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 - I A- 0 1 5 9 6 - S CT CO NSOLI DATED W I TH NO. 2 0 0 6 - CA- 0 1 6 2 9 - S CT C OMMUNI T YHO S P I T A L OF J

A C KS ON, MI S S I S S I P P I d / b / a C OM M U N I T Y N U R S I N G HO ME FOUNDAT

ION, I NC . , M ICHEL L E DAN

I EL AN D DERWOOD BOYLES
v. BER NA DE TTE G OO DLE TT, BY AN D O N B EH

ALF OFSARAH

GO OD LETT D A T E O F JU D G M E N T : 08/ 30/ 2006 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 : M AR J OR I E S E L BY BU S CH I NG S T E VE N M AR K W ANN HEATHE R M
. ABY AT T OR NE YS F OR AP P E L L E E : J OHN P RE S T ON S CA NL ON J OHN F
. HAW KI NS NATURE OF THE CAS E: CI VI L - P ERS ONA L I NJ URY 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 - 09/ 20/ 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
. B e rn a d e tte G o o d le tt b ro u g h t s u it a g a in s t C o m m u n ity H o s p ita l o f J a c k s o n , M is sis sip p i, M i chel l e D ani el , and D erw ood B oyl es i n t he C l ay C ounty C i r cui tC our tby and on behal f of herm other , Sar ah G oodl ett , a l l egi ng negl i gence , negl i gence pers e, r es pondeats uper i or , and br eac h of

contr actdue t o decubi tus ul cer s Sar ah dev el oped dur i ng hers t ay i n the nur s i ng hom e. A f

t e ra tr a ns f

e ro f v e nu e t o the Ci r c ui tCourto f the Fi r s tJ ud i c i a l Di s tr i c tof H i nds

### Comm unit y Nur sing Hom e Foundation, Inc ., is a non- prof it cor porati on for

me d for 1 

### thepurpos e of being a

c harit abl e organiz ation to provi de suppor t for Communi ty Hos pit al of Jack son , Mississip pi, an d w as nev er inv olv ed in S arah’s care . Co mmun ity Nursin g H ome Foundation, Inc ., fi le d a Separat e Motio n to Di sm is s on Septe mbe r 22, 2005. Theparti es agreedto d ismiss Co mmun ity Nursin g H ome F ound ation , Inc. Becau se “Bern adette” ap pears w ith diff erent spe ll ingsthrou gh out the reco rd, w e will 2 

### use“Be rna dette ,”as style d, f or c lari ty. 2 C ounty, the def

endant s f i l ed a M ot i on t o D i s m i s s , ori n t he A l t ernat i ve, t o St ay Pr ocee di ngs and E nf or ce A rbi tr at i on A gr eement , w hi ch w as deni ed by t he t r i al cour t . T hi s C our tgr ant ed t h e d e f e n d a n t s ’ p e t i t i o n f

o ri n t e r l o c u t o ry a p p e a l i n c a u s e n u mb e r2 0 0 6
- I A- 0 1 5 9 6
- SCT,
cons ol i dat ed thatcaus e w i th caus e number2006- C A
- 01629- SC T , and s t ayed a l l pr ocee di ngs i n the tr i al courtpendi ng thi s C our t ’ s deci s i on. Fi ndi ng er rori n the tr i al court ’ s or der d e n y in g th e d e fe n d a n ts’ m o tio n to d ism iss , w e rev e rse the trial c o u rt’s o rd e r a n d re m a n d th is
cas e t o the C i r cui tC our tof the Fi r s tJ udi ci al D i s tr i ctof H i nds Count y f

orentry of

an or der
cons i s t entw i th t hi s opi ni on.

F ACT S AND P ROCE ED I NGS I N T HE T RI AL COURT ¶2. Sar ah G oodl ett( Sar ah) w as admi t t ed t o Com m uni ty H os pi t al of J acks on, M i s s i s s i ppi ( C om m uni ty) , on February 9, 2004. Sar ah’ s daught er s , B ernadett e and C ar ol yn, s i gned the 1 2 admi s s i on agr eement , w hi ch al s o cont ai ned an a rbi tr at i on agr eement . Sar ah di d nots i gn t he
a d mi s s i o n a g r e e me n t , a s s h e wa s u n a b l e t o s i g n h e rn a me d u e t o c o mp l i c a t i o n s f r o m a pr evi ous s t r oke. P atC l ack s i gned as the Faci l i ty R epr es ent at i ve, and C onni e R ex s i gned as
a w i tnes s . N ei therB ernadett e norC ar ol yn s i gned ori ni t i al ed any i ndi vi dual pr ovi s i on of t he
con tract . B ernadett e si gn ed a sep arat e do cum ent ent i t l ed R esi den t ’s R i gh t s.

### Comm unit y argues that t

his doc ume nt wa s not

a r eque st for me dic alre cords, but 3 

### rathe r a si mpl e notic e of

int ention t o file su it, per the l angua ge of thele tt er . Be ca

useour dec is ion doe s not

re st on thi s i ss ue, we de cl ineto di sc uss thi s i ss ue t oday.

3 ¶3. Sar ah devel oped tw o decubi tus ul cer s dur i ng her s t ay at C om m uni ty w hi ch r equi r ed
su rg e ry o n A u g u st 2 0 , 2 0 0 4 . B e rn a d e tte firs t g a v e n o tice b y w a y o f a lette r to C o m m u n ity of heri nt ent i on t o f

i l e s ui tand r eques t ed as s i s t ance t o expedi t e t he pr oces s on A ugus t31, 3 2004. T hi s l ett ererr oneous l y s t at ed thatSar ah’ s l eg had be en amput at ed: T hi s l ett eri s bei ng s entpur s uantt o Sect i on 15- 1-36(15) of the M i s s i s s i ppi C o d e o f 1 9 7 2 , as a m e n d e d . T h is le tter is to in fo rm y o u o f o u r in te n tio n to b e g in a c tio n o n b e h a lf o f M s. S a ra h G o o d le tt. T h e b a sis o f th e su it i s negl i gence and gr os s negl i gence i n t he car e and t r eatm entof M s . G oodl ettat C om m uni ty N ur s i ng H om e, w hi ch l ed t o f ur theramput at i on of

herl eg. I have nothad the opportuni ty t o obt ai n r ecor ds and t o have t hem re vi ew ed by a n e x p e rt w itn e ss . It m a y b e th a t af ter su c h re v iew , w e d e ter m in e th a t th e re is no bas i s f

ors ui t . If

y ou are i n a pos i t i on t o expedi t e thi s pr oces s , your as s i s t ance w oul d be appr eci at ed. M i chel l e D ani el , C om m uni ty’ s admi ni s tr at or , s enta r epl y l ett ers t at i ng thatSar ah’ s l eg w as notamput at ed and thatB ernadett e’ s couns el m us thave m i s t aken Sar ah f ors om eone e l s e. O n S e p tem b e r 8 , 20 0 4 , B ern ad ette ’s c o u n se l se n t D a n iel a n o th e r le tter, c lar ify in g th a t th e su it
w as b ei ng f

i l ed due t o decubi tus ul cer s and agai n r eques t i ng as s i s t ance t o expedi t e the process: T his let t eri s bei ng s entpur s uantt o Sect i on 15- 1- 36( 15) of the M i s s i s s i ppi C o d e o f 1 9 7 2 , as a m e n d e d . P lea se d isre g a rd m y A u g u st 3 1 , 2 0 0 4 lette r. T h is l ett eri s t o i nf

or m you of

ouri nt ent i on t o begi n act i on on behal f of M s . Sar ah G o o d let t. T h e b asis o f the su itis ne g li g en ce an d g ross n eg li g en ce in the ca re a n d tre a tm e n t o f M s. G o o d lett a t C o m m u n ity N u rsin g H o m e , w h ich led to h o sp it ali za ti o n an d su rge ry to tr ea t her d ec u b itu s u lcer.

### Comm unit y’s bri ef st at es that t

his re fe re nced a

uthoriz ation e ncl osure wa s not 4 

### inclu dedwiththe letter, n either d oes it ap pear inthe reco rd. 4 I have nothad the opportuni ty t o obt ai n r ecor ds and t o have t hem re vi ew ed by a n e x p e rt w itn e ss . It m a y b e th a t af ter su c h re v iew , w e d e ter m in e th a t th e re is no bas i s f

ors ui t . I f

you ar e in a po si t i on t o expedi t e thi s pr oces s , your as s i s t ance w oul d be appr eci at ed. ¶4
. O n O c to b e r 7, 2 0 0 4 , B ern ad ett e’s co u n se l se n t D a n iel a n o th e r le tter, a lleg e d ly
acc om pani ed by a m edi cal author i zat i on s i gned by B ernadett e author i zi ng the r el eas e of 4 S a ra h ’s m e d ica l re c o rd s. O n O c to b e r 2 0 , 2 0 0 4 , D a n iel s e n t B e rn a d e tte’s c o u n s e l a re p ly lette r sta tin g sh e d id n o t b e liev e th a t th e H IP A A A u th o riz a tio n F o rm sig n e d b y B e rn a d e tte
w as adequa t e, beca us e B ernadett e di d nothave pow erof att orney f

orSar ah. T hus , D ani el
r ef us ed t o pr ovi de Sar ah’ s re cor ds w i thoutS ar ah’ s conse nt , as thi s w oul d be a vi ol at i on of H I PA A
. O n O ct ober26, 2004, B ernadett e’ s couns el s entD ani el a l ett er , s t at i ng: W i th r es pectt o yourr ef us al t o pr ovi de M s . G oodl ett ’ s medi cal chartpur s uant t o 45 C FR § 164. 502, I bel i eve you a r e i n vi ol at i on of thats ect i on r atherthan com plyi ng w i th it
. I di rectyou r at t enti on t o 16 4. 50 2(g)( 1) and (4) ( si c). T hese s e c tio n s c le a rl y s ta te th a t m y c lie n t, as the per s onalr epr esent ati ve of the dece as ed , m us tbe pr ovi ded the cha r t . Sect i on 164. 50 2(a) ( 1) ( I ) perm i t s you t o di s cl os e M s . G oodl ett ’ s r ecor ds t o my cl i ent . I a s k agai n thatyou pr ovi de the c o m p let e m ed ical ch art im m ed iat ely p u rsua n t t o S ec ti o n 1 6 4
. 5 0 2 (a)(1)(I). ( E m phas i s added)
. O n O ct ober28, 2004, D ani el r es ponded i n a l ett er , s t at i ng: W e r ece nt l y r ece i ved a reque s tf r om you, dat ed O ct ober26, 2004, f orthe m edi cal r ecor ds r el at ed t o the above- m ent i oned r es i dent
. I n yourl ett er , you sta ted tha t M s. G o o d lett is d e c e a s e d
. M s . Go o d l e t t i s CURRE NT LY a r e s id e n t, a n d th e r e fo r e N O T d e c e a s e d . In a d d itio n , b o th of herdecubi tus ul cer s have be en he al ed
. S he has been pa r t i ci pat i ng i n gr oup act i vi t i es and s ta te s th a t s h e is “ v e ry h a p p y to b e b e tte r.”

### We wil l ref er to De fe ndant s Comm

unit y, Danie l, and Boyl es col le ctive ly a s 5 

### “Communi ty”for

cl arit y. Bo yles is th e licensee o f Co mmun ity. 6 

### 5 A l though w e have not ed yourl ett erdat ed O ct ober7, 2004, w e do notbel i eve the author i zat i on i s adequa t e. M s . G oodl ett ’ s daught er s ( B ernadett e and C ar ol yn) have s i gned t he H I PA A A uthor i zat i on F or m , t hey do nothave Pow er o f A tto rn e y o r a n y o th e r le g a l au th o rity o v e r th e ir m o th e r. M s. S a ra h G o o d lett i s par al yzed, buts he i s of s ound m i nd. T o thi s d at e, I have no pr oof of any phys i ci an s t at i ng M s . G oodl etti s m ent al l y i ncompet ent . I ti s a vi ol at i on of M s . Sar ah G oodl ett ’ s r i ght s t o gi ve hermedi cal r ecor ds t o an att orney w i thout h e r c o n se n t. (E m p h asis in o ri g inal). ¶5
. O n D ece m ber27, 2 00 4, Berna de t t e f i l e d s ui tagai ns tC om m uni t y, D ani el , and 5 B oyl es al l egedl y by and on beha l f of Sar ah i n the C l ay C ounty C i r cui tC our tcl ai m i ng 6
n e g lig e n c e , n e g lig e n c e p e r s e , res p o n d e a t su p e rio r, an d b re a c h o f c o n tra c t. B e rn a d e tte att ache d an A t t orney C ert i f i cat e, r atherthan a C ert i f i cat e of Exper tConsul t at i on a s r equi r ed by M i s s . C ode A nn. § 11- 1- 58( 1) ( Supp. 2004) , w hi ch s t at ed: 2. P l ai nt i f

f has r eques t ed the d ec ed en t’s medi cal r ecor ds , a nd the r ecor ds have notbeen pr oduced. Pl ai nt i f f w i l l p r ovi de a c ert i f

i cat e of expertcons ul t at i on w i thin ni nety ( 90 ) days of produc t i on of the records. ( E m phas i s added)
. O n February 15, 2005, B ernadett e’ s couns el s entC om m uni ty a l ett er al ong w i th an author i zat i on t o obt ai n S ar ah’ s m edi cal re cor ds
. A l s o i ncl uded w as a G ener al Pow erof A t t orney, w hi ch s t at ed: I , Sar ah C ather i ne G oodl ett , r es i dentof H i nds C ounty, M i s s i s s i ppi , appoi nt B ernar dett( s i c) G oodl ett , a r es i dentof H i nds Count y, M i s s i s s i ppi , a s m y true and l aw f ul att orney- i n- f

actw i th unl i m i t ed pow erand author i ty t o do and

### 6

per f or m every actthat[ I ] m i ght , underany ci r cumst ance s w hat s oever , do m y se lf a n d to d o th e se th in g s a s fu lly a s I m ig h t d o if I w e re p re se n t. A revi ew o f t his documentr evea l s thatther e i s an “X ” on the s i gnatur e l i ne f orSar ah C ather i ne G oodl ett , and thatthe documentw as execut ed and not ar i zed on J anuary 19, 2005. Sar ah w as unabl e t o s i gn hername due t o hers tr oke. ¶6. O n A pr i l 13, 2 00 5, C om m un i t y fi l ed a mot i on f ora cha nge of

venue i n the C l ay C o u n ty C irc u it C o u rt, re q u e stin g th a t th e c a se b e tra n sfe rre d to th e H in d s C o u n ty C irc u it C our t , w her e venue w as pr oper . O n A ugus t4, 2005, the C l ay C ounty C i r cui tC our tent er ed an agr eed or dertr ans f

err i ng venue t o the C i r cui tC our tof the Fi r s tJ udi ci al D i s tr i ctof H i nds C ounty. ¶7. O n Sept ember22, 2005, Com m uni ty f i l ed a M ot i on t o D i s m i s s , ori n the A l t ernat i ve, to S tay P ro c e e d in g s a n d E n fo rc e A rb itratio n A g re e m e n t in th e H in d s C o u n ty C irc u it C o u rt. O n Sept ember29, 2005, B ernadett e’ s couns el sentC om m uni ty’ s counse l a l ett erst at i ng t hat Sar ah had s i gn e d a HI PA A r e l e a s e tha td a y a tthe n ur s i ng h ome, u s i ng a n “ X ” f orher
s ig n a tu re , an d re q u e stin g S a ra h ’s m e d ica l re c o rd s. O n O c to b e r 1 3 , 2 0 0 5 , B e rn a d e tte
exec ut ed an a f

f i davi tw hi ch s t at ed: 1
. O n F e b ru a ry 9 , 2 0 0 4 , I sig n e d a n A d m iss io n A g re e m e n t a s re q u ire d to admi tm y m other , Sar ah G oodl ett , t o the C om m uni ty N ur s i ng H om e. A tthat tim e , I d id n o t h a v e a p o w e r o f a tto rn e y o r a n y o th e r le g a l au th o riz a tio n to ent eri nt o contr act s orw ai ve my m other ’ s r i ght s . N everthel es s , the nur s i ng ho m e requi red m y si gn ature and I s i gn ed forthe p urpose o f ensur i ng , as best I coul d, thatm y m otherr ece i ved the much needed he al thcar e I coul d not p rov ider (sic) for h er. 2
. In th e a g re e m e n t o n p a g e 5 th e re w a s a se c tio n th a t sa id “A rbi tr at i on–pl eas e r ead c ar ef ul l y. ” B y that sect i on, ther e w as a s potf or

### 7

s o me o n e ’ s i n i t i a l s . I r e v i e we d th e s e c t i o n a n d d i d n o ta g r e e t o a rb i tr a t e . By n o t in iti a lin g th a t se c tio n , I in d ica ted th a t, t o th e ex ten t m y sig n a tu re o r in iti a ls coul d be ar gued to bi nd m y m other , I w oul d notagr ee t o the arbi tr at i on pr ovi s i on. 3. A l s o, I verbal l y i nf or m ed PatC l ack, w ho w as the r epr es ent at i ve of the C o m m u n ity N u rsin g H o m e , th a t, t o th e e x ten t sh e so u g h t m y a g re e m e n t to a rb itrate , I w o u ld n o t ag re e to a rb itratio n . I fu rt h e r to ld M s. C lac k th a t if a n y th i n g h a p p e n e d t o my mo th e r , I wa n t e d t o b e a b l e t o s u e i n a c o u r to f l a w. 4. M s . C l ack pres s ur ed me f ortw o w eeks t o i ni t i al the arbi tr at i on agr eement . I r epea t edl y i nf or m ed hertha tI w oul d notagr ee t o arbi tr at e or purpor tt o wai ve my m othe r ’ s r i gh t s , a nd s he un de r s t oo d tha tw he n I s i gn ed th e a d m is s io n a g re e m e n t I w a s e x p re s s ly n o t a g re e in g to a rb itr a te . ¶8. O n N ovember3, 2005, B ernadett e’ s counse l fi l ed a docum entent i t l ed “Cer t i f i cat e of E x p e rt C o n su ltatio n .” O n A u g u st 3 0 , 2 0 0 6 , th e H in d s C o u n ty C irc u it C o u rt, Ju d g e T o m ie T
. G r een, pr es i di ng, de ni ed C om m uni ty’ s M ot i on t o D i s m i s s , ori n the A l t ernat i ve, t o St ay P ro c e e d in g s a n d E n fo rc e A rb itr a tio n A g re e m e n t. I n h e ro r d e r, t h e tr ia l ju d g e s ta te d , i nt er
a lia : T he cou rtf

i nd s that the P l ai nti ff

has s ubs tant i al l

y com pl i ed w i th the medi cal m a lp ra c tic e s tatu tes a n d fu rth e r fin d s th a t th e a rb itratio n a g re e m e n t is unenf or cea bl e i n thatthe nur s i ng home agr eementt o a rbi tr at e w as nots i gned by Sar ah G oodl ett . T hus , the mot i ons ar e notw el l t aken a nd s houl d be deni ed. ( E m phas i s added)
. C om m un i t y ther eaf t erf i l ed a Pet i t i on f

orI nt er l ocut ory A ppeal and Re q u e s tf

o rS t a y wi th th i s Co u r t , wh i c h th i s Co u r tg r a n t e d o n Oc t o b e r2 4 , 2 0 0 6
. I n th e s a me
o r d e r , c a u s e n u mbe r2 0 0 6
- I A- 0 1 5 9 6
- SCT wa s c o n s o l i d a t e d wi th 2 0 0 6
- CA
- 0 1 6 2 9
- SCT. DI S CU S S I ON ¶ 9
. “ T h is C o u rt re v ie w s d e n o v o a tr ia l c o u rt ' s g ra n t o r d e n ia l o f a m o tio n to d is m is s .” P en n . N a t' l G a m ing, In c. v. R a tl

if f , 954 So. 2d 427, 430 ( M i s s . 2007) ( ci t i ng H arris v. Miss.

### 8

V alley S tate U

ni v. , 8 7 3 S o . 2 d 9 7 0 , 9 8 8 (M iss . 2 0 0 4 )). “ W h e n c o n sid e rin g a m o tio n to di s m i s s , the al l egat i ons i n the compl ai ntm us tbe t aken a s true, and the mot i on s houl d notbe gr ant ed unl es s i tappear s beyond a re as onabl e doubtt hatt he pl ai nt i f f w i l l be unabl e t o pr ove any s etof

f act s i n s uppor tof

hi s cl ai m . ” I

d. at430- 31. “D i s m i s s al i s pr operi f the compl ai nt l acks a n a l l egat i on r egar di ng a r equi r ed el ementne ces s ary t o obt ai n r el i ef
. ” I d. at431 ( ci t i ng B la c k b u rn v. City o

f Ma rs h a ll , 42 F. 3d 925, 931 ( 5 C i r . 1995) )
. “C oncl us ory al l egat i ons th
orl egal c oncl us i ons masque r adi ng a s f actual c oncl us i ons w i l l nots uf f i ce t o def eata mot i on t o di s m i s s . ” I

d. “ W e a p p ly a d e n o v o sta n d a rd w h e n r e v iew in g a d e c isio n o n a m o tio n to compel arbi tr at i on. ” B e d fo rdCa re Ce n ter -Mo n ro e H a ll, L L C v. L e w is , 923 S o. 2d 998, 999 ( M i s s . 2006) ( ci t i ng E as t For d, I nc. v. T aylor , 8 2 6 S o . 2 d 7 0 9 , 7 1 4 (M iss . 2 0 0 2 ); R uss el l v. P er f or m ance Toyota, I

nc. , 8 2 6 S o . 2 d 7 1 9 , 7 2 1 (M iss. 2 0 0 2 )). ¶1 0
. C o m m u n ity p rese n ts tw o issue s to this C o u rt for d ec isi o n : (1) w h ethe r the tr ial co u rt
e rre d in re fu sin g to g ra n t th e D e fe n d a n ts’ M o tio n to D ism iss fo r P lain tiff’s fa ilu re to c o m p ly
w ith the m an d ates o f M iss. C o d e A n n . § 1 1 -1-5 8 (S u p p . 2 0 0 4 ); an d (2) w h ethe r th e tri al co u rt
err ed i n r ef

us i ng t o e nf

or ce the arbi tr at i on a gr eement . H ow ever , beca us e the ca s e s ub j udi ce turns on the f

i r s ti s s ue, w e nee d onl y di s cus s thati s s ue. W e r es t at e thi s i s s ue her e f ort he
s a k e o f c la ri ty in d is c u s s io n . W HE T HE R T HE T R I A L C OU R T E R R E D I N D E N Y I N G T HE DE F E ND AN T S ’ M OT I ON TO DI S M I S S F OR P LAI NTI FF ’ S FAI LU RE TO CO M PLY W I TH TH E S TATUTE. ¶ 1 1
. C o m m u n ity a rg u e s th a t B e rn a d e tte fa ile d s tr ic tly to c o m p ly w ith M is s . C o d e A n n . § 11 -1- 58 (1) (a) , w hich st at es:

### 9

(1 ) In a n y a c tio n a g a in st a lice n se d p h y sic ian , h e a lth c a re p ro v id e r o r h e a lth car e pr act i t i onerf

ori nj ur i es orw r ongf

ul death ar i s i ng outof

the cour s e of m e d ic a l, su rg ica l o r o th e r p ro fe ss io n a l se rv ice s w h e re e x p e rt tes tim o n y is o th e rw ise re q u ire d b y law , the c o m p lain t sh a ll b e a c c o m p a n ied b y a c e rtifica te e x e c u ted b y th e a tto rn e y fo r th e p lain tiff d e c lar in g th a t: ( a) T he att orney has r evi ew ed the f act s of the ca s e and ha s c on s ul t e d w i th a tl e a s to ne ( 1) e xp e r tq ua l i f i e d pu r s ua ntt o t he M i s s i s s i ppi R ul es of

C i vi l Pr ocedur e and the M i s s i s s i ppi R ul es o f E v id e n c e w h o is q u a lified to g iv e e x p e rt te s tim o n y a s to sta n d a rd o f c a re o r n e g lig e n c e an d w h o th e a tto rn e y re a so n a b ly bel i eves i s know l edgea bl e i n the r el evanti s s ues i nvol ved i n the part i cul aract i on, and thatthe att orney has co ncl uded on the b a sis o f su c h re v iew a n d c o n su ltatio n tha t th e re is a re a so n a b le b a s is fo r t h e c o m m e n c e m e n t o f s u c h a c tio n ; . . . M iss. C o d e A n n . § 1 1 -1-5 8 (1)(a) (S u p p . 2 0 0 4 ). C o m m u n ity argu es tha t sinc e B ern ad ett e’s
couns el di d notatt ach thi s cert i f i cat e t o t he com pl ai nt , B ernadett e’ s s ui ts houl d be di s m i s s ed. H o w e v e r, B e rn a d e tte a rg u e s th a t sh e d id stric tly c o m p ly w ith th e s ta tu te , an d d ire c ts th is C ou rtt o M i ss. C od e A nn . § 1 1-1-58(4), w hich st at es: If a re q u e st b

y th e p la in tif

f f ort he r ecor ds of

the p lainti

ff’s m edi cal tr eatm ent by the def

endant s has been made and the r ecor ds have notbeen pr oduced, the p lain tiff sh a ll n o t b e re q u ire d to file th e c e rtifica te r e q u ire d b y th is s e c tio n u n til ni nety ( 90) days af

t erthe r ecor ds have be en pr oduced. M iss . C o d e A n n . § 1 1 -1 -5 8 (4 ) (S u p p . 2 0 0 4 ) (e m p h a sis ad d e d ). T h u s, B e rn a d e tte a rg u e s th a t, thr ough hercouns el , s he r eques t ed Sar ah’ s m edi cal re cor ds bef or e f i l i ng s ui t , and thats i nce C om m uni ty f

ai l ed t o turn overSar ah’ s r ecor ds , Ber nadett e m ay avai l he r s el f of M i s s . C ode A nn. § 11- 1- 58( 4)
. O n t he ot herhand, C om m uni ty ar gues t hatS ar ah i s the tru e p la in tif f , or
rea l party in interest, a n d B e rn ad ett e d id n o t ob tai n p o w er o f att o rne y o v er S ara h ’s affairs
u n til af t erthe l aw s ui ti n the ca s e s ub j udi ce w as f i l ed. C om m uni ty f

ur therar gues thats i nce

### 10

Sar ah w as neverde cl ar ed i ncompet ent , onl y Sar ah coul d author i ze the r el eas e of herm edi cal
r ecor ds ; ther ef

or e, Sar ah, and notB ernadett e, w as r equi r ed t o s i gn the author i zat i on pr i orto filing su it. ¶12. W e agr ee t hat on l y S arah had s t andi ng t o br i ng s ui t ; ther ef or e, onl y Sar ah had the
r i ghtt o obt ai n herm edi cal r ecor ds, as B ernadett e, by herow n s w orn admi s s i on, “di d not h a v e a p o w e r o f a tto rn e y o r a n y o th e r le g a l a u th o riz a tio n ” to a c t o n b e h a lf o f h e r m o th e r “ to
e n te r i n to c o n tr a c ts o r w a iv e m y m o th e r’ s ri g h ts ” to o b ta in re c o rd s . O w en & G al low ay, L . L . C . v. Sm ar t

C orp. , 913 So. 2d 174, 178- 79 ( M i s s . 2005)
. Si nce Ber nadett e obt ai ned S a ra h ’s a u th o riz a tio n o n ly a fte r filin g s u it, B e rn a d e tte sim p ly ju m p e d th e g u n in filing su it
w i thoutm eet i ng the r equi r ement s of s ect i on 11- 1- 58. ¶13. A ddi t i onal l y, thi s C our tannounce d i n W a lk e r v. W

h itfield , 931 So. 2d 583, 588- 90 (M iss
. 2 0 0 6 ), th a t a p lain tiff m u st str ictly com pl y w i th, ra thert han subs t ant i al l y compl y w i th, th e d ir e c tiv e s o f M iss . C o d e A n n . § 1 1 -1 -5 8 . B e c a u se B e rn a d e tte fa iled to stric tly c o m p ly
w ith th e sta tu te, th e tria l co u rt e rre d in d e n y in g th e d e fe n d a n ts’ m o tio n to d ism iss o n th e b a sis thatthe pl ai nt i f

f had “s ubs t ant i al l y compl i ed w i th the medi cal m al pr act i ce s t atut es . ”

CO NC L US I ON ¶ 1 4
. F o r th e rea so n s sta ted , th e tri a l co u rt’s o rd e r d e n y in g th e d e fe n d a n ts ’ m o tio n to di s m i s s due t o the pl ai nt i f f’ s f ai l ur e t o compl y w i th M i s s . C ode A nn. § 11- 1- 58, i s r ever s ed;
a n d , sin c e th e trial c o u rt is in a b e tter p o sitio n to k n o w w h e th e r th e o rd e r o f d ism iss a l sh o u ld be w i th orw i thoutpr ej udi ce, thi s cas e i s r emanded t o the C i r cui tC our tof the Fi r s tJ udi ci al D is tr ic t o f H in d s C o u n ty fo r e n tr y o f a n o rd e r c o n s is te n t w ith th is o p in io n .

### 11

¶ 1 5
. RE VE RS ED AND RE M ANDE D. S M I TH, C. J . , DI CKI NS ON, RANDOL P H AND L AM AR, J J . , CONCUR. EAS LEY, J . , CO NCU RS I N PART AND I N R ES ULT. DI AZ , P. J . , DI S S ENTS W I TH S E P AR AT E W RI T T E N O P I NI ON J OI NE D B Y G RA VE S , J . W AL L E R, P . J . , NO T P AR T I CI P AT I NG . DI AZ , P RE S I DI NG J US T I CE , DI S S E NT I NG : ¶16. I cannot j oi n the m aj or i ty f or a num ber of r eas ons : f i r s t , beca us e the def

endant s have
neverchal l enged Ber nadett e’ s s t andi ng, they have w ai ved the def ens e of noncompl i ance ;
s econd, even i f

di s m i s s al i s w arr ant ed as the maj or i ty concl udes , the pl ai nt i f f s houl d be af f or ded an opportuni ty t o r emedy any al l eged pr ocedur al def ect ; and thi r d, di s m i s s al i s not th e a p p ro p ri a te s a n c tio n fo r n o n c o m p lia n c e . I . T he D ef

endants H ave W ai ved t he D ef ens e of N oncom pl i ance. ¶1 7. B er nadett e G oo dl e t t i s the pl a i nt i f f i n thi s a c t i on a nd he r s t a nd i ng t o s ue has never b ee n ch all en g ed
. A s the p lai n ti ff, sh e h a s stric tl y co m p li ed w ith all o f th e statuto ry p re re q u is ite s to fi lin g su it m a n d a te d b y o u r c a s e la w . W a lk e r v . W

h itfield , 931 So. 2d 583 ( M i s s . 2006)
. B ernadett e s enta l ett erof heri nt entt o f

i l e s ui tas r equi r ed by M i s s i s s i ppi C ode Se c t i on 15
- 1- 36 on Se pt e mber8, 200 4. O n Oct ob e r7, 20 04 , s he s e nta n e xe c ut ed H IP A A fo rm re q u e stin g h e r m o th e r’s m e d ica l rec o rd s. E ig h ty -o n e d a y s la ter , sh e filed su it
w i thouta ce r t i f

i cat e of cons ul t at i on underthe exc ept i on pr ovi ded i n M i ssi s s i ppi C ode Sect i on 11 -1- 58( 4)
. O n O ct ober7, 2005, the def endant s pr ovi ded the pl ai nt i f f w i t h her
m other ’ s m edi cal r ecor ds
. L es s than a mont h l at er , and w el l bef or e the ni nety- day dea dl i ne pr ovi ded i n Sect i on 11- 1- 58( 4) , t he pl ai nt i f f submi t t ed hercer t i f

i cat e of expertcons ul t at i on.

### 12

¶18
. B ecaus e the defend ants hav e nev er chal l eng ed B ernadett e’s st and i ng t o sue, they have
w ai ved thi s i s s ue as i tr el at es t o nonc om pl i ance . I ti s true thats t andi ng may be cha l l enged
a t a n y ti m e , e v e n s u a s p o n te b y th is C o u rt . B en edict v. Cit y of H att iesbu rg , 693 So. 2d 377, 381 ( M i s s . 1997)
. T hi s i s becaus e a l ack of s t andi ng r obs the courtof j ur i s di ct i on, and a l ack
o f s u b je c t m a tte r j u ri s d ic ti o n i s a d e f e n s e th a t c a n n o t b e w a iv e d
. See P r uitt v. H ancock Med. Ctr. , 942 So. 2d 797, 801 ( M i s s . 2006) ( quot i ng McN airv. U nited States P os tal Ser vice , 7 6 8 F .2 d 7 3 0 , 7 3 7 (5 th C ir. 1 9 8 5 )); B ullock v. R oadw ay E xpr es s, I nc. , 548 So. 2d 1306, 1308 ( M i s s . 1989) ; M
. R
. C
. P. 12( h) ( 3)
. H ow ever , nei therthe m aj or i ty northe d efe n d an ts ad d ress the stan d ing issue i n term s o f j u ri sd ict ion , b u t r athe r as a too l f o r st atuto ry in te rp re tatio n . W h ile w e h a v e sta ted th a t n o n c o m p lian c e w ith n o tice p ro v isio n s is juri sd ict ion al, w e h av e a lso h eld th at fail u re to asse rtn o n co m p li an ce ca n co n sti tute a w aive r. Forexampl e, i n G ale v. T hom as , 759 So. 2d 1150, 1159 ( M i s s . 1999), t hi s C our thel d t hat
e v e n th o u g h th e n o tice p ro v is io n s o f th e M iss iss ip p i T o rt C laim s A c t ar e ju risd ictio n a l,
n o n c o m p lian c e w ith th e s e p ro v isio n s m a y n o t b e ra ise d fo r th e first tim e o n a p p e a l. A ccor di ngl y, becaus e t hi s i s an i s s ue of compl i ance w i th the pr ovi s i ons of Sect i on 11- 1- 58, and nota j ur i s di ct i onal ques t i on, I f i nd thatthe def

endant s have w ai ved the def ens e of noncompl i ance by f

ai l i ng t o r ai s e the s t andi ng i s s ue bef or e s t andi ng w as acqui r ed. II. P l ainti ff

s sho u l d be A ff

ord ed t h e O p p ortun i ty t o R em ed y P roced u ral D efect s. ¶19. Forthe s econd t i m e in j usto ver a year t hi s C our ti s changi ng i t s pos i t i on on the appr opr i at e r emedy f

ornoncompl i ance by hol di ng t hat“t he t r i al cour ti s i n a bet t erpos i t i on t o know w hetherthe or derof di s m i s s al s houl d be w i th orw i thoutpre j udi ce. ” I n W

al kerv.

### 13

W h itfield , 9 3 1 S o . 2 d 5 8 3 , 5 9 2 (M iss . 2 0 0 6 ), th is C o u rt h e ld th a t fa ilu re to c o m p ly w ith Sect i on 11- 1- 58 i s equi val entto a fai l ur e t o s t at e a c l ai m , and ther ef or e, the ca s e w as di s m i s s ed w i th pr ej udi ce. L at er , i n A r ceo v. T oli ver , 949 So. 2d 691, 698 ( M i s s . 2006) , the C our tal s o f

ound thatf

ai l ur e t o c om pl y w i th the not i ce pr ovi s i ons f ai l ed t o s t at e a c l ai m , but di s m i s s ed the ac t i on w i thoutpr ej udi ce. T od ay, the C our tt akes yetanotherappr oach a nd deci des t o pas s the buck by r ef us i ng t o a ddr es s the pl ai nt i f f’ s a r gum entthate ven i f di s m i s s al i s w arr ant ed, then i ts houl d be w i thoutpr ej udi ce. ¶20. I n m y opi ni on, even i f di s m i s s al i s the appr opr i at e r emedy, the di sm i ssal shou l d be
w i thoutpr ej udi ce. “[ D ] i s m i s s al w i th pr ej udi ce i s a n e xtr eme and har s h s anct i on thatdepr i ves
a li ti g an t of th e o p p o rtu n ity to p u rsue h is cl aim , an d an y d ism issals w ith p rejud ice a re
r es erved f

orthe mostegr egi ous cas es . ” W al lace v. Jones , 572 So. 2d 371, 376 ( M i s s . 1990) ( ci t i ng R ogers v. K

r ogerCo. , 669 F. 2d 317 ( 5th C i r . 1982))
. I n cas es w her e the pl ai nt i f f has “s i m pl y j um ped the gun i n f i l i ng s ui t , ” w e s houl d a f f or d them t he opportuni ty t o m eetthe
re q u ir e m e n ts o f S e c tio n 1 1 -1 -5 8 , w ith o u t d e p ri v in g th e m o f a c a u s e o f a c tio n . I I I . D i s m i s s al i s N ot t he A ppropri at e Sanct i on f or N oncom pl i ance. ¶21. T her e i s a bs ol ut el y no l anguage i n e i therSec t i on 11- 1- 58 orSec t i on 15- 1- 36 w hi ch pr ovi des thatthe r emedy f ornoncompl i ance i s di s m i s s al
. B y r eadi ng a r emedy i nt o t he
s t atut e thatdoes notexi s t , ourCourti s nota dher i ng t o the t enet s of s tr i ctcons truct i on, and cont i nues t o j ud i ci al l y l egi s l at e a r emedy w hi ch the C our ti t s el f has r ej ect ed as har s h and
e x tr e m e . D in e t v. G a v ag n ie , 948 So. 2 d 12 81 , 1 285 (M i s s . 2007) ( “di s m i s s al s s houl d be

### 14

gr ant ed onl y w hen l es s dr as t i c al t ernat i ves have be en cons i der ed and s uch l es s ers anct i ons
w oul d nots erve the bes ti nt er es tof j us t i ce” ) ( ci t i ng W

al lace , 5 7 2 S o . 2 d at 37 6 -77 ). ¶2 2
. I m u st co n ti n u e to s tr ess m y c o n v ict ion tha t req u ir ing stri ct c o m p li an ce w ith statu tory pr ovi s i ons i nf

r i nges upon t he f

undament al r i ghtof

acc es s t o court s and depr i ves ci t i zens of p ro p e rt y w ith o u t d u e p ro c e s s a s g u a ra n te e d b y o u r fe d e ra l a n d s ta te c o n s titu tio n s . See L ogan
v. Zim m erm an B r ush Co. , 455 U
. S. 422, 42 8, 1 02 S
. C t . 1148, 1154, 71 L
. E d. 2d 265 (19 8 2 ) (“a c au se o f ac ti o n is a sp ec ies o f p rop erty p rotec ted b y the F o u rt ee n th A m en d m en t’ s D ue Pr oces s C l aus e”) ; U
. S. C ons t . amend. X I , § 1 ( “nors hal l any St at e depr i ve any pe r s on of l i fe, l i berty, or property w i tho ut du e process of l aw ”); U
. S
. C on st . am end
. I (“C o n g ress
s hal l m ake no l aw . . . abr i dg i ng . . . t he r i ghtof the peopl e . . . t o pet i t i on the G overnm ent f ora r edres s of gr i evanc es ”) ; M i s s . C ons t . of 1890, art . 3, § 24 ( “A l l court s s hal l be open; and eve ry per s on f

oran i nj ury done t o him , i n hi s good l and, goods , per s on orr eput at i on,
s hal l ha ve a r e medy by du e c ou r s e of the l a w , a nd r i gh ta nd j us t i c e s ha l l be a dmi ni s t e r e d,
w i tho uts a l e , d e ni a l , o rd e l a y” ) ; M i s s Cons t . o f 1 89 0, a r t . 3 , § 2 5 ( “ N o pe r s on s hal l be d eb arred from p rose cu ti n g o r de fen d ing an y civil cau se fo r o r ag ains t him o r he rself, b efo re
a n y tr ib u n a l in th e s ta te , b y h im o r h e rs e lf , o r c o u n s e l, o r b o th ” ). See al s o Ca ldw e ll v. N

o rth Mis s . Med. Center , 9 5 6 S o . 2 d 8 8 8 , 8 9 5 -9 7 (M iss . 2 0 0 7 ) (D iaz , J., d iss e n tin g ); Johnson v. R ao , 95 2 S o . 2 d 1 5 1 , 1 5 9 -65 (M iss. 2 0 0 7 ) (G rav es, J. , d issen ti n g ); A r ceo v. T oli ver , 949 So. 2 d 6 9 1 , 6 9 8 -7 0 4 (M is s . 2 0 0 6 ) ( G ra v e s , J ., d is s e n tin g ). ¶23
. O u r C o u rtrelen tl essly c li n g s to “stri ct” co n stru cti o n o r “pl ai n langua ge” as a ju s tif ic a tio n fo r d is m is s in g c a s e s fo r f a ilu re to c o m p ly w ith th e s ta tu te . Ca ldw e ll , 956 So.

### 15

2d at894- 95 ( ci t i ng W al ker , 9 3 1 S o . 2 d a t 5 8 8 -8 9 ). See a l so A r ceo , 949 So. 2d at696 ( s t at i ng the pl ai n l anguage of Sect i on 15- 1- 36 r equi r es di s m i s s al )
. I f the C our ti s appl yi ng a stri ctcon struct i on i stview t o the st atute, as i tcl ai m s, I do no tun derst an d w h y itis so di f f i cul tt o det erm i ne w hetherdi s m i s s al s houl d be w i th orw i tho ut prej ud i ce. Perhaps t he C ou rt ’s con fusi on , and con st antl y ch ang i ng po si t i on , st em s f rom the st atute’ s c o m

p lete
s ilence a s to a re m e d y . C oncl usi on ¶24
. B y fai l i ng t o t i m el y rai se the st and i ng i ssue, the defend ants hav e w ai ved the d efense of f ai l ur e t o compl y w i th Sect i on 11- 1- 58. A ddi t i onal l y, even i f di s m i s s al i s w arr ant ed, the
m aj or i ty s ho ul d a dd r e s s the pl a i nt i f f’ s a r gu menttha tthe di s mi s s a l s ho ul d b e w i thout p rejud ice. Fin all y , b ec au se o u r co n sti tuti o n al gu ara n tees c an n o t be a b ri d g ed b y this C o u rt ’s in terp re tatio n o f sta tu to ry p ro c e d u ra l ru les , I m u st d iss e n t. GRAVE S , J . , J OI NS THI S OP I NI ON.