N T HI S OP I NI ON.