I N T HE SU PREM E C OU RT OF MI SS I SS I PP I NO . 20 06 - I A- 00 36 4- SC T CONSOLIDATED WI TH NO . 20 06 - I A- 00 42 0- SC T FO RE ST HI LL NU RS I NG CENTER AN

D L ON G TE RM CA RE MA NA GE

ME NT , LL C
v. FR ED ER I C A B R I ST ER, CO

NS ER VA TO

R OF WILLI E McKEE, AS PERSONAL R E PR E SE N T

A T I V E O F PEA R L H

E N R Y, DECEASED, AND ON BE HA LF OF THE WRONGFUL DEATH BE NE FIC IARIES OF PE ARL HENRY, DECEASED
ON MO TI ON FO R REH EA RI NG
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 02/13/2006 TRI AL JUD GE : HO N. WINS TO N L
. KI DD COURT FROM WHICH APPEALED: HINDS COUNTY CI RCUIT COURT AT TO RN EY S F OR

AP PE LL AN TS : MA RJ ORI E S EL BYBU SC HING

ST EV ENMA RK

WA NN HEATHER M. ABY AT TO RN EY S F OR

AP PE LL EE : GI GI GI BS ON

CHARLES E. GI BSON, I II NA TU RE OF TH E C AS E: CI VI L - WR ON GF UL DE AT H DISPOSI TION: REVERSED AND RENDERED - 10/ 23/2008 MOTION FOR REHEARING FILED: 12/05/2007 MA ND AT E I SS UE D: EN BA NC . CARLSON, JUSTI CE, FOR THE COURT: ¶1. The mot ion f

or r ehe ar ing i s gr ant ed. The pr evi ous or der dis mi ss ing these int er loc utor

y appe al s i s va cate d and thes e opi nions ar e s ubst it ute d the re for
.2

¶2. In the se medi ca l- negl ige nce /wr ongful -de ath cases, the Hinds County Circ uit Court den ied D r. Timo thyEstes’s mo tio nto dismiss w hichasserted th at the p laintiff failedto
com ply wit h Miss is sippi Code Annotate d Sect ions 15-1-36( 15) ( Rev. 2003) and 11-1- 58(1) (Supp. 2007). Dr. Est es fi le d with this Cour t two se par at e pet it ions for int er loc utor

y appe al bas ed on two sep arate ac ti ons pe nding i n the tr ia l c ourt . One of thes e pe ti ti ons f or int er loc utor

y app eal was joi ned by For es t Hi llNurs ing Ce nte r and Long Ter m Care Mana gem ent , LLC. This Court ent er ed an en ban c o rder gr ant ing t he pe ti ti ons f

or int er loc utor

y appe al and cons oli dat ing the se two c aus es f or appe al pur

pose s. In due cour se , the pla int if

f, as se rt ing t

hat the parti es to t

he or iginal int er loc utor

y appe al s ha d bee n dis mi ss ed, fi le d a m oti on to di sm is s the inte rl ocut ory a ppea ls as to For es t Hi lland Long Ter m Care . Notwithst andi ng thi s Cour t’ s pr evi ous e n banc orde r granti ng the pe ti ti ons f or int er loc utor

y appe al whic h had be en joi ned by Fores t Hil l and Long Ter m Care , this Court subs eque ntl y e nte re d an e n banc orde r on Nove mbe r 29, 2007, dis mi ss ing the int er loc utor y appe al s a s t o Fore st

Hil l and Long TermCar e on the ba si s of an a lt er nat ive ar gume nt
conc er ning an al le ged unt im el y joi nder on the part

of Fore st Hil l and Long Ter

m Care . Fr om thi s or der dis mi ss ing t

hei r a ppea ls , For es t Hi ll and Long Ter m Care fi le d a m oti on for rehearin g, w hichwe to daygran t. ¶3. We now va cate this Cour t’ s en banc or der

di sm is si ng thes e cons oli dat ed appe al s a s to Fo rest Hill and L on g T erm Care. C on siderin g th e merits of th e issues raisedonapp eal,
we r eve rs e the Hi nds Count y Cir cui t Court’s o rders denyi ng the mot ion t o dis mi ss theThe June 11, 2002, c ompl ai nt and summons wer e ne ver se rve d. 1 This lawsui t wa s f

il ed a gai nst

Fo rest Hil l Nur si ng Cent er , Sc ott Linds ey a s 2 Administrato r, andJoh n D oes 1-2 6. F or the sake of clarity, we will refer to th e defen dan ts col le ct ive ly a s “ Fore st

Hil l. ” 3 pla int if f’ s c ompl ai nt f

or f ai lur e t o com

ply wit h Miss is sippi Code Annot at ed Se ct ions 15-1- 36(15) and 11- 1-58( 1), and r ende r j udgme nt he re in favo r o f Fore st Hil l and Long Ter

m Car e. FA CT S A ND PR OC EE DI NG S I N T HE TRI AL CO UR T ¶4. Th e pr oc e dur a l hi s t or y o f t od ay’ s c a s e s pans the c our s e of s e ve r a l y e ar s . Wh i l e we wil l s et out onl y so much of

the f ac ts and pr oce dura l hi st ory of thi s c as e a s i s ne ce ss ar

y for a full u nd erstand ing of th e issues b efore th e Co urt, admittedly , ou r recitationhere is still fairly len gth y, b ased o n th e pro cedu ral po sture o f this case. P earl Hen ry passedaw ay o n Ju ly 31, 2001. On June 11, 2002, Wil li e Mc Kee fi le d a c omplaint i n the Cir cui t Cour t f or the Fir st Judi ci al Dis tr ic t of

Hinds County, as per sona l be nef ic iary of Pearl Henr

y, de ce as ed, for her w ron gfu l death . Th e comp laint n amed as d efend ants F orest Hill N ursin g C enter, In c., f/k/a Crawfor d Nurs ing Hom e, Rhonda Bounds, Ver na Ba llCook, and John Doe s 1- 10. ¶5. OnJuly25 , 20 03 , McK ee filed an oth er comp laint against F orest H ill. Fo rest Hill 1 2 filed a mo tionto d ismiss onAu gu st 22 , 20 03 , asserti n g that M cKee h ad failedto co mply with Mis si ss ippi Code Annot at ed Se ct ion 15- 1-36( 15) i n that no noti ce was give n bef ore fi li ng sui t, and that McKe e l ike wis e ha d fa il ed t o com ply wi th Mi ss is sippi Code Annotate d Sec ti on 11-1- 58(1) in t

hat no expe rt

cons ultati on ce rt ificate was atta che d to t he c ompl ai nt4

at the time o f its filing . OnSep tember 1 5, 2 00 3, M cKee filed a Resp on se to th e Defen dan ts’ Moti on to Di sm is s, argui ng that be ca use He nry die d on Jul y 31, 2001, bef ore the ena ctme nt of thes e s tatut es , not ic e wa s not re quir ed. The pla int if f, thr ough couns el , a dmi tt ed not givi ng noti ce . Addit iona ll y, bec aus e McKe e “obt ai ned couns el shor tl y bef ore the expi rati on of the st at ute of l im it at ions , co unse l f or the Pl ai nti ff

fi le d sui t i n has te . . . be for e the Pl ai nti ff ’s ri ght t o sue e xpir ed. ” Thus , c ounse l f or Mc Kee adm itte d that no e xpert c onsul tati on
ce rt if ic at e was att ac hed to the c ompl ai nt and ar gued that the pla int if

f ha d si xty days f

rom the dat e of fi li ng sui t t o suppl em ent the ce rt if ic at e of cons ult at ion. ¶6. On Se pte mbe r 15, 2003, couns el for M cKee fileda Certificate o f Co nsul tati on,
as se rt ing t

hat couns el “w as u nabl e t o obta in t he c onsul tati on re quir ed .
. . bec aus e a li mi tati on of t im e e st abl is hed by Se ct ion 15- 1-36 woul d bar the ac ti on and that

the
cons ult at ion c ould not

re as onabl y be obt ai ned be for e suc h t im e expi re d.” For es t Hi llfi le d a Re butt al in Suppor

t of the Moti on t o Di sm is s on Se pte mbe r 23, 2003. Counse l f or Mc Kee the re af te r f il ed anothe r Cer

ti fi cate of Cons ult at ion on Oct ober 3, 2003, aga in a ss erti ng that he was una

ble t o obt ai n the e xpert c onsul tati on bef ore the st at

ute of l im it at ions expi re d, but li kewi se as se rt ing t

hat the pla int if

f had be en una

ble to t im el y obta in e xpert c onsul tati on “due to t he r ef usa l of the Defendant t o produc e the r ec ords as al le ged i n Pla int if f’ s or igi nal
com pla int .” Addit iona ll y, i n thi s Ce rt if ic at e, M cKee’s couns el st at ed that he woul d fi le a certificate of co nsu ltationwith in six ty d ays o f receivin g th e medical reco rds.5

¶7. Als o on Oct ober

3, 2003, McKee fil ed a Moti on to Ame nd Fir st Compl ai nt, as king the tria l c ourt

to a ll ow the am endm ent bec aus e the de fe nse had r aised th e issue of noncomp liance w ith th e Mississip pi M edical M alpractice T ort C laims Act b ut h ad refu sed to allow the p laintiff access to the med ical record s. OnOcto ber 6 , 20 03 , the H in ds C ou nty Cir cui t Cour

t, Judge Wins ton L. Kidd pr es idi ng, e nte re d an orde r al lowi ng McKe e t o fi le a Fir st Ame nded Com

pla int , and McKe e ther ea ft er fi le d thi s Fi rs t Am ende d Co mplain t on Oct ober 13, 2003. Att ac hed t o the am ende d com pla int was a c opy of the or igi nal com pla int fi le d on Jul y 25, 2003, and it is obvious fr om t

he pl ea dings that Mc Kee was as se rt ing t hat the ori gina l c ompl ai nt f

il ed on July 25, 2003, s at is fi ed the noti ce r equi re me nts of Mis si ss ippi Code Annot at ed Se ct ion 15-1-36. Int er es ti ngly, li kewi se atta che d to t he July 25, 2003,
com pla int was a l ette r f

rom the pla int if

f’ s couns el t o a

di ff er ent m edi ca l provi der

and nami ng differen t parties, assertin g a claim p ursu ant to the M ississipp i To rt Claims A ct. ¶8. On N ov ember 10 , 2 00 3, Fo rest H ill fileda Mo tion t o Dis mi ss McKee’s First Amen dedCo mplain t, argu ing thatc o u n se l for M cKee “attemp ted to cure its failu re to file a Certificate of Con sultatio n byattaching one to its R espo nse to the D efend ants’ M otio n to Dis mi ss , i nst ea d of havi ng att ac hed the Ce rt if ic at e to the or igi nal Com

pla int , as r equi re d by st at ute .” On Novem

ber 20, 2003, c ounse l for

Mc Kee s ent

a l ette r t o Fore st

Hil l r eque st ing Pearl Henr

y’s me dic al re cor ds. Counse l for Fore st Hil l s ent McKe e’ s c ounse l a

re ply date d Novem ber 25, 2003, stati ng that

the re cor ds had bee n se nt t o another law fi rm re pre se nti ngObvious ly, purs uant to Mis si ss ippi Rule of Appe ll at e Pr oce dure 5(a ), thi s m oti on for 3 interlo cuto ry ap peal sh ou ld h ave b een filedwiththe C lerk o f this C ou rt. The f ollo wing part ie s we re subs ti tut ed: (1) Rober t Cr awf ord, Hugh Frankli n, and 4 A.D. Buff

ingt on as owner s of

Fore st Hil l Nurs ing Hom e; (2) Tim othy Es te s, M.D. , a s the me dic al dir ec tor ; ( 3) Judson Wi ll iams as the nurs e pr ac ti ti oner ; ( 4) Rh on da Bounds and Ver na Cook a s the a dmi nis tr at ors ; and (5) Long Ter m Care Mana gem ent , LLC, as the per sonne l c ontr ac tor . 6 McKe e on July 24, 2002, but that anothe r c opy would be made avai la ble . On De ce mbe r 1, 20 03 , McK ee filed a Resp on se to Forest H ill’s Mo tionto D ismiss First A mend ed C omp laint. ¶9. On A pril 5, 20 05 , Ju dg e K idden te re d an or der denyi ng Fore st

Hil l’ s Mot ion to Dis mi ss McKe e’ s Firs t Am ende d Compl ai nt, st at ing t hat the noti ce re quir em ent of Mis si ss ippi Code Annot at ed Se ct ion 15-1- 36(15) and the c erti fi cate -of -c onsul tati on requ irement o f Mississip pi C od e An n o ta te dSectio n 1 1-1 -58 didno t app ly b ecause th ese st at ute s we re ena ct ed during t he 200 2 speci al le gis lati ve s es si ons, subs eque nt t o Henr y’s death on July 31, 2001. ¶10
. Fro m Jud ge K idd ’s ord er den yin g F o re stH il l’ s M otio n to Dismiss M cKee’s First Ame nded Compl ai nt, Fores t Hil l, on April 8, 2005, fi le d a Mot ion f or I nte rl ocut ory Appe al in th e Hin ds C ou ntyCircu it Co urt. OnAp ril 15 , 20 05 , McK ee filed a R espo nse to 3 Def endants ’ Mot ion f

or I nte rl ocut ory Appe al in the Hi nds Count y Cir cui t Cour

t. On June 5, 2 00 5, M cKee fileda No tice of Substitu tionfor the Jo hnDo es listed an d A mendment to Compl ai nt and al l Pl ea dings. Ju dg e Kidd, on June 7, 2005, e nte re d an or der al lowi ng McKe e t o subs ti tut e known part ie s f or the nam ed John Does
. On June 15, 2005, a s ingl e- 4 jus ti ce orde r wa s e nte re d by thi s Cour t de nying F orest Hi ll ’s Moti on for Int er loc utor

y7

Ap peal on the ba si s that

it was not t im el y fi le d purs uant to Mi ss is sippi Rul e of

Appellate Proc edur e 5( a)
. ¶ 11
. On July 6, 2005, Dr
. Es t e s f i l e d a Mo t i ont o D i s m i s s Mc Ke e ’ s c om pl a i nt on the grounds that McKe e had fa il ed to com ply with the noti ce r equi re me nt of Mis si ss ippi Code Annotate d Se ct ion 15-1- 36(15) (Mi ss . 2003) and ha d fa il ed t o atta ch the c er ti fi cate of e xpert
consu ltation to the com

pla int as re quir ed by Mi ss is sippi Code Annotate d Sec ti on 11-1- 58 (Supp. 2007). ¶12. On Jul y 8, 2005, Fore st Hil l, Long Ter m Car e, Frankli n, and Buff ingt on al so fi le d a motio n to dismiss onthe same g rou nd s stated b y D r. Estes. A dd ition ally, th ese defen dan ts st at ed that

the y had of

fe re d Henr

y’s me dic al re cor ds t o McKe e, des pit e the f ac t t hat the
re cor ds had bee n gi ven to McKe e’ s couns el f or the 2002 fi li ng of

the lawsui t, but

that t hey had ne ver

re ce ive d an answe r f

rom couns el for

McKe e. Also on July 8, 2005, Rhonda Bounds f il ed a mot ion t o dism is s, in which she argue d that she was im

prope rl y subs ti tut ed as a Joh n Do e whencou nsel fo r McK ee kn ew o f her id entityat the time th e orig inal law suit was filedin 2 00 2. S he also stated the same g rou nd s fo r d ismissal as plead ed byDr. E stes. ¶13. On July 14 , 20 05 , McK ee filed a R espo nse to Dr. E stes’s M o ti o n to Dismiss, adm itti ng that Dr. Es te s was not gi ven noti ce , but argui ng that Mi ss is sippi Code Annotate d Sectio n1 5 -1 -3 6(1 5) sp ecifically ex clud ed Jo hnDo es from th e no tice requ irement. Addit iona ll y, Mc Kee ar gued that Mi ss is sippi Code Annotate d Se ct ion 11-1- 58(2) re quir ed only one ce rt if

ic at e of cons ult at ion, eve n when other def endants ar e s ubse qu ently name d.8

McKe e ar gued that si nce he ha d pr ovide d two c erti fi cate s of cons ult at ion be for e s ubst it uti ng Dr. E stes, he h ad met th e statuto ry requiremen t. ¶ 14
. On July 15, 2005, Juds onWi l l i am s f i l e d an A ns we r

t o M c Ke e ’ s Fi r st Ame nded Compl ai nt. On Jul y 18, 2005, McKee fi le d a Suppl em ent al Res ponse to Dr . Es te s’ s Mot ion to Di sm is s and a Re spons e t o the Moti on to Di sm is s of Fore st Hil l, Frankli n, Buf

fi ngton, Long Ter m Care , argui ng that be ca use McKe e ha d le ar

ned the i den tities of the se parti es “through disc over

y and other

sour ce s, ” noti ce and a

ce rt if ic at e of cons ult at ion we re not
re quir ed purs uant

t o the st at

ute s. On July 20, 2005, McKe e fi le d a Re sponse to Bo unds’s motio n to dismiss. ¶15
. On July 27 , 20 05 , Ro bert Craw ford filed a Join der to Dr. Estes’s Mo tion to D ismiss and Se par at e Mot ion t o Dis mi ss bas ed upon im prope r s ubst it

uti on of part ie s and ar gued that McKe e wa s not

re as onabl y dil ige nt i n as ce rt ai ning t he i dent it ie s of the parti es when he had the me dic al re cor ds i n 2002. Dr . Es te s, on A ug ust 4, 2005, f il ed a Joi nder to Cr awf ord’ s Mo tionto D ismiss. OnAu gu st 5, 2 00 5, W illiams fi le daJ oin der to Dr. E stes’s Mo tionto Dis mi ss and Cr awf

ord’ s Separate Mot ion to Dis mi ss . On Augus t 10, 2005, Mc Kee fi le d a Resp on se to C rawfo rd’s M otio n to Dismiss. O n A ug ust 1 6, 2 00 5, M cKee fileda Resp on se to Wi ll iams ’s Joi nder , t o Dr. Est es ’s Moti on to Di sm is s, and t o Crawfor d’s Separate Moti on to D ismiss. ¶16
. On Octo ber 12 , 20 05 , McK ee filed yet ano ther Certificate of Co nsu ltation , this time st at ing t hat couns el had re vie wed the fac ts of the ca se and had c onsul te d with an e xpert andA si mi lar m oti on is pendi ng with thi s Cour t, and this mot ion i s di sc uss ed, infra
. 5 Rhonda Bounds ’s ple adi ng of Fe bruary 6, 2006, i s the la st ple adi ng or or der

in t he 6 re cor d whi ch li st s the pl ai nti ff a s “Wi ll ie Mc Kee , as Pe rs onal Re pre se ntati ve of Pe ar l He nry, DeceasedandonBeh alf of th e Wro ng ful D eathB en ef ic iaries o f Pearl H enry , Deceased .” Comm enc ing wi th Wi ll iams ’s ple adi ng fi le d on Fe bruary 9, 2006, a llsubs eque nt pl ea dings and or der s f

il ed l is t t he pl ai nti ff

as “Fr ede ri ca

Bri st er , a s Conse rvator

for Wi ll ie McKe e a s Perso nal R epr esentativ e of P earl Hen ry, D eceased an d o n B ehalf o f the W ron gfu l Death Bene fi ci ar ie s of

Pea rl Henry, Deceased .” We wi llthus her ei naf te r r ef er to t he pl ai nti ff

as “Brister” in stead o f “McK ee.” 9 c on c l ud e d that

the r e wa s ar e a s on abl e ba s i s f or the c omm e nc e m e nt

of the a c t i on . On Novem ber 14, 2005, Mc Kee f

il ed a Moti on f

or an Awar d of

Attor ney’ s Fee s and Expens es Purs uant to t he Lit igati on Account abi li ty Act of 1988 and Purs uant

to Mi ss is sippi Rul e of Civi l Pr oce dure 11. On De ce mbe r 6, 2005, Judge Ki dd entered an O rder on Moti on for Atto rney ’s Fees an d E xp enses, statin g th at th is motio n w ou ld b e takenun der advisemen t. 5 ¶ 17
. On January 24, 2006 , D r . E s t e s f i l e d aS up pl e m e nt

t o hi s J oi nd e r

to Crawfor d’s Mo tionto D ismiss, asserting that M cKee w as no t reason ablydilig ent inasc ertainin g h is ide nti ty, and thus, subs ti tut ion was impr oper . On Januar y 31, 2006, Dr. Es te s f

il ed a Sec ond Supp lement to his Join der of Mo tionto Dismiss, pro vid ing exh ibits fo r his arg umen t in h is First S up plemen tal Mo tionto D ismiss. ¶18. On February 6, 2006, Rhonda Bounds fi le d a Supp lemental M otio n to Dismiss, f ol l ow e d b y W i l l i am s ’ s Su pp l e m e nt a l Mo t i ont o D i s m i s s f i l e d F e br uary 9 , 20 06
. On 6 February 10, 2006, Fre der ic a Bri st er ( her et ofor e McKe e) f

il ed: ( 1) a Res ponse to First Supp lement to Dr. E stes’s Jo in d ert o C rawfo rd’s M otio n to Dismiss; (2 ) a Resp on se to Sec ond Supple me nt t o Dr. Est es ’s Joi nder to Cr awf

ord’ s Mot ion to D is mi ss ; and (3) a10

Resp on se to Fi rs t Suppl em ent to Bounds ’s Moti on to Di sm is s, ar guing t hat Dr. Est es ’s ide nti ty c ould not

be a sc erta ine d unti l di sc over y. ¶ 19
. On Marc h 6, 2006, Jud ge Ki dd e nt e r e d: ( 1) an o r de r

de ny i ng Rh on da Bounds’ s Moti on t o Di sm is s; ( 2) an orde r denyi ng Wi ll iams ’s Mot ion to Dis mi ss ; and (3) an ord er denyi ng Dr. E ste s’ s Mot ion t o Dis mi ss for fa il ure to c ompl y with Mis si ss ippi Code An no tated S ection15 -1-3 6(1 5). A lso o n M arch 6 , 20 06 , Dr. E stes filed h is first int er loc uto ry appea l wi th t his Court conc er ning a ll ege d im

prope r s ubst it

uti on. On Marc h 8, 2006, Judge Ki dd e nte re d anothe r orde r denyi ng Dr
. Est es ’s Moti on to Di sm is s f or f ai lur e to s ubst it ute as a f ic ti ti ous party. ¶20. On Marc h 9, 2006, Fores t Hil l, Buffi ngton, Frankl in, Long Term C are and Bounds attemptedto jo in Dr. Estes’s first in terlocu toryap peal in the trial co urt rather thanw ith th is Co urt. O n M arch 1 4, 2 00 6, D r. Estes fileda secon d interlo cuto ry app eal with th is Co urt, th is time ap p ea li n g Jud ge K idd ’s ord er den yin g th e Mo tionto D ismiss basedona failure to comp ly w ith M ississipp i Cod e Ann otatedSection15-1 -36 (15 ). OnMarch 15 , 20 06 , Fo rest Hil l, Buffing ton , Frankl in, Long Ter m Care , and Bounds j oine d Dr. Est es ’s se cond int er loc utor

y appe al . On March 16, 2006, this Court ent er ed an orde r gr ant ing and
con solid ating bo th o f Dr. E ste s’ s in terlocu toryapp eals, stating that: (1 ) Dr. E stes’s first int er loc utor

y appe al was joi ned by Cr awf ord, Bounds and Will iams ; (2) Dr. Es te s’ s s ec ond int er loc utor

y appe al was joi ned by Wi ll iams , For es t Hil l, Buffi ngton, Frankli n, Long Te rm Car e and Bounds; and ( 3) t he tri al court pr oce edi ngs we re stayed pe nding r es olut ion of the11

appe al . On Marc h 20, 2006, Crawfor d fi le d a Not ic e of Withdrawal of Al l Pe nding Mot ions and De si gnat ions of Expe rt Witnes se s be ca

use he ha d se tt le d with Bri st er . ¶21. On Mar ch 23, 2006, Dr . Es te s f il ed a State me nt of

Is sue s, as se rt ing: (1) Wh ether the Hi nds Count y Cir cui t Cour

t e rr ed i n denyi ng Dr. Est es ’s mot ion t o dis mi ss , a s a

matt er of l aw, bec aus e the statute of l im it at ions had expi re d when Dr
. Est es wa s ma de a def endant i n thi s l aws uit

and t he pl ai nti ff failed to ex ercise du e dilig ence indetermin ing Dr. E stes’s iden tity as a pote nti al def

endant i n thi s c as e. (2) Whether

the Hinds County Ci rcuit Co urt e rr ed i n denyi ng Dr. Est es ’s mot ion t o dis mi ss , as a matter of l aw, bec aus e the pl ai nti ff fa il ed t o provi de si xty ( 60) da

ys not ic e of

the lawsu it

aga ins t Dr . Es te s a s r equi re d by Mis si ss ippi Code Annot at ed Se ct ion 15- 1-36( 15). Also onMarch 23 , 200 6, Dr. E stes desig natedthe reco rd fo r app eal. Fo ur d ays later, F orest Hil l and Long Ter

m Care join ed Dr. Est es ’s fi rs t i nte rl ocut ory a ppea l i n thi s Cour

t i n an effort to cure th eir error infirst filing their jo ind er in th e trial cou rt. ¶22. On Mar ch 29, 2006, Wil li am s joi ned Dr. Est es ’s des ignati on of the re cor d and f il ed a separate d esign atio no f th e reco rd. A lso o n M arch 2 9, 2 00 6, W illiams filed a Jo ind er to Dr. Est es ’s State me nt of the Is sue s and Separate State me nt of Issu es, w hic h inc lude d a footnote st at ing t

hat “[ t] he tri al court also hear d ora l argum ent of De fe ndant s’ cl ai ms of Pla int if f’ s non- com

pli anc e wi th Mi ss . Code Ann. § 11- 1-58( 1) as ple d in t he s am e Mot ion to Di sm is s and Joi nder

bef ore thi s Court , and to dat e, no Orde r has bee n ent er ed by the tri al
court c once rni ng sa id s tatut e, that Appe ll ant /De fe ndant

is awar e of

.” On Mar ch 31, 2006, Fore st Hil l and Long Ter

m Care joi ned and suppl em ent ed Dr . Es te s’ s d esignat ion of the recordin th e Hin ds C ou ntyCircu it Co urt.Appel lants Dr. Ti mot hy Est es , Judson Wi ll iams , Hugh Fr ankl in, A.D. Buff ingt on, 7 and Rhonda

Bounds we re dis mi ss ed a s part ie s t o thi s a ppea l pur suant t o se par at e j oint mot ions to di sm is s and st ipul at ions of di sm is sa l f il ed on Marc h 5, 2007, Marc h 7, 2007, and March 14 , 20 07 , respectiv ely. 12 ¶23. On Nove mbe r 29, 2007, this C ou rt enteredan en ban c ord er granting Bri st er ’s Supple me nta l Mot ion t o Dis mi ss the int er loc utor y a ppea l of Fore st

Hil l and Long Ter

m Care for fa il ure to t im el y joi n, st at ing: 7 This matte r c am e on be for e this Court si tt ing e n banc on the Appel le e’ s Supple me nta l Mot ion t o Dis mi ss the Appea l of [For es t] Hil l Nur si ng Cent er and Long Te rm

Car e Manage me nt, LLC. The Appel le e ar gues that the appe al of For es t Hi lland Long Te rm Car e must

be dis mi ss ed bec aus e the part ie s who fi le d the ori gina l int er loc utor y appe al have bee n dis mi ss ed, the re is no longe r any a ppea l f or [] Fores t Hil l and Long TermCare to joi n. I n the al te rnati ve, the Ap pellee argu es that dismissal is requ ired byvirtue of th e fact that F orest Hil l and Long Ter

m Care fa il ed t o t im el y j oin the int er loc utor y appe al fi le d by the othe r de fe ndant s i n the ca se . For es t Hi lland Lo ng T erm C ar e do not atte mpt t o r e but the s e ar gum e nt s ; i ns t e a d, the y s i mpl y a s s e rt that the appe al inclu des “issu es of g eneral imp ortan ce.” The Hi nds Count

y Cir cui t Cour

t de nie d the Def

endants ’ Moti on to Di sm is s on Feb ruary 13 , 20 06 . On M arch 6 , 20 06 , Dr. T imoth y E stes filed tw o sep arate pet it ions for

per mi ss ion t o a

ppea l the c ir cui t court’ s int er loc utor y orde r. The oth er ind ividual d efend ants filedmotio ns fo r join der inEstes’s petitionwith thi s Cour t on Mar ch 8 and 9. For es t Hi llfi le d a m oti on for joi nder on Mar ch 9 with the Hinds County Ci rc uit Court rather than this Court . I t f

il ed a mot ion for joi nder with thi s Cour

t on Marc h 27, 2006. This Court

grante d the int er loc utor

y appe al on Mar ch 16, cons oli dat ed Es te s’ s two s e pa r at e pe t i t i on s and

i m pl i c i t l y a c kn owl edge d Fore st Hil l and Long Ter

m Care’s jo ind er in th e app eal. After th e con soli d ation , all of th e defen dan ts besid es Fo rest Hill and Lo ng Term Care volu ntarilydismissed th eir app eals. Mississi p p i Ru le of A pp ellate Pro cedu re 5 g ov erns in terlocu toryapp eals. M.R. A.P. 5. A party mus t fi le an inte rl ocut ory a ppea l wi thi n twe nty- one days of a tr ia l c ourt ’s interl ocut ory or der : “ Appea l f rom suc h an or der

may be sought by fi li ng a pe ti ti on for

per mi ss ion to app eal with the cl er k of theTh e Sou thernRepo rter citationis Cen tury 2 1 M aselle a nd

Asso cs. v. Sm ith , 965 So. 8 2d10 31 , 10 34 -35 n.5 (Miss. 2 00 7). Appel lant Robe rt

Crawfor d withdre w his appea l by way of a noti ce of wi thdr awa l 9 filed w ith th is Co urt. 13 Supreme C ou rt with in 2 1 d ays after the entryo f su ch ord er inth e trial cou rt[.]” M.R. A.P. 5(a ). Rule 5 does not s pec if y a t im e by whi ch parti es must joi n an int er loc utor

y appe al fi le d by another par ty. Howeve r, thi s Cour t ha s pre vious ly di sm is se d the appe al s of def endants on the gr ound that thei r m oti on for joi nder in a pet it ion for

i nte rl ocut ory a

ppea l wa s not

fi le d within t

wentyon e day s of th e entry of th e in te rl o cu toryord er at issue. See Cent ury 21 Ma selle an d A ssocs., In c. v. Sm ith , 20 07 Miss. L EX IS 4 48 ** 6-7 , fn. 5 .[ ] 8 Fore st Hil l and Long Ter

m Care fi le d the ir

mot ion f or j oinde r wi th t

his Court more th an fo rty d ays after th e circuit co urt d eniedthe D efend ants’ M otio n to Dismiss. B ecause Fo rest H ill an d Lo ng T erm C are’s mo tionwas n ot timely filed, th is Co urt mu st dismiss the ir app eals. ¶24. The entry of

thi s e n banc orde r of

Novem ber 29, 2007, was in r es ponse to Br is te r’ s fi li ng of he r Appe ll ee ’s Supple me nta l Mot ion to Dis mi ss the Appe al of For es t Hi llNurs ing Cent er and Long Te r

m Car e Manage me nt, LLC, on Se pte mbe r 25, 2007. Howe ver , nowhe re in t his suppl em ent al mot ion does Br is te r as k this Cour t to di sm is s this appe al bas ed on the fa il ure of For es t Hi lland Long Te rm Car e t o ti mely join D r. Est es ’s pet it ions for interlo cuto ry ap peal. T he g ist of Brister’s supp lemental motio n to dismiss is that sinc e all othe r part ie s to the appe al , wi th t he e xce pti on of For es t Hi lland Long Te rm Car e, had be en dis mi ss ed vi a j oint

mot ions to di sm is s and st ipul at ions of di sm iss al , the re “are no longe r 9 via ble pendi ng appe al s” for

Fore st Hil l and Long Ter

m Care to “

joi n” s inc e a llis sue s r ai se d bythe o rigin al parties to this ap peal w ere no w mo ot. In h er initial mo tionto d ismiss Fo rest Hil l and Long Ter

m Ca re , f il ed wi th this Co urt on Marc h 13, 2007, in a ddit ion t o theAft er thi s Cour t’ s e ntry of the a for em ent ione d N ovember 29, 2007, en banc or der 10 g ra n tin g B riste r’s S u p p lem e n tal M o tio n to D ism iss th e in ter lo c u to ry a p p e a l o f F o re st H ill and Long T er m C ar e f

or f ai l ur e t o t i m el y j oi n, B r i s t er f i l ed herA ppel l ee’ s R ul e 38 M ot i on f or D amages f

or F ri vo l ou s A ppeal and R es pons e t o For es t H i l l N ur s i ng C ent er and Long T e rm C a re M a n a g e m e n t, L L C ’s M o tio n fo r R e h e a rin g . B a se d o n tod a y ’s d isp o sitio n o f th is c a s e , th is m o tio n is d is m is s e d a s m o o t. 14 al le gat ions that t

her e wer e no r em ai ning vi abl e a ppea ls due t o the dis mi ss al of a llothe r parti es , Br is te r a ls o as se rt ed that “[ t] im el y noti ce of a

ppea l ha s be en he ld to be jur is dic ti onal ,” ci ti ng Michael v. Michael, 650 So. 2d 469 (Miss . 1995) ; howe ver , Br is te r does not a ss ert t

hat the appe al s as t o For es t Hil l and Long Te rm Car e s hould be dis mi ss ed du e to u ntimelin ess. ¶ 25
. Addit io na l l y, e ve n i n a ddr e s s i ng the i s s ue o f the t i me li nes s of

the joi nder

in the pe t i t i on s f

or i nt e r l oc ut or

y a pp e a l b y Fo r e s t

H i l l and L on g Te rmC ar e , the i r j oinde r wa s ti me ly f il ed whe n ca lc ulati ng the t im e purs uant t o Mis si ss ippiRule of Appe ll at e Pr oce dure 5 fr om t he date of entryof the tr ia l court orde rs de nying the mot ions to di sm is s, as oppose d to u sing the earlier d ate of th e trial cou rt hear ing onthe mo tion s to d ismiss. ¶26. When thi s Court ent er ed it s en banc orde r on Mar ch 16, 2006, granti ng the pet it ions for int er loc utor

y appe al as to the pet it ione rs and all indivi dual s and e nti ti es who had j oine d the p etition s for in terlocu toryapp eal, these co nso lidatedapp eals were v iable as to all parties, inc ludi ng Fore st

Hil l and Long Te rm

Car e. We ther ef

ore proc ee d to c onsi der

the me ri ts of the issu es presen ted o n ap peal. 10A thir d i ss ue wa s pr es ent ed ( whether Rhonda Bounds was im

prope rl y subs ti tut ed 11 as a defen dan t); ho wev er, B o un d s’ s p o st -ap p ea l s ettl em en t w ithth e p la in ti ff no w ren ders th is issue mo ot. 15 DISCUSSI ON ¶27
. "T his C o u rt re v ie w s de no vo a trial cou rt' s gran t or den ial of a motio n to d ismiss." Cm ty. Ho sp. v. Goo dlett , 968 So. 2d 391, 396 ( Mis s. 2007) ( quoti ng Penn. Nat 'l Gaming, Inc. v. Ratl

if f , 954 So. 2d 427, 430 ( Mis s. 2007) ( over rul ed on other

gr ounds)). See a lso Harrisv. Miss. Vall

ey Stat e Univ. , 873 So. 2d 970, 988 ( Mis s. 2004). ¶28
. Tw o issues are before the Co urt: (1) wh ether dismissal is wa rr an te dfo r f ai lu re to
com ply wi th t he not ice requ ir em ent

of Mi ss is sippi Code Annotate d Sec ti on 15-1- 36(15) (Re v. 2003) ; and (2) whether dis mi ss al i s war

rante d f or fa il ure t o ac com

pany the c ompl ai nt with a c erti fi cate of

e xpert cons ult at ion purs uant t o Mis si ss ippi Code Annot at ed Se ct ion 11- 1-58 ( Supp. 2007)
. We r es tate the is sue s f or the s ake of di sc uss ion. 11 I. WHETHER DISMISSAL I S WARRANTED FOR FAILURE TO C O M P L Y W I TH THE STATUTORY NOT I C E REQUIREMENT. ¶29. Fore st

Hil l and Long Ter

m Care argu e th at n o notic e wa s gi ven t o any def endant bef ore fi li ng sui t and that Br is te r a dmi tt ed this to the tr ia l cour t. Mis si ss ippi Code Annot at ed Sectio n 1 5-1 -36 (15 ) (Rev . 20 03 ) states: No ac ti on bas ed upon the he al th care provi der ' s pr ofe ss iona l ne gli genc e m ay be be gun unle ss the def

endant ha s be en giv en at l ea st si xty ( 60) days' pri or wri tt en not ic e of the i nte nti on t o be gin the a ct ion. No parti cul ar f orm of noti ce is re quir ed, but i t s hal l not if y the def endant of the le gal bas is of the cla im and the type of l oss sust ai ned, incl uding wit h spec if ic it y the nat ure of the i njur ie s suf fe re d. I f the not ic e i s s er

ved within s ixt

y (60) days pri or t o the expi rati on16

of the a ppli ca ble s tatut e of li mi tati ons, the ti me f or the c omm enc em ent

of the actionshall b e ex tend ed sixty(6 0) day s fro m th e serv ice o f th e n otice for said healthcare pro vid ers andothers. Th is subsectio n shall no t be applicab le with respect to anydefen dan t wh ose n ame is un kn ow n to the p laintiff atth e time of f il ing t he c ompl ai nt and who is ide nti fi ed ther ei n by a f ic ti ti ous name . This am endm ent

was pas sed by a specia l s es si on of the Le gis latur e i n 2002, and was ef fe ct ive fr om and af

te r J anuary 1, 2003. Br is te r argue s that she was not r equired to gi ve si xty days not ic e be ca

use Henr y pass ed away on Jul y 31, 2001, and her caus e of a ct ion t hus accruedbefore Janu ary 1, 20 03 . How ever, w e hav e clearly h eld th at the statu toryno tice is
re quir ed f or c la im s f

il ed on or af te r J anuary 1, 2003, re gar dle ss of when the c la im ac cr ued. Arc eo v . Tol live r , 949 So. 2d 691, 694-95 ( Mis s. 2007) ( ci ti ng Pit alo v. GPCHP-GP, Inc

. , 933 So. 2d 927, 928-29 ( Mis s. 2006))
. ¶30
. Brister admits that she did no t giv e the statuto ry no tice to any party . Prev iou sly, th is Court was “s quar el y conf

ront ed wi th a

si tuati on wher e the pl ai nti ff , i n filing an or igi nal comp laint, a first amen dedcomp laint, an d a seco ndamend ed co mplain t, wh ollyfai le d to sub mit any not ic e re quir ed by t he s tatut e. ” Arc eo , 94 9 S o. 2 d at 6 97 n .5 ( emp h as is in ori gina l) . We furthe r s tate d in Arc eo : On June 4, 2004, Myrt is Tol li ver f il ed a com

pla int f or me dic al malpract ic e and ne gli genc e aga ins t Dr. Ar ce o and J ohn and J ane Doe de fe ndant s. On June 25, 2004, the pla int if

f f il ed a fi rs t am ende d compl ai nt; and, on July 23, 2004, the p laint iff fileda secon d amen dedcomp laint. P rior to the filin g o f these com pla int s, the pla int if

f f ai le d to submi t t

he not ic e r equi re d by Mis s. Code Ann. § 15- 1-36( 15) ( Rev. 2003). Id. at 692-93 (f

ootnot es omitte d). We he ld i n Arc eo that the tr ia l c ourt

er re d in de nying t

he defen dan ts’ Mo tionto D ismiss, or inthe A lternativ e, for S ummaryJud gmen t, becau se17

Mis si ss ippi Code Annot at ed Sec ti on 15- 1-36( 15) cl earl y s tate s that no a ct ion m ay be begun with ou t prior no tice. Id. at 694-95 ( ci ti ng Pita lo , 933 So. 2d at 928-29). Her e, as in Arc eo , “the pl ai nti ff

wholly fa il ed to pr ovide any wr itte n noti ce to any me dic al provi der conc er ning her int ent ion t o comme nce sui t. ” Id. at 69 4. T hu s, clearly, as a n amed p arty , F o rest Hill
was ent it le d to s ixt

y days noti ce bef

ore the fi li ng of

the sui t, f ai li ng whi ch, For es t Hil l wa s entitledto d ismissal. ¶31
. As to Lo ng Term Care, Brister also argu es that she was no t requ ired to giv e no tice to the d efend ants, sp ecifically L on g T erm C are, w ho were substitu ted as Jo hnDo es, becau se Sectio n 1 5-1 -36 (15 ) specifically pro vid es that “[t] his sub sectionshall no t be ap plicab le with
re spe ct to any def

endant whos e name is unkno wnto the pl ai nti ff at the ti me of f

il ing t he
com pla int and who i s i dent if

ie d the re in by a

fi ct it ious nam e. ” We a gre e with this as se rt ion
as to Long Te rm

Car e c once rni ng thi s f

ir st iss ue and fi nd that ; the re for e, we procee d to I ss ue II
. II . WHETHER DISMI SSAL IS PROPER FOR FAILU RE TO

AT TA CH A C ER TI FI CA TE OF EX PE RT CO NS UL TA TI ON . ¶32. Fo rest H ill an d Long TermCar e a ls o as si gn as er ror the fa il ure of the plaintiff to
ac com pany t he c ompl ai nt wi th a

ce rt if ic at e of expert c onsul tati on at

the ti me sui t wa s
comme nce d as re quir ed by Mi ss is sippi Code Annotate d Sec ti on 11-1- 58 (Supp. 2007). In his M otio n to Dismiss, D r. E stes also assign ed th is failure as erro r. Sectio n 1 1-1 -58 became ef fe ct ive fr om and af

te r Januar y 1, 2003. I n Walke r v

. Whi tf ield Nur si ng Cent er , I nc. , 931 So . 2d58 3 (M iss. 20 06 ), th is Co urt fo r the first time ad dressedSectio n 1 1-1 -58
. Walke r18

invol ved a

negl ige nce /wr on gfu l- death s uit comme nce d on Apri l 7, 2004, f or i njur ie s and
re sul tant death occ urr ing on April 8, 2002, and Jul y 17, 2002, re spe ct ive ly. The Se ct ion 11- 1-58( 1) e xpert c onsul tati on ce rt if ic at e di d not a cc ompany the com pla int comme nci ng the lawsu it. Id. at

586. I n the end, we s tate d that be ca use the “c le ar

and unambi guo us”
mandat ory l angua ge of

the st at ute r equi re d that

“ the c ompl ai nt sha llbe a cc ompanie d by” an exp ert con sultatio n certificate, W alker’s co mplain t hadto b e dismissed
. Id at 591. ¶33
. Ho wev er, sub sequ ent t o Walker , we r e vi s it ed this is sue in Wim ley v. Reid , 20 08 Miss. LEXIS 456 ( Sept . 18, 2008). In Wiml ey , we over

rul ed Walke r

and i ts proge ny to t

he e xte nt that Walke r

stoo d fo r th e p rop ositio n that the Leg islature hadth e au tho rity u nd er ou r state
cons ti tut ion t o promulgate proc edur al st at ute s dic tati ng t o the judi ci ar y what it sha llre quir e to b e attachedto p lead in g s fi ledin co urt. Id. , ** 9- 10 , ¶ ¶ 14
- 16
. Onthe othe r

hand , we cl earl y ac knowle dged i n Wiml ey th e L egislatu re’s co nstitu tion al au tho rity to set o ut p re-suit
re quir em ent s, s uch a s e xpert c onsul tati on pri or t o comme nce me nt of a m edi ca l- ma lpr ac ti ce
su it. Id. , **11- 12, ¶

¶18- 20. Be ca

use the re cor d in Wiml

ey d i d no t r e ve a l whe the r the st at utor il y mandate d pre- sui t re quir em ent s had bee n met , we re manded the c as e t o the tr ia l
cou rt, withinstru ction s, for anevid entiaryhearin g to determin e this issu e. Id. , *12, ¶21. ¶34. Ret

urni ng to t

he f ac ts of t oday’ s c as e, cons is te nt wi th Wi ml ey , w e a re re qu ir ed to
re ver se the tr ia l c ourt

judgm ent denyi ng the m oti on t o di sm is s for f ai lur e to com

ply wi th t he pre-su it requiremen ts of section 11 -1-5 8(1 ). Ho wev er, it is not necessary to remand th is case purs uant to Wiml ey , be ca use the pla int if

f’ s attorn ey in today’ s c as e a dmi ts that he did not19

cons ult an e xpert pr ior

to c omm enc ing t

his laws uit . Thus, i n addi ti on to our re as ons s tate d in d iscus si n g Issu e I, sup ra , as to F orest H ill, the p laintiff’s co mplain t again st Fo rest Hill
mus t a ls o be di sm is se d for f ai lur e to c ompl y with the pre -s uit re quir em ent s of

Sec ti on 11-1- 58(1) . Si nce the pla int if

f di d not c ompl y with the pre -s uit re quir em ent s o f S ecti on 11-1- 58(1) at the ti me th e suit wa s c omm enc ed a gai nst Fore st Hil l, we f

ind t hat a s ubse quent sub stitutio n of Lo ng Term Care as a partyto a suit that must be d ismissed w as meanin gless. We fin d th is issue as to bo th F orest H ill andLo ng Term C are to h ave merit. CONCLUSION ¶35. For the re as ons st at ed, the Hinds County Cir cui t Court ’s orde rs denyi ng the mot ion to di sm is s the pl ai nti ff

’s com pla int for fa il ure to c ompl y wi th Mis si ss ippi Code Annotate d Sectio ns 1 5-1 -36 (15 ) and1 1-1 -58 (1) are reversed , an d jud gmen t is ren deredhere fo r Fo rest Hil l Nur si ng Cent er

and Long Te rm

Car e Manage me nt, LLC. ¶36
. RE VE RS ED AN D REN DE RE D. SM ITH , C .J., W AL LE R, P .J., D ICK INS ON , RA ND OL PH AN D L AM AR , JJ ., CO NC UR . EA SL EY , J. , DI SS EN TS WI TH OU T S EP AR AT E WRI TT EN OP I NI ON . DI AZ , P. J. , DI SS EN TS WI TH SE PA RA TE WRI TT EN OP I NI ON JO I NE D I N P AR T BY GRAVES, J.

DI AZ , P RE S I DI NG J US T I CE , DI S S E NT I NG : ¶ 3 7
. T h e interloc u tory ap p ea ls of ForestH i l l N u rsi n g C en ter an d L o n g T erm C are M anage m ent , LL C , s houl d be di s m i s s ed by t hi s C our t . For es t H i l l i s bar r ed f r om appea l i ng t he t r i al cour t ’ s or der denyi ng it s m oti on t o di s m i s s beca us e i t appea l ed t hat or der once20

bef or e, and t hi s C our t deni ed i t s m ot i on fori nt er l ocut or y appeal
. L ong T er m C ar e’ s appea l
cann ot be he ard b y this C ou rtbecau se t he tr i al cou rtnev er ruled on it s m oti on t o d i sm i ss. M o reo v er, I d isag ree w it h the m ajorit y that the tri al co u rt erred b y n o t dism issi n g B ri ster’s compl ai nt bas ed on h er f ai l ur e t o pr ovi de pr e- s ui t not i ce t o t he def endant s and t o at t ach a
c e rt if ic a te o f e x p e rt c o n s u lta tio n to th e c o m p la in t. F o r t h e s e re a s o n s , I d is s e n t. ¶38
. F orest H i l l ’s interl o cu t ory app eal i s cl earl y barr ed. A s t he m aj ori t y op i nion no t es, For es t H i l l pr evi ous l y appea l ed t he ci r cui t cour t ’ s or der denyi ng i t s m ot i on t o di s m i s s on A pr i l 8, 2005, and t hi s C our t ent er ed an or der on J une 15, 2005, denyi ng For es t H i l l ’ s m ot i on for interloc u tory ap p ea l f o r no t bein g ti m ely filed . B y jo ining D r. E stes’s i n terl o cu tory
a p p e a l o f th e c irc u it c o u rt’s o rd e r d e n y in g h is m o tio n to d ism iss , F o re st H ill w a s o b v io u sly at t empt i ng t o a pp e a l t he de ni a l of i t s mot i on t o d i s mi s s a s e c on d t i me. I t i s a xi omat i c t hat

a lit ig a n t m a y n o t ap p e a l an in ter lo c u to ry o rd e r tw ice . A c c o rd in g ly , this C o u rt sh o u ld d ism iss F o re st H ill ’s in ter lo c u to ry a p p e a l. ¶3 9. A s f

or Long Ter m Car e ’ s i nt e r l oc ut or y a pp e a l , t hi s Cour t c a nn ot a s s e r t j ur i s di c t i on
o v er it
. L o n g T erm C are fi led its m o ti o n to d ism iss on Ju ly 8 , 2 0 0 5 . B u t t h e c ir cu itco u rt
neverr ul ed on Long Ter m Car e’ s mot i on t o di s m i s s . ( T he M ar ch 6 and M ar ch 8 or der s of t he ci r cui t cour t deni ed Est es ’ s m ot i on t o di s m i s s , w hi ch w as f i l ed s epar at el y fr om L ong T erm C are ’s. ) L o n g T erm C are ad m it ted th is i n it s m o ti o n fo r joind er fil ed w it h this C o u rt on M ar ch 27, 2006: “Long T er m C ar e . . . [ has ] pe ndi ng be f or e t he l ow er cour t t hei r M ot i on t o D i s m i s s [
. ] ” B eca us e t he ci r cui t c our t ne ver r ul ed on Long Ter m C ar e’ s m ot i on, t her e w as21

no “i nt er l ocut or y or der ” t o appea l
. M
. R
. A
. P. 5( a)
. T her ef or e, t hi s C our t m us t di s m i s s L ong T e rm C a re ’s in ter lo c u to ry a p p e a l. GR AVES, J . , J OI NS T HI S OPI NI ON I N PART.